Originally Posted by
Lookleft
I'm no more in favour of dumbing down writing skills than you are but I have noticed a continuing trend for people to attack any report emanating from the ATSB instead of discussing the incident reported on. Are you saying that you are confused about what happened? Do you not understand the significance of being aware of your fuel state at all times? That's the message I took from the report. If you are getting bogged down in where the full stop should be or how many times the word pilot appears then you might as well stop reading any report the ATSB publishes.
There is nothing new under the sun so if you want to learn from other people's misfortune then just re-read the ASD. Running out of fuel is nothing new.
The salient point of these reports might be obvious enough but I do believe that if there are consistent grammatical errors that this indicates a lack of thoroughness in the overall investigation. Just because these safety incidents are often repetitive in nature doesn't mean that a poorly written report is adequate.
If you submitted a report like this to an academic institution it wouldn't cut the mustard. We are expected to believe that scientific investigation has taken place, so why shouldn't there be a factually accurate and grammatically correct report?
The A330 report linked above in the other thread is most interesting as it clearly violates the impartiality standards which the ATSB are supposed to uphold. Irrespective of whether or not you think the flight crew did a good job in the circumstances (which I actually do as well), it is not the ATSB's role to use subjective statements which make it more like a narrative than a report.
Centaurus - if you are reading this, please continue posting safety investigations and reports from decades ago. They are often far more insightful than what we are seeing from the ATSB in 2017!