On Fri, Sep 12, 2003 at 01:11:59AM -0700, Randall Clague wrote: > On Thu, 11 Sep 2003 19:55:00 -0700 (PDT), Iain Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > wrote: > > >It's actually relevant as a cautionary tail > > > > > >------------- Begin Forwarded Message ------------- > > > > > > > >Here's a happy thought: No matter how much you screw up > >today, you probably won't have caused this much damage: > > > >http://www.spaceref.com/news/viewsr.html?pid=10299 > > We were looking at that yesterday, shock and disbelief growing with > each new revelation. My verdict: "It's a shift change problem. We've > known how to change shifts for how many hundreds of years?" > > The minds boggles. They've fallen, and they can't get up.
The report said someone pulled the bolts, but failed to document it, and the procedure for rotation wasn't followed (checking said bolts) Sounds like either a process failure, or a failure to follow the process. -- Jim Richardson http://www.eskimo.com/~warlock Linux, because eventually, you grow up enough to be trusted with a fork() _______________________________________________ ERPS-list mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://lists.erps.org/mailman/listinfo/erps-list
