John,
Thanks for replying, and I can understand your point about the fatals, and
while I don't agree, let's leave those for a minute ..... although surely they
are almost automatically the most important from which to learn. However having
said that.
Please consider, as examples only, the 3 accidents reported on page 22 for the
dates of 17 Sept 2006, 22 Dec 2006 & 27 Dec 2006.
Each of those get approx 2.5 column cms and an average of about 11 words under
the heading "Description:".
Each of those describe what was the end result, but nowhere do they touch on
the cause or lead-up which is where the real problem most likely resides.
Contrast that with the approx 40 column cms that the HGFA give to the
examination of an accident "Number 1" starting on page 38 of the same magazine.
With the greatest respect, John, I say that the HGFA's examination is of untold
greater benefit to its members.
I would also contrast our approach taken on page 22 with the way in which the
RAA report their Incidents and accidents, which are reported to their members
in greater detail and on a monthly basis.
Do you know what is the logic to the GFA having a 16 month reporting period?
Regards Geoff
I thought the format chosen by Kevin was very similar to that used by
the BGA in their magazine. I think there is a fine line between
reporting the bare facts, as Kevin has done, and being drawn into
speculation about causes, which could open the GFA to legal challenge by
the families of the pilots.
Most pilots would be able to draw some pointers from the brief
statements in Kevin's article.
John G.
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
_______________________________________________
Aus-soaring mailing list
[email protected]
To check or change subscription details, visit:
http://lists.internode.on.net/mailman/listinfo/aus-soaring
