better to post confirmed info than the (often) "amateur specialist" opinions
Feel free to discriminate and filter as you wish. Safety investigators have at times looked into what has been said by "amateur specialists"... Sometimes they need to see what they've missed, what info has been leaked to them but not to the investigators etc.
However, investigators do not take them into account without investigating the alternatives either. COnclusions made here are not professional conclusion, but can be useful.
I agree with PBL on the following:
People "trained and appointed" have political constraints and opinions just like anyone else. Most of them do a first rate, sometimes outstanding, job *within those constraints*. But satisfying those constraints often distorts what is proposed in their published report.
I extend such agreement throughout that post #292.
But trying to force down people's throats that the conclusions of "amateur specialists" are the right ones is a different matter altogether... and I don't agree to such intentions.
This is very strange for a pilot... in the cockpit we work with constarints aswell.... SOP's, OM's and QRH's... we operate the aircraft within these "constraints" because it is proven to be the safest way.
Yes, but they do need to improve those manuals and procedures as time goes by. Any improvements that is undertaken in a systematic manner should be welcomed, whether it would be adopted is subject to professional analysis.
An alternative (amateur) analysis is valuable when conducted by operators and individuals who ask ‘could this happen to me’.
Bingo! Couldn't have said it better myself...
The common interest here is safety improvement, and not to find the black sheep... and it does provide a measure to incite public interest into understanding what aviation is all about.
Sure, amateur specialists can be very wrong, but they can also come up with the right facts very quickly and accurately. On the accident analysis, the same thing can and has happened. But as I said above, even if it's correct, the official version does not necessarily mean the same... The nudniks aren't always dumb nudniks... some go about it very logically and systematically.
There have been cases where accident investigators have admitted "we know that's what happened, but we can't publish is... <insert reason here>"
I'd love to have the data they have, but I don't envy the official responsibility and the political pressures.
PK-KAR