As the list of unanswered questions continues to grow.
Holmes" - “I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. But the note itself. What do you deduce from it?...........
One thing has always troubled my ruminations. Hood invoked ‘jail terms’ for people who understand, very well indeed, the need for ‘silence’ until all investigation is ‘done, dusted and presented’. IMO there was ‘dissention’ in the camp.
Vance is a qualified investigator; right or wrong his conclusions have the benefit of training, long experience and insight. They must be considered and ‘discussed’ by his peers and equals. It is what sensible folk do – P2 how many ‘sensible’, supported ‘discussions have we heard now on any manner of accident or incident? Lots is the answer. Dissention – absolutely. Argument – most definitely. Resolution and consensus – eventually. In the end, it all come down to an agreement of some form; on the balance of probability, that XYZ was the root cause – ABC the consequences.
But - that Hood shut down his own teams open discussion down, under publicly stated threat of a gaol term, has always been a mystery to me.
MTF – but the Vance argument – related to ‘Span wise crushing’ is worthy of ‘proper’ consideration and further detailed examination of the physical evidence. The part referring to the ‘witness marks’, stand alone, is compelling.
This where industry lack of faith in the integrity of ATSB raises it’s ugly head, with due cause, I may add. Why can’t there be open discussion? Seems to that “conduct adversely” etc. is a valid point of order M’Lud. There is a list of where this has seemingly (not publicly discussed) occurred for many accidents; you know that list as a well as I do.
That’s it – ET rules OK. (When it comes to a choice between an Ale and 370; all bets are off).
Holmes" - “I have no data yet. It is a capital mistake to theorise before one has data. Insensibly one begins to twist facts to suit theories, instead of theories to suit facts. But the note itself. What do you deduce from it?...........
One thing has always troubled my ruminations. Hood invoked ‘jail terms’ for people who understand, very well indeed, the need for ‘silence’ until all investigation is ‘done, dusted and presented’. IMO there was ‘dissention’ in the camp.
Vance is a qualified investigator; right or wrong his conclusions have the benefit of training, long experience and insight. They must be considered and ‘discussed’ by his peers and equals. It is what sensible folk do – P2 how many ‘sensible’, supported ‘discussions have we heard now on any manner of accident or incident? Lots is the answer. Dissention – absolutely. Argument – most definitely. Resolution and consensus – eventually. In the end, it all come down to an agreement of some form; on the balance of probability, that XYZ was the root cause – ABC the consequences.
But - that Hood shut down his own teams open discussion down, under publicly stated threat of a gaol term, has always been a mystery to me.
MTF – but the Vance argument – related to ‘Span wise crushing’ is worthy of ‘proper’ consideration and further detailed examination of the physical evidence. The part referring to the ‘witness marks’, stand alone, is compelling.
This where industry lack of faith in the integrity of ATSB raises it’s ugly head, with due cause, I may add. Why can’t there be open discussion? Seems to that “conduct adversely” etc. is a valid point of order M’Lud. There is a list of where this has seemingly (not publicly discussed) occurred for many accidents; you know that list as a well as I do.
That’s it – ET rules OK. (When it comes to a choice between an Ale and 370; all bets are off).