On Thu, 2005-04-21 at 13:53 +1000, Christopher H Thorpe wrote: > To say the GFA Executive is lax in the investigation of accidents is absurd. > All accidents are investigated promptly, and the coroner is usually involved > where there are fatalities. Reporting has also improved, with the last > summary of accidents reported in the August 2004 edition of Soaring > Australia.
There is certainly a summary - but that is *not* the same as an investigation report. Similarly, the involvement of a coroner does not mean that the lessons the wider gliding community should learn from an accident are actually teased out. If you care to check out the GFA business plan, you will find the investigation of accidents listed as 'on going' as, I understand, has been the case for a couple of years. > It is worth remembering that there are no "new" types of accidents and > lessons previously learned remain relevant today. We just need to keep > reinforcing those vital aspects that can reduce the risk of accidents. That may be true in terms of the accidents themselves (spinning in is spinning in...), but that is not true in terms of the ways we humans come up with of actually achieving that result. Furthermore, as all accidents are examples of 'system failure', it is very important that we work out where the system failed. Then we can correct a system that has gone off the rails and/or redesign the system to avoid that failure mode recurring. Could you please explain to me how the above-mentioned summary of accidents achieves these important safety outcomes? -- Robert Hart [EMAIL PROTECTED] +61 (0)438 385 533 Brisbane, Australia http://www.hart.wattle.id.au _______________________________________________ Aus-soaring mailing list [email protected] To check or change subscription details, visit: http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
