O2 and Cypriot airliner crash

Derrick Steed wrote:

one thing is VERY apparent to from
the current thread about the Cypriot airliner, that relating to the
HusBos fatality, and the Nimbus 4 and big wings discussion, and that is
that most subscribers to this group suffer from a morbid fascination
with speculation about tragic accidents with scant regard for the
feelings of those who may have been directly affected by them.

Todd Pattist Wrote:
I've posted in all three of those threads, and feel neither
a morbid fascination, nor any desire to speculate about the
actual causes. Nor do I see those characteristics in other
posters. I do see a desire to understand and prevent
accidents and I wonder how far you would go to prevent
safety discussions.=20

AFAIK, no one here is directly connected to the Cypriot
airliner accident, but many of us do face the dangers of
high altitude oxygen flight. The report on the Nimbus 4
accident was issued long ago, and the discussion seemed to
be about whether using airbrakes is advisable during
recovery. Don't you think that discussion is helpful? When
would you allow it here?

As to the HusBos accident, I understand your feelings, but
ultimately believe that trying to understand an accident is
the only way to prevent it from happening again. I think we
owe that to both those who died and those who might yet
live.=20

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~

Todd, I'm not complaining about the discussion of safety issues. I
welcome that and other discussions of a technical nature which foster a
greater understanding of our sport and how to be good at it while
maintaining safety. I find such discussions to be interesting and
sometimes educational and if I were to see these discussions continuing
as a reasonable level great, However, a trawl through the posts on this
group over the past year or so reveals the following: a) long periods
with nothing much about (for instance) safety being said, b) following
the occurrence of some notable event (especially those relating to some
accident) there is a burst of discussion relating to the factors which
may or may not have contributed that accident. It's like looking at an
attack and decay curve: incident happens, rapid escalation of discussion
on that topic, discussion dies down, another incident occurs, rapid
escalation of discussion, etc...

What I find objectionable is that in case (b) one is then subjected to
the spectacle of various personal agendas being vented on a soapbox
(supposedly) justified by the occurrence of the event being discussed.
There was the HusBos spinning accident - a long burst of discussion
ensued as a result with various theories and personal analyses of the
incident being put forward prior to any factual report of what actually
occurred (I had personally known for some years and had flown with the
instructor concerned some months previous to that tragic event), then
there were the Nimbus 4 discussions, then the latest HusBos incident,
lastly the airline crash (this is not a complete list I'm sure). In each
case there was an absence of any previous discussion relating to the
topic for some considerable time preceding the event - then, the event
occurs and, all of a sudden, soapboxes are rolled out, the analysis
begins, and the various correspondents put forward their version of
events (amazing considering most of them were not even there!).

In all of the discussions referred to, various opinions were shared with
the group, some valid, many inappropriate given the proximity of the
event and the need for an objective investigation to be carried out, not
to mention the involvement of the authorities and the due process of
law.

I just wish sometimes that we could collectively display a little
sensitivity and hold off on these discussions until the facts are known,
then discuss the pros and cons. I don't see that it is that urgent that
the discussions take place immediately, especially considering that the
same topics have come up again and again with little prospect of
agreement (and note that each time they come up, it is in response to
the occurrence of some incident).
=20
Rgds,

Derrick Steed

Derrick,
We (people) have a very short memory when it comes to many safety
issues. Wouldn't it be nice if the highway authorities left auto
wrecks on the side of the road for a few days or weeks to remind us of
how dangerous driving is?

When an unfortunate event occurs, it reminds some of us of our
mortality. Confronted with that, a portion want to talk about their
fears and concerns.

Consider a ground level railroad crossing. Pretty dangerous if you
ignore the signals, but after a while people get complacent and
actually even stop on the tracks due to traffic congestion. Then
someone gets hurt or killed and an uproar wells up to have a bridge
built. After a few weeks it dies down and life goes on. A few weeks
later, we again see people stopped on the tracks...

Fortunately, in aviation we don't have too many of these folks who stop
on the tracks. We generally have experienced pilots doing something
that confounds (some of) us. So we talk it out and try to explore all
the ways WE might get into and out of the same situation. We're not
always analyzing the specific accident, rather we examine the
circumstances that have been brough before us and how we might deal
with a similar situation.

-Tom