My problem with thePassenger was not that he may have an interest in Air Safety, but that his arguments, statements and responses had a certain irresolvable and circular quality to them. This looked, to me at least, like he had not chosen to do much learning, and was obscuring the fact that he actually has a number of well-formed opinions which he wished to exercise here (for whatever reason). In other words, in addition to his undoubted air safety interest he may have had an additional interest. Whether or not I am right is irrelevant – but I thought it best to start by being honest about my approach to somebody who simply did not seem to learn and who adopted a particular tone here on pprune. I think, in fact, that this has really been a bit of a time-wasting exercise.
However, it is only reasonable to at least try to justify what I have said. Clearly the main clue to how badly “calibrated” his judgments are can be seen from the pejorative characterisation of a number of accidents which he offers, the language he uses and the judgments he expresses. There are several authoritative sources he could use to inform himself about these events, if he wished. In this regard his
opinions were of no substance and that seems to have been forgotten by some who wished to engage with him. The fact that he could dip into an accident report and quote bits does not necessarily make for a persuasive argument. He was fearless in deriding the opinion of experienced B744 pilots, which was at least courageous.
When I asked him about his apparent willingness – even compulsion – to return to this thread, he either misunderstood or dodged my query. He talked in generalities and his arguments were thus difficult to assess. When I tried to tackle him about his generalised arguments, I said:
It [a particular post] might help you understand the difference between unsupported generalised opinion and the significance [of arguments/opinions rooted in an operational context].
When I pointed out that safety is quantifiable, so as to ensure that you are at least trying to measure or compare like with like, he replied:
When you speak of "quantifiable in terms of risk, redundancy" you must draw a line somewhere - what is acceptable (safe) and what is not. I just think that you should move that line a LITTLE BIT more towards the "safe" - side.
Then I pointed out that this – “a LITTLE BIT” – needs some measurable dimension by which one could assess the need for movement and asked how much would be required; I said “On what criterion? Why just a little bit? Why not a lot?”
He replied:
"A lot" would be even better, of course.”
He then provided an ostensible answer to why movement does not occur:
“But the answer to your question is: economical reasons.”
To my mind this exchange is a demonstration of why thePassenger did not merit any more attention. He was simply throwing out generalities (and some unjustified attacks on pilots), but these were presented in such a way that there could never be an end or resolution to any “discussion” with him. He claimed he wanted proof that he was wrong, but never seemed to see or hear the argument.
He is right about the fact that a loss of cool on the part of some here (and personal attacks) are not of much use to anybody, but seems oblivious of his role in creating “contributing factors” to such attacks. It was all too easy, in my opinion, to share the frustration of the poster who invited him “to change your soubriquet … and shut up”.
An excellent example of how to create such frustration is the claim in his final post above:
I repeatedly asked pilots here to prove that I was wrong. Nobody cared to answer those questions in a rational way or nobody could prove that I was wrong.
(Errr… “nobody” ... not a single contributor?). I think all parties will now be happy. He is happy that we failed to “prove” him wrong in a “rational” way. Some of us might just be happy because he is gone.