Well SASless, thank you for your suggestions. I will try to keep that in mind. As you all have realised, English is not my first language (please add a horrible and embarrassing German accent at your leisure while you read any of my posts), but I try my best.
To clarify a few things:
So who was wrong there? Those who used SWP to differentiate from VRS or those who were not describing two different situations?
Very good question. Since the Europeans did not use SWP correctly, they also thought it describes VRS after all, but thought it was the wrong term, and me being young and stubborn. How about everybody?
... and that is the reason, why we should get rid of the term SWP. I think.
Just because it is in the newspaper does not make it true.
It was an interview. In a paper from a kind of non profit organisation. Very big. Hundreds of thousands of readers. I stop here, because it would be very easy to figure out, who it was, if I say more. It wasn't some random pilot. I just think, that when you are in the position that person is, one should have a certain courtesy.
Crab, the weather argument always comes up. Personally, I don't think it makes much of a difference. From my own experience, I haven't seen (with my own eyes, completely biased here) a microburst in Europe, but I have seen a few in Alaska. And weather changes in the US as fast as in Europe. But I rather quote what Ky said:
Very few accidents would occur for technical reasons, most due to the individual operation, the weather, the pilot, the environment.
And
The fact that 15 percent of all helicopter accidents occur during pilot training in Europe is not normal, something has to be done about it.
(Again, blame Google)
If the weather was to blame for the difference, I think he would have said so. And he singled out the training environment.
Hughes500
the problem with facts and figures is the interpretation, just ask an accountant. When looking across at other countries lets make sure we are comparing apples to apples !
Since I know a few things about accounting, the numbers they present are very clear. The interpretation is more often than not done by the ones who try to find something that isn't there. Having said that, no offence, but let's give the director of the EASA some credit, that he and EASA did their homework and took everything in account that was possible. You can argue about 10%, but 50%?
I think we should take that very seriously.