Mark Newton wrote:
So, by your stance, the investigators, so highly trained that they are, are beyond review or challenge ?Mark Newton wrote:
People like Robert Hart and Peter Stephenson who think that they can draw useful conclusions from a release of raw data from accidents are fooling themselves.
Peter CRESWICK, of course. My mistake.
- 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
You might find this interesting:
<paste> Air Line Pilots Association Petition for Reconsidertition of Aircraft Accident-Eastern &r Lines, Inc., Probable Cause Boeh 7-27-225. N883E. (NTSB-AAR-76-15) Ralegh, North Carol&, Ncvember 12, 1975
RESPONSE TO PETITION FOR RECONSIDERATION
in accordance with the Safety Board3 rules (49 CFR Part 8451, the Nationa
Transportation Safety Board has entertained a Petition for Reconsideration of its findiis
analysis, and probable cause in .the aviation accident involving Eastern Air Lines, .kc.
Boeing 727-225, N883E, Raleigh, North Carolina, on November 12, 1975.
As a result o in substantial part. "he aviation accident report has been extensively revised to reflec
its review of the Petition for Reconsideration, the Safety Board'has granted the Petitio
the relief granted and to revise the probable cause of the accident.
On May 15, 1976, the Safety Board determined that during 'the landing a!
Raleigh-Durham Airport in instrument meteorological conditions the izistrument
system (ILS) approach was uneventful until the airplane was about 100 feet above thi
ground. ?he flightcrew had the approach lights, the runway threshold lights, and t h e
runway lights in sight. At that point, heavy rain moved across the approach pa#,' and t h e
captain, who was flying the airplane, lost all outside visibility. ?he rate of descenl
increased, despite the application of increased thrust, and the airplane struck the grounc
282 feet short of the runway. The airplane bounced onto the runway and slid to a stoz
4,150 feet past the runway threshold. mere were eight pemns injured;'one was injure(
seriously.
When the report was adopted, the Safety Board determined that the probable cam
of the accident was the pilot's failure to execute B missed approach when he iost sight 0:
the runway environment in heavy rain below decision height.
In its petition, the Air Line Pilots Association addressed 10 issues relating to allege
errors and omissions in the Boerd's conclusions and analysis of the evidence. These issue
are addressed as follows:
</paste>
This was a ground breaking case, of "outsiders" finding something "new" from the data, ie, "microbursts".
Find the URL yourself - if you're smart enough.
Good night.
-- Peter Creswick E-mail [EMAIL PROTECTED] Land Line 02 9718 4841 Mobile/SMS 0401 758 025
_______________________________________________ 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
