Originally Posted by RWA
But in your case I find it impossible to find anything to say, because nothing you say in reply to me seems to have any relevance to what I have posted.
It seems there is a comprehension problem.
This is really pretty simple. You are selecting a cause from amongst the many causal factors of this accident, and you are calling it "primary". I am trying to get you to give me the criterion under which you select that one cause, in such a way that I can reasonably apply that criterion to other accidents also.
So far, you haven't given me one that
* identifies a single factor (rather than, equally, two or three) from amongst the many in this accident
* is somehow justified by causality alone, rather than by (say) social considerations, or political considerations or some such.
So you propose, I reply. And it seems you are getting frustrated. I am not surprised. I have been working on this issue professionally for quite a while and know my way around it; if you haven't similarly, then you are on a learning curve. We may meet on it after a while. Or you may hit the jackpot and come up with a criterion which seems to work for all relevant cases, and which we can then distribute to ICAO, and Transport Canada, the ATSB, the AAIB, and all those other institutions who have given up on identifying one "primary cause" as being largely misleading, and almost certainly unhelpful for prophylaxis.
Originally Posted by RWA
Trying once more - I am of the opinion that one TL being left out of the 'Idle' position caused the accident, because ................
Just to get it straight - what IS your opinion?
My opinion is that all the leaf nodes identified in the WB-graph of bseiker are the currently identified causes, and there are going to be more of them once we know more about training and regulatory issues.
PBL