JimField;
Thank you for your response.
I believe in civil exchanges above all, but courtesy does not excuse; - however the exchange may take place, the question must still be addressed regarding Flight aware data, please.
On your other points regarding training, automation etc, these have been under intense discussion for many years here in particular on the ten or eleven AF447 threads. The points made are thoroughly understood and frankly something new to add to the dialogue would likely be welcome.
Regarding "treatment of a newbie", well, no one's special when the conversation is about flight safety - if an idea or a view isn't cutting it, like CRM, there should be no beating about the bush - for me it's about "what, not who", and if you have something to add which respects fellow aviators' experience while advancing an interesting notion you're likely to get a hearing.
My own view regarding Flightaware "data" is abundantly clear because I do flight data and nothing on the web cuts it. To use such sources for detailed analyses in advance of anything substantive from the usual sources indicates a particular naivete regarding flight data work and the notions it can accidently impose on those who may have deep interests in what happened but who cannot distinguish investigative techniques when not done well.
Nothing personal of course - but this is about safety work and about finding out things in ways that have worked successfully. It is not about being first off the blocks with notions of what happened and possibly embarrassing oneself with clearly indefensible statements about speeds for example, with sample rates and resolutions like Flightaware's. Nor is it about making allies for one's point of view. As you've noticed, it is not always a friendly place, but neither is aviation, particularly at times like these. Thick skin and restraint kinda works.
Respectfully,
PJ2
Last edited by PJ2; 17th Aug 2013 at 06:41.