Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Accidents, have we seen this report??

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Thankfully, ASRA doesn"t need to rely on Steve_UK.I am on both a general ATSB email notification list as well as their emergency SMS alert system. So far as emails are concerned, about every 4 months I usually get an email from them and they simply almost always involve upcoming GA or RPT seminars and suchlike. I didn"t get any email notification from them about either of their 2 accident rate reports from September 2014. I did, however, learn about them in about mid-December when I bumped into a legal colleague in the street who acts as a lobbyist for the agricultural sector, and who was mightily displeased with various assertions concerning agricultural operations.I hadn"t had the time or inclination - yet - to print out the reports and spend a number of hours properly digesting them, but since the topic has come up via Paul on this forum I"ll say that "in due course" I will be doing a summary of the reports for Gyro News. It was on my "list of things to do", but probably won"t appear in the Autumn edition - more likely Winter.I am not aware of whether any other Board members or whether Allan Wardill received any ATSB courtesy notification about the September reports, but if they had I"m pretty sure I would have been cc"d by them.I"m not too fussed about the reports, because as you would expect, the agricultural sector, helicopters and gyros do show up as more accident prone, which is none too surprising given the "low and slow" environment that these 3 types generally operate in. If a miscalculation is made at 300 feet, for instance, compared with 3000 feet, the time for rectification action will be only a second or two, whereas at 3000 feet in a plane you"ve practically got enough time to read a newspaper before you need to get serious.And for me old mate Birdy - OK I accept your clarification, but certain words can really push a lawyer"s buttons, one of them being "falsely" (which has a precise legal meaning as being a deliberate falsehood, involving dishonesty). In general, a lawyer would choose to use the words "potentially misleading" in relation to unreliable statistics because those words leave enough wriggle room to not be seen as accusing someone of being dishonest: "... the statistics were misleading" leaves open a lot of scope for all sorts of explanations such as poor methodology or mistake or error, whereas the word "..falsely..." connotes deliberate dishonesty. I"m sure any good public servant, politician or statistician would agree with me!

    Comment


    • #32
      Mark, the topic is "Accidents, have we seen this report?" Simple answer is yes. Long answer is, Yes but I haven"t had time to weed out the non gyro related stuff. But instead you put up some nonsense with verbal attacks and deformation that has taken three pages to get to an answer.

      Comment


      • #33
        No wurrys Mark, you sumtimes gota make allowences for the scg,s grasp of proper lingo.Out ere, false means rong, no insinuations included.

        Comment

        Working...
        X