Tall Sandwich
Did you know that the use of hypothetical scenarios is an established LEARNING technique?
Yes, in fact I design such learning workshops on a regular basis.
However, it is important to recognise these types of workshops are generally used to change the way people think about the world (cognitive learning intervention) and the parameters are sometimes so complex that there is no concrete conclusion at the end of the exercise.
This should not come as a suprise to airline pilots, since thinking about sim sessions will differentiate between training in SOPs, including known/unknown* events, such as engine failure and using the sim for unknown/unknown events**, such as spinning a 747.
(As I am not a line pilot, please forgive me if these examples are not perfect, I am trying to illustrate a key point in learning design, in which I have quite a lot of expertise.)
Are the learning outcomes from the first and second scenarios the same, or of equal utility? Of course not.
The problem with hypothesising about the NEMP event and it's effect on an Airbus, is the lack of hard data about the likely outcome.
In a learning workshop, we would probably recognize the potential probability/severity of the risk and therefore move on to more tangible thinking, such as how could one avoid the risk (e.g. use surface transport in times of tension) or mitigate it (fit bang seats to the A320.) Then we would use tools such as cost benefit analysis to determine how to respond.
It's meta level thinking that generates potential options for investigation.
However, trying to concretely address the original hypothesis behind this thread would be unlikely to produce much other than a list of opinions and, as such, would be relatively unhelpful.
*Known to have happened, unknown order of magnitude or probability, **unknown to have happened, unknown order of magnitude or probability
Edited to amend above definitions.
Last edited by Final 3 Greens; 31st May 2006 at 06:14.