Tony,
you suggested prioritising causes based on the availability of countermeasures. Now I think you are introducing a more subtle variation, namely prioritising countermeasures based on (say) previous rates of occurence.
So, for example, you might argue (I think you do):
* the phenomenon (mismatched TL) has happened twice before, leading to accidents
* a potential fix has been identified
your conclusion: prioritise this cause.
But there is no guarantee that this selection criterion leads to a unique selection (which you want: as you said, there can be only one "primary" cause).
In fact, the runway length issue fits the same criteria:
* overruns have happened there before (as recently as a year ago)
* a potential fix has been identified (actually, many:
- Shorten the runway and add an ERSA, maybe EMAS
- Require 2 REV OP as at Santos Dumont
- establish precise SOPs for landing at CGH
- use the Rwy only when dry)
So you haven't yet arrived at criteria which would ensure a unique selection.
Originally Posted by RWA
I think it might be better if [the WBA] started at an earlier point
I think this is indisputable. The WBA is incomplete. Issues of training and establishment of SOPs, basic organisational issues at the airline for example, have not been addressed, because we don't know anything about those yet. Similarly there are issues about the use of the runway at CGH which arose in a legal-regulatory context earlier in the year (as reported by marciovp) whose history is not yet completely clear. I think it inevitable that these organisational and regulatory factors will appear at some point in the WBG. These are the kinds of things that ideally a thorough investigation should identify.
PBL