I think that some of the recent discussion reflects a misperception of an
earlier point I was trying to make. I certainly do not dispute the utility
of accident reconstruction videos as a learning tool. My point was simply
that if we are going to use a reconstruction, then it should be a good one.
It should be an accurate reconstruction, and it should be put together in a
way that allows the target audience to identify with the scenario being enacted.
I was involved in making the film of "The Dryden Accident" (at Australian
Airlines), and to make that video we established several guiding principles.
The first was to stick as closely as possible to a factual reconstruction as
determined from the available evidence. Another was to make it a video that
would have crewmembers wondering if that could have been them in the cockpit
or the cabin, making the same decisions. Taking/not taking the same
actions... "Could a similar thing happen to me/at our company?" was one
theme we were attempting to get across.
My observation regarding Saudia 163 is that the way the cockpit crew and
scenes are presented creates a distance between the observer and the action.
I feel that most of us who watch that film walk away thinking that a similar
thing would not happen to us, and I question the positive learning value of
that approach.
Best,
Brent
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Brent Hayward ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Aviation Psychologist
e-mail: brent_at_melbpc.org.au Tel: +61 3 9690 4258; Fax: +61 3 9690 7070;
AAvPA web page: http://www.nasma.com/aavpa
__________ PO Box 217, Albert Park VIC 3206, Australia __________