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
