The Bookmakers lament:
P2 – “Word is that there is going to be an extension to the DIP review of the 500+ page VH-NGA re-investigation 'DRAFT' final report...”
I wondered how big a pile of paper 500 pages actually is – the answer was easy – within easy reach, the neat package for the printer. Got me thinking, if one allows lets say that every page in the ‘new’ Pel-Air analysis is printed single side, that reduces the reading to 250 pages; lets say that 70% of each page is actually used, this reduces the volume of reading down to 135 pages; we can safely allow a 20% discount on that for waffle, tables, graphs etc. and possibly a few more off for indexing etc. Let’s say there are approximately 100 pages of pertinent information (just for a number). Then we may ask ‘what’ may we expect within those 100 pages. That, boys and girls is my puzzle for today. As the Pel-Air report release time approaches I must set my tote odds. One of the board lines represents the number of ‘useful and of value’ pages will be found within the information provided. Most of the BRB can do the simple math, but the numbers are now being refined; varying from a light weight 1% to an optimistic 40%. It’s not really fair play, but, intrigued, I asked some of the BRB how they settled on the % selected.
Those (many) who were opting for the lower >2 - <10 % values – simply stated that the ‘accident’ stand alone was a simple, single issue affair. The holes in Mr Reasons famous cheese lined up, perfectly synchronised, the results inevitable. Nothing new there and a rehash of the same circumstances, no matter how clinical, would provided little in the way of ‘new’ data, let alone point at the under laying causal chain. Perish the thought of departmental or company shortcomings being mentioned.
Those (not many) who selected >20 - <50 % values believed that a ‘factual’ analysis would provide some additional data of value - provided ‘all’ the data was included.
Which left me with a problem – if I am to keep my shirt – how to lay off the bets of those who are solidly backing a < 1% result. There are a lot of ‘em, heaps; and I must accept the wagers and formulate the odds. Don’t believe that the Bookies always win; sometimes the tote gets a flogging and I feel it in my bones; this is going to be one of those times. In a nutshell, the general consensus is that the ‘new’ report will be ‘clinical’, cut and dried but only on the ‘facts presented’ and those are pretty well known anyway. Where the report will stumble is in the ‘language’ used, many believe that will subtly, but inevitably lead back to it all being pilot error. “This is a crock” say my punters; “why”? I ask. So they tell me (paraphrased without the invective). “The company and every single government agency owns a piece of this accident, James was let down by his own operating culture and lack of training – which CASA happily accepted, failing miserably to ensure that the thin policy and procedure promulgated was ‘alive and valid’”. “Fatigue, training, operational support, lack of proper planning procedure, lack of even RTOW data all sent a flight crew into a high risk situation”, they say, and more.
“Condensed”, they add, “it all comes down to the report ‘justifying’ and excusing everyone ‘official’ from any part in the event; ATC, BoM, CASA, Company”. “These contributing factors will not only be written out of the story, but be exonerated”.
The real story of the Pel-Air at Norfolk saga is not that of the ditching ‘how’; but one of the ‘why’ and the actions taken after the event by ATSB and CASA. My punters all say the same thing; “show us a report on that and we’ll read it – all of it; or, get the Senators to finish what they started: getting the lid off the real tale, the one of appearing to defraud the public and misleading the Senate; now that is a tale of interest”
That is how the betting stands; there are some other ‘interesting’ lines on my tote odds board related to this; I may get some of my shirt back from them. More on those closer to the release date.
Toot - toot.
P2 – “Word is that there is going to be an extension to the DIP review of the 500+ page VH-NGA re-investigation 'DRAFT' final report...”
I wondered how big a pile of paper 500 pages actually is – the answer was easy – within easy reach, the neat package for the printer. Got me thinking, if one allows lets say that every page in the ‘new’ Pel-Air analysis is printed single side, that reduces the reading to 250 pages; lets say that 70% of each page is actually used, this reduces the volume of reading down to 135 pages; we can safely allow a 20% discount on that for waffle, tables, graphs etc. and possibly a few more off for indexing etc. Let’s say there are approximately 100 pages of pertinent information (just for a number). Then we may ask ‘what’ may we expect within those 100 pages. That, boys and girls is my puzzle for today. As the Pel-Air report release time approaches I must set my tote odds. One of the board lines represents the number of ‘useful and of value’ pages will be found within the information provided. Most of the BRB can do the simple math, but the numbers are now being refined; varying from a light weight 1% to an optimistic 40%. It’s not really fair play, but, intrigued, I asked some of the BRB how they settled on the % selected.
Those (many) who were opting for the lower >2 - <10 % values – simply stated that the ‘accident’ stand alone was a simple, single issue affair. The holes in Mr Reasons famous cheese lined up, perfectly synchronised, the results inevitable. Nothing new there and a rehash of the same circumstances, no matter how clinical, would provided little in the way of ‘new’ data, let alone point at the under laying causal chain. Perish the thought of departmental or company shortcomings being mentioned.
Those (not many) who selected >20 - <50 % values believed that a ‘factual’ analysis would provide some additional data of value - provided ‘all’ the data was included.
Which left me with a problem – if I am to keep my shirt – how to lay off the bets of those who are solidly backing a < 1% result. There are a lot of ‘em, heaps; and I must accept the wagers and formulate the odds. Don’t believe that the Bookies always win; sometimes the tote gets a flogging and I feel it in my bones; this is going to be one of those times. In a nutshell, the general consensus is that the ‘new’ report will be ‘clinical’, cut and dried but only on the ‘facts presented’ and those are pretty well known anyway. Where the report will stumble is in the ‘language’ used, many believe that will subtly, but inevitably lead back to it all being pilot error. “This is a crock” say my punters; “why”? I ask. So they tell me (paraphrased without the invective). “The company and every single government agency owns a piece of this accident, James was let down by his own operating culture and lack of training – which CASA happily accepted, failing miserably to ensure that the thin policy and procedure promulgated was ‘alive and valid’”. “Fatigue, training, operational support, lack of proper planning procedure, lack of even RTOW data all sent a flight crew into a high risk situation”, they say, and more.
“Condensed”, they add, “it all comes down to the report ‘justifying’ and excusing everyone ‘official’ from any part in the event; ATC, BoM, CASA, Company”. “These contributing factors will not only be written out of the story, but be exonerated”.
The real story of the Pel-Air at Norfolk saga is not that of the ditching ‘how’; but one of the ‘why’ and the actions taken after the event by ATSB and CASA. My punters all say the same thing; “show us a report on that and we’ll read it – all of it; or, get the Senators to finish what they started: getting the lid off the real tale, the one of appearing to defraud the public and misleading the Senate; now that is a tale of interest”
That is how the betting stands; there are some other ‘interesting’ lines on my tote odds board related to this; I may get some of my shirt back from them. More on those closer to the release date.
Toot - toot.