Well, in this case it was undeniably human behavior that crashed the plane: if the pilots would have, at any point during the flight except at the very end, realized that they were trying to fly using the damaged engine, and switched to the other engine instead, they probably could have salvaged the situation. So I think a psychological analysis of why this didn't happen is warranted, and the story about another copilot refusing to fly with the pilot because of his disregard for procedures is relevant context, even if the NTSB didn't mention it.
No, you don't know that. I'm just not sure why people are trying to read things into the narrative that simply no known.
The captain rather demonstrated proper CRM by delegating aviating to the co-pilot while he communicated with tower control. He also trusted the judgment of the fist officer as to which engine was out, although the information he was given was wrong.
The other pilot was told by the chief pilot to not fly with the captain.
Also, see this quote:
> “This is the way we work when I am with her, you know, you have to yell at her to force her to do things.”
This is ignoring the paid-in-blood lessons of the worst aviation accident in history (Tenerife) that could have been avoided if the captain listened to his crew. Crewmembers should always feel free to speak up in safetry critical situations. You don't "force them to do things".
I don't think this contributed to this particular incident because both pilots agreed on the wrong engine but it is very valid criticism IMO.
