Ah it makes one pine for the days of a Soviet show trial does it not? At least there was the pretense of an investigation and trial before passing the verdict.
As a former safety officer I will never forget a Colonel briefing the entire wing on a recent accident and fatality. He was almost taunting in his description of the events leading to the mishap. I thought his performance was puerile at best for I did not need to think too hard that the mishap crew certainly did not start the flight with the intent of bending metal, and in this case, not coming home from the sortie. Yet it happened and the investigator’s job was to find out why—a very detailed process that needed to plough a significant field of data. How many times have things come out in investigations that no one would have expected? Should we not grant a pretense of fairness?
My point is that every professional aviator realizes the chain (and in some case multiple parallel chains) involved in such an incident and steers his/her thinking to investigating, weighing, and learning. Sure the A380 hit the regional that is clear to see and someone was at the controls of the aforementioned craft so it does not look good. Yet the professional holds his opinion until those pesky little facts have been gathered. For those of you who have not taxied large aircraft around large and busy airports I would ask that you hold your fire. A fellow aviator is in the hot seat at the moment and I owe him what I would expect for myself—a fair hearing.
Indeed there are many who love this forum for no other reason than to broadcast their lack of intellectual curiosity and, even more unfortunately, a disregard for how a mishap should be addressed. For those however, who strive to master this craft of aviation (a never ending process btw whether 20 or 80 years old) I would think that we shiould fix the problem before we fix the blame.
Last edited by Uncle Fred; 13th Apr 2011 at 01:41.