Peter Creswick wrote:
I totally agree with Robert Hart's position on this.
We need access to the raw data / reports, no iff's, no but's, no maybe's.
Interesting. Do you get the raw data from the ATSB for the investigations
they carry out?
How about the NTSB in the US. Do they publish raw data?
Perhaps the LBA does. No?
Hmm... does *any* aviation safety investigation, anywhere in the
world, ever publish the raw data?
No, they don't. The reason they don't is that a century of experience
has shown them that many pilots, when confronted with a facefull of
raw data, draw precisely the WRONG conclusions, make incorrect safety
determinations, and deliver a less-safe outcome.
Even witnesses who see stuff happening draw wildly divergent conclusions
about accidents. Can you imagine how many conclusions people would draw
if less-than-perfect data was distributed to thousands of opinionated
glider pilots who -hadn't- witnessed it?
Here's the take-home message: Robert is UNQUALIFIED to interpret raw
accident data. So are you. So am I. So is almost everyone else reading
this list.
That's why aviation safety bodies never publish it.
- mark
--------------------------------------------------------------------
I tried an internal modem, [EMAIL PROTECTED]
but it hurt when I walked. Mark Newton
----- Voice: +61-4-1620-2223 ------------- Fax: +61-8-82231777 -----
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
Aus-soaring@lists.internode.on.net
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
