Mike Borgelt wrote:
You are the one who is so keen on appropriate expert training. Are you sure you got it to be a flight instructor? If so, it ought to be possible for the same system to produce trained accident investigators, shouldn't it? If not, then it can't produce properly trained flight instructors either, can it?
"Non-sequiturs make me eat lampshades."
Why do you think a system designed to produce flight instructors should also be competent at producing accident investigators?
Surely if we wanted to produce accident investigators we'd have an accident investigation training programme, yes? Or are you advocating compromising the quality of the training programme so that it loses out on the specifics in order to be more general-purpose?
(and, if so, why not have a single all-encompassing "life skills" training programme which makes everybody experts at nothing but qualified to do anything?)
I've had a long conversation with someone I consider a credible eyewitness.
There' no such thing, is there? Even people with expert training make wildly diverging eyewitness reports. That's why courts never rely exclusively on eyewitness testimony regardless of the qualifications of the eyewitness.
- 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