Aren't the statements
He said that some of the airline pilots where very persuasive but they never persuaded him to change any of the numbers on the paper, however, he understands some other participants were persuaded to change their figures.
and
Most importantly, David tells me that some of the answers from the airline people in relation to the inability of private pilots to undertake certain tasks like selecting a transponder where so preposterous that he then adjusted his figures to “mitigate the problem” (David’s actual words).
mutually exclusive.
You make a very serious allegation in regards to "mitigation".
Is the roll back flawed because of that personal intervention, or because of the process.
We need some more information on the Shang (modified "Delphi") process.
Isn't the asserted "fact" that he "adjusted his figures to 'mitigate the problem' evidence of serious corruption of the process in itself.
Airservices and all of us should be seriously p!ssed off, having spent all that time and money to have an important process "corrupted" by any individual. But that seems to have been endemic to the whole process from day 1.
Royal Commission material here.
I do not know Mr Eyre and neither do I doubt that he is a very capable CFI, but if he has done as you have alleged, I am equally sure that he does not have the suite of qualifications necessary to "second guess" the results of a process by unilaterally "adjusting his figures" to produce his idea of a "reasonable" (there is that concept again) result.
You refer to the Shang method as a modification of the Delphi process and quote from the Delphi process without revealing the modifications of the Shang method.
Be that as it may, it may be no more or less flawed than the "consultative" process NASIG accompanied by all of the shenanigans surrounding, but at least it is now where it belongs and where, should they not follow proper and accountable methods and process, they can
actually be brought to account and will not be able to avoid responsibility. Throw away lines reffering to "executive swine" and union thugs" just don't cut it.
So there you have it PPRuNe readers, the safety case for the roll back is most likely flawed.
Oh really, is this the same sort of research and process involved in making the decision that NAS was not flawed.
Cuppla phone calls and around 900 words did it here.
We are also asked to assume that Mr Eyre is the
same person to whom
libelle refers. You got Mr
4711 wrong.
Either he is, in which case Mr
libelle owes us at the least an explanation and/or an apology .
If he isn't then it's over to you.
Mr Eyre, BTW, is entitled to his privacy, can we assume that he has agreed to be identified on this site and for his telephone numbers to be provided. I would suggest that you get him to email
Woomera with some confirmation of same as it is a banning offence otherwise.