![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi, Ramy (and others),
I don't want to hijack the "Wide-Ranging Safety Discussion" thread, so I'm starting a new one. In the other thread, Ramy mentioned "rather than the all so lame reaction of 'waiting for the NTSB report'". I'm going to ask if you've ever been party to an NTSB investigation before? In case you're not familiar with this term "party to" in this context has a specific meaning whereby the NTSB invites various technical experts to be involved with an investigation. These people are not NTSB employees and must consent to keep confidential the information that they learn until the NTSB completes its investigation. Thanks to the "Texas tragedy" I and a few others in our club are parties to this investigation. I take strong issue with the assertion that abiding by our agreement with the NTSB is "lame." It is in fact a pre-condition for being allowed to lend our insight to the investigation, and I think and hope that this insight will produce a more informed conclusion than might be the case with an investigation conducted without the benefit of people who actually know about soaring. For this reason I think it is in the best interests of all of us to allow some of our fellow pilots to be parties to these investigations, but in order to do this we have to agree to confidentiality. I assume that you're not familiar with this process (I wasn't either, until Sunday, June 17), so that's why I bring it up. You can gripe all you want about whether this process is to your liking, but once we agreed to abide by the NTSB's terms, it is not "lame" to honor this agreement. On another level, however, I must say that before this investigation I tended to agree with what I believe to be the opinion of many in this forum. I used to think that if only I knew all the information that the investigators know, with my stunningly deep knowledge of all things aviation, I surely could accurately determine the true cause of an accident in minutes, much faster than these government bureaucrats who haven't flown anything besides a desk in decades. Being involved with this investigation has changed my opinion. I will grant you that some accidents are probably more "cut and dried" than others, and some causes probably can be determined rather quickly. However, not all can. With the confusion and raw emotion that was present in the immediate aftermath of the accident, I heard a number of conflicting eyewitness reports, saw seemingly inconsistent physical evidence from the crash scene, and experienced other factors that made drawing any concrete conclusions very unlikely to be correct. And it's precisely the accidents that don't have an obvious cause that hold the most potential for learning. After all, how much more will we learn from a "low energy, attempting to stretch the glide, stall-spin accident" or a "hit a fence during off-field landing" type accident. We've all heard of these before, and I think we've already learned these lessons (at least to the extent that you can learn from other's misfortunes). But accidents that have unique aspects hold more potential for learning, but also have more potential for mis-interpretation, and therefore require even more reticence in our speculation. I have strong respect for the NTSB investigator in charge. Although I've only met him on June 17, he strikes me as a sharp guy, and a professional. Maybe not an expert in soaring, but he immediately asked for help from some of us in order to improve his ability to analyze the facts. I sure hope nobody on this forum has to meet one of these guys "in action" (since this would mean someone close to you has probably died), but if you ever do have to get to know them, I suspect you will have a better opinion of them than you might just reading the year-old (or more) accident reports. Until ALL the evidence has been collected, analyzed, and double-checked it is not possible to determine a true cause for an accident. It is not "lame" to allow this process to run its course. I have no problem with members of the forum speculating about the possible accident causes. Dreaming up possible scenarios and running through how we might deal with them is a good training exercise. So, by all means, continue the discussion, but please avoid characterizing waiting for all the facts to be in before drawing a conclusion about any particular accident as "lame." -- Stefan Murry |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Thread hijack | Andy[_1_] | Soaring | 10 | October 27th 11 03:34 PM |
Accident investigations | Dave Kearton | Aviation Photos | 0 | April 28th 07 03:23 AM |
Idea to prevent plane hijack | neo | Piloting | 69 | May 29th 06 10:54 PM |
Pilot accidentally sparks hijack alert | Bucky | Piloting | 9 | September 1st 05 01:35 AM |
Puchaz Spinning thread that might be of interest in light of the recent accident. | Al | Soaring | 134 | February 9th 04 03:44 PM |