Three analytical traps in accident investigation

Articles similaires :

4 commentaires sur “Three analytical traps in accident investigation”

  1. I'm pretty sure there's a hole in the logic of this presentation. Either you missed the definition of the list (for any number of reasons) therefore possibly impeding your ability to explain how it works or (quite possibly) the FAA "Analytical list of traps" guidelines are flawed. Bold statements? Yes! However, we'll stick to the logic in this presentation in this rant. I am going to have to read the official FAA guidelines before going for them. Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, here's how. Assuming a system or person is either right or wrong without knowing personally (before investigation) and not being capable of finding who or what's really responsible after documentation (after investigation and reading the safety guidelines as they currently stand) is observed, renders the entire judgment process, null and void. Impotent. Who decides what the real factors are involved, if no one or nothing is responsible or not under these presented guidelines? The problem isn't what works and was done successfully, it's what didn't and wasn't successful. We're talking about lives here. The Passengers living due to what was done right isn't a factor. Especially, if it's mentioned about what was, wasn't, could, couldn't should and shouldn't have been done in the report. That's all that can be possibly known and surves as a guideline in itself. For experts to rehash a known, predictable, documented system after knowing what worked or not from the investigation is counterproductive and further complicates investigation, communication and resolution and costs lives. Logic is a very rare dicipline these days that most will not follow. Humans aren't so predictable because, of this. A lot of this just sounds like preventing hurting someone's feelings for using apparent terminologies for apparent facts. Feelings never saved lives. Ended them more than not. Empirical and Deductive Reasoning are all you need.

  2. It would have helped me better understand why these are traps and are bad if you'd have spent an equal amount of time illustrating some example alternatives to the passages criticized. Much of the language and approach in the example report are typical in air crash investigations.

Laisser un commentaire

Votre adresse de messagerie ne sera pas publiée. Les champs obligatoires sont indiqués avec *