Re: The another alleged rogue
stephen phillips (s.phillips_at_cowan.edu.au)
Thu, 09 Jul 1998 11:29:00 +0800
inmae wrote:
>
> Stephen, Jean, all
> > There is no
> > clear indication that any of the "incidents" are clearly documented or
> > provable. If the "incidents" came so close to hull loss or serious
> > damage presumably they were subject of investigation by NZ air safety or
> > equivalent; if they were not then the fisrt question is - Why not?
> > Secondly, were the "incidents" investigated by the company? What was
> > the outcome of either or both of these investigations - if they occured?
>
> Are you proposing to wait until an incident or an accident occur and
> then
> take some accion, reactively?
> Don«t have we learned to think pro-actively?
> Perhaps the perspective from an academic point of view is different to
> the one we have every day in the trinch.
> Best regards
>
> PS: Come on Greg, Dave, Vince, we are wainting you to jump in.
My friend you miss the point - no one wishes to wait for a tradegy
before acting. Likewise I would hope no one would wish to act without
clear evidence supporting that action. The fact here is that there are
alledgedly two or more 'incidents' from which to draw conclusions and
thence to proceed with some action. The nature of the 'incidents' and
there investigation are pertinent to the question if we are to avoid
becoming some form of vigilante group.
Stephen Phillips