Kharon - As English is the language of constant refinement, and the language which also observes numerous acceptable variations in form, spelling, and other "rules"; I therefore wish to rest my case, as explained below, M'lud.
Spelled vs. spelt - Grammarist
(P.S. - Thanks for the superb cold front analysis webpage link)
Wally - One can feasibly contend that any aircraft that falls into the RA category, and which is strictly limited to the mass of metal/composites thereby contained in the airframe, is going to be fragile at best, and unable to cope with extreme conditions.
Those aircraft known to be "bulletproof" are never found in RA categories.
Then there's the blokes who just don't understand, via a dutiful study of meteorological conditions, when it's time to push the aircraft back into the hangar. If there's one category where this is particularly applicable, it has to be the RA category of aircraft.
I think these people have an innate belief that once in the air, they're above what the mere mortals on the ground have to put up with, in regard to weather extremes and weather violence.
Anyone with proper understanding of weather factors in aviation understands that's not so - particularly with the vast number of aviation accident records, that outline particularly adverse weather as a major factor in the accident.
I am of the firm opinion, that with the apparent increase in RA serious incidents, that increased easy access to the RA reports on the reasons behind the accidents, would greatly assist in increased education of RA pilots, and a possible reduction in the numbers of RA accidents.
As it stands now, the number of RA accidents that are just shrugged off, or the results of the investigation report, merely buried in some inaccessible section of RA-Aus files, seems to be counter-intuitive.