Shall I compare thee to a summer’s day?
P2 comment - "I'll let those interested make the comparisons but in my honest opinion the two reports are like chalk and cheese."
Correct; bang on in so many ways. The first noted difference is in the time scale between event and report. Eleven months - granted, it was a fairly straight forward event to investigate and, according to legend, the real delay was in waiting for the surviving passenger to make a definitive statement, to wit: there was an unattended truck parked on the runway. Without fluff or fuss, the report covers all the bases needed, offers some alternative course of action for those facing a similar situation (stock for example) and a short sentence on the possible 'influences' on decision making. Succinct, to the point and; importantly of value to the reader.
One of the stark differences is in the complete lack of 'background data, related to the operator and the 'safety' system in place. Read the Ross Air report or the latest CFIT report - the sheer verbosity and 'fluff'' ploughed into the 'meat and spuds' of the events is mind numbing. The lack of useful 'I learned from that' stuff is remarkable.
In the short report from BASI there is a few clear messages; no fluff and 'data' to plod through - just the facts, an analysis and something to think about should the reader end up in a similar situation. Things appearing on the runway is not a once in a lifetime event; neither are go-arounds, routine stuff for lots of operations and, believe it or not - things can go wrong. This BASI report IMO achieves the desired outcome, it makes aircrew aware that until you are signed off and in the pub; it can all turn to worms, in a heartbeat.
The latest epic from ATSB into the CFIT in Tasmania takes a long while to make a simple point - VFR into IMC is nearly always a lethal game when played in valleys surrounded by high terrain; there is a long list of those who played and lost. It should not take 100 pages and three years to promulgate a simple message or even two. Be prepared to go-around at any tick of the clock and don't fly into valleys - unless you are sure you can get out at the other end - or the backdoor is unlocked. Time, money and effort wasted in laying or shifting blame and justification of 'policy' instead of focus on the real messaging - "Warning - this can kill you".
"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous, But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
Toot - toot...
P2 comment - "I'll let those interested make the comparisons but in my honest opinion the two reports are like chalk and cheese."
Correct; bang on in so many ways. The first noted difference is in the time scale between event and report. Eleven months - granted, it was a fairly straight forward event to investigate and, according to legend, the real delay was in waiting for the surviving passenger to make a definitive statement, to wit: there was an unattended truck parked on the runway. Without fluff or fuss, the report covers all the bases needed, offers some alternative course of action for those facing a similar situation (stock for example) and a short sentence on the possible 'influences' on decision making. Succinct, to the point and; importantly of value to the reader.
One of the stark differences is in the complete lack of 'background data, related to the operator and the 'safety' system in place. Read the Ross Air report or the latest CFIT report - the sheer verbosity and 'fluff'' ploughed into the 'meat and spuds' of the events is mind numbing. The lack of useful 'I learned from that' stuff is remarkable.
In the short report from BASI there is a few clear messages; no fluff and 'data' to plod through - just the facts, an analysis and something to think about should the reader end up in a similar situation. Things appearing on the runway is not a once in a lifetime event; neither are go-arounds, routine stuff for lots of operations and, believe it or not - things can go wrong. This BASI report IMO achieves the desired outcome, it makes aircrew aware that until you are signed off and in the pub; it can all turn to worms, in a heartbeat.
The latest epic from ATSB into the CFIT in Tasmania takes a long while to make a simple point - VFR into IMC is nearly always a lethal game when played in valleys surrounded by high terrain; there is a long list of those who played and lost. It should not take 100 pages and three years to promulgate a simple message or even two. Be prepared to go-around at any tick of the clock and don't fly into valleys - unless you are sure you can get out at the other end - or the backdoor is unlocked. Time, money and effort wasted in laying or shifting blame and justification of 'policy' instead of focus on the real messaging - "Warning - this can kill you".
"Aviation in itself is not inherently dangerous, But to an even greater degree than the sea, it is terribly unforgiving of any carelessness, incapacity or neglect."
Toot - toot...