Genghis the Engineer
24th Nov 2019, 17:12
I'm not specifically singling any body out here, but professionally or for my own education I read a great many accident reports - from AAIB, NTSB, MAAIB, ATSB, AAUI and so-on. Whilst some aspects may be unsatisfactory, generally they are all professional work that lead, as they should, to a set of recommendations aimed at preventing future accidents.
It must be well understood by the reports authors that many other people will read and analyse their work. Expert witnesses, academics, people in the authorities, insurers, and so-on. It isn't of-course the full time investigators jobs to facilitate that, but at the same time they have no reason in most cases to be obstructive.
Which brings me to my gripe. When I read a research paper, or an engineering report nowadays, it is normal - indeed usually considered essential, that it includes citations to the key documents used in the course of that work. My most recent academic journal paper, for example, is 4,400 words with 26 references (on aviation, nothing to do with accidents), whilst my most recent consultancy report (a re-analysis of an accident) contains 10,000 words and change, and 51 references - neither of these are faintly exceptional, it's just how I'm expected to work. Yet virtually no air accident reports, from anywhere in the world, contain a detailed and cited reference list. They may quote from some aircraft manuals or authority advice on something - but even then almost always you don't get the specific reference, issue state and date. This makes any kind of re-analysis, for any reason whatsoever, of official accident investigation reports, far more difficult than - in my opinion - they really should be.
I don't know of any university who is teaching (now) aeronautical engineers anything other than to accurately cite every document they used in their technical work. So are accident investigators living in the dark ages?, or do they do this deliberately because they think that there is some sound reason to conceal this information?
G
It must be well understood by the reports authors that many other people will read and analyse their work. Expert witnesses, academics, people in the authorities, insurers, and so-on. It isn't of-course the full time investigators jobs to facilitate that, but at the same time they have no reason in most cases to be obstructive.
Which brings me to my gripe. When I read a research paper, or an engineering report nowadays, it is normal - indeed usually considered essential, that it includes citations to the key documents used in the course of that work. My most recent academic journal paper, for example, is 4,400 words with 26 references (on aviation, nothing to do with accidents), whilst my most recent consultancy report (a re-analysis of an accident) contains 10,000 words and change, and 51 references - neither of these are faintly exceptional, it's just how I'm expected to work. Yet virtually no air accident reports, from anywhere in the world, contain a detailed and cited reference list. They may quote from some aircraft manuals or authority advice on something - but even then almost always you don't get the specific reference, issue state and date. This makes any kind of re-analysis, for any reason whatsoever, of official accident investigation reports, far more difficult than - in my opinion - they really should be.
I don't know of any university who is teaching (now) aeronautical engineers anything other than to accurately cite every document they used in their technical work. So are accident investigators living in the dark ages?, or do they do this deliberately because they think that there is some sound reason to conceal this information?
G