alf5071h
Differences between previous events and AF447 might indicate a reason for the severe outcome (what), but this only represents the additional risk in that one event. It’s the difference amongst the events before AF447 which might identify the relevant contributor to the risk (why).
Are you certain you are not Santa Claus in test pilot rig? Assigning 447 an equitable position on the evidence table is kind, to be......kind.
There not only existed no foresight, there was foreblind.... Actively avoiding a field of 'best practice', the players and the odds were not in the group usually assessed as a standard statistical population.
Hindsight bias is merely a point of view, as you say, one may choose it. It has no place in a strict investigatorial venture, but this ain't that.
It is, or should be, obvious, that foresight is not quantifiable, hence subject to human failings in its application. Interdisciplinary overlay is no excuse to reduce the rigor of a culture of impeccable safety. And it is not expensive... That is the annoying irony. Most of what is lacking is merely what needs be done as part of the job description, hence, it is prepaid....
There is criminal negligence here, in spades, IMHO. Bets are off; risk management, as odious a term as it is, was nonexistent, though it was no obstacle to the mission!
I can appreciate your point of view, but analyzing 447 as a 'case study' is wildly impractical, there was no structure on which to hang the minimum.
Last edited by Lyman; 7th Jun 2012 at 02:09.