PittsExtra, I get the feeling you have some issues to debate, but I am unclear quite what they may be. I'll put my cards on the table now now and state that I do not and will not expend too much time and effort on any PPRuNe discussion - my initial post in reply to you was purely to help fill in some gaps in your understanding of what is going on (and it's lunchtime - so just deal with any typos in a rushed reply). I am not going to enter into a protracted discussion with you where you simply keep trying to use me to challenge AAIB and CAA processes to some undeclared end. If you care to tell me your role in either regulatory or display activities (and hence, your great interest in this) I could consider further discussion.
I shall reply to your previous response. This time please read and understand instead of drawing incorrect conclusions and trying to misconstrue my words in public.
Originally Posted by PittsExtra
APG, You said earlier that this is more than
PR and yet the trigger for this review is entirely driven by their feeling that the public need some comfort. It isn't a surprise that there is a feeling of need to do that, but it is a surprise that they seem less confident in their own process.
NO! I said,
That is NOT to say that this is
PR exercise
I did not say it is "more than
PR", I said it was NOT
PR." Furthermore I did not say that "trigger for this review is entirely driven by their feeling that the public need some comfort.
Originally Posted by PittsExtra
it is a surprise that they seem less confident in their own process
How have you reached the conclusion that that is the case?
The term barriers to change was simply a response to your own point
I cited no barriers - in fact I have explained that I see none. I simply stated that the processes are constantly questioned and reviewed.
Please forgive me for addressing your other points directly and in oerder. I intend no disprespect, it is simply expediency:
I'm not able to put words in your mouth [You seem to have no trouble trying] as to what those areas are and because you don't say its another one of those "riddle me this" type responses [No riddle at all if you are involved in display and airshow activities] where people hold a view, could have some constructive input but hold back because they don't want to open themselves up [my constructive input is for those involved in the activities in question, not for idle speculation on the interent - your speculative reaction and misinterpretation of what I have told you thus far is adequate illustration of why] ,have some feeling of loyalty to those affected or whatever else.[not sure what you're implying there]
Finally:
I say this because the AAIB recommendation 2009-57 following the accident to G-HURR seemed to suggest that they were comfortable with the current operating requirements and that the forum for change would be the DAE seminars.
I don't have AAIB reports at hand, but I think you're refering to the Hurricane crash at the same location. I believe there were four or five recomendations from that accident and all have long since been actioned. And, YES, the AAIB were generally comfortable with the "current operating requirement."
If you would domethe decency of declaring your professional interest in all this, I may continue. For now, I have better things to do.