A rather well know author of aerodynamics books prefaces at least one
of his books with something simlar to the following statement.

"I know at least a dozen people that are more qualified to write books
on aerodyamics than I am. They didn't so I did."

George may not be the best person to write these columns, I would guess
that he would probably agree. But so far no one else has stepped up to
the plate to take his place. While it takes only a few minutes to
critisize his work, I am sure he spends a great deal of time and effort
writing these columns. Time and effort that no one else seem willing to
put into it.

Critisizim is good I am sure done properly he appreciates it and his
columns will improve because of it. Critisizim done poorly may only
cause him to bag it and let someone more or less qualified write it.

After all the only pay he is getting is the feed back he gets from the
readers and hopefully satisifaction from knowing that at the very least
he is getting us to think and talk about safty.

Brian



KM wrote:
As for volunteering to do it myself, I dont know what to say here.It
kinda reminds me of the recent uproar on RAS about the SSA's management
folies.Some people were of the opinion that if a RAS poster wasnt
willing to do the job himself, he should have no say in the mater.I
would counter your question about volunteering whith the question
should we not expect a more accurate safety column?(Icould go on about
what I expect from my dues money, but lets leave it at that).I agree
with you that this is one of the most important features of the
magazine.Thats why I feel it needs to be accurate not only with the
facts surrounding an accident, but also, the conclusions drawn from
these facts.In both of these areas, I think we could use an
improvement.
Fly Safe,
K Urban