David-aviator
Well Known Member
There was a post about an hour ago suggesting this forum consider having a Beech style "crash talk" section on accidents.
DR diverted the message to a private discussion as it constituted a discussion on a rules change which is a private matter here, not a public one.
Unfortunately, I read Jim's message before it was scrubbed and believe it warrants a public response - not on the subject of a rules change - but on the notion that accident speculation can be a learning experience and is justification for the Beech "crash talk" opportunity.
This was my response to the message.
Jim,
I have to respond to your theory on what constitutes a learning experience with regard to accidents.
An accident is a real event involving real people. It is not a class room situation where rampant speculation can harm no one.
In the real world Joe Pilot crashes. Every arm chair, sometimes not nearly qualified, pilot with a computer has an opportunity to contribute to "crash talk" with a theory on what caused the accident. That can not be a learning experience - it is based on speculation, not facts. It may be fun but it is meaningless exercise. The root cause of any accident is determined on facts, not speculation. Only then can something be learned about the event.
What is most troublesome about "crash talk" is such speculation always effects a pilots reputation, many times unfairly, especially so when the facts are yet to be known.
A pilot's reputation is at stake, that trumps "crash talk" speculation. I am surprised such a forum exists, if it does, but then just about anything goes these days so what's new?
dd
DR diverted the message to a private discussion as it constituted a discussion on a rules change which is a private matter here, not a public one.
Unfortunately, I read Jim's message before it was scrubbed and believe it warrants a public response - not on the subject of a rules change - but on the notion that accident speculation can be a learning experience and is justification for the Beech "crash talk" opportunity.
This was my response to the message.
Jim,
I have to respond to your theory on what constitutes a learning experience with regard to accidents.
An accident is a real event involving real people. It is not a class room situation where rampant speculation can harm no one.
In the real world Joe Pilot crashes. Every arm chair, sometimes not nearly qualified, pilot with a computer has an opportunity to contribute to "crash talk" with a theory on what caused the accident. That can not be a learning experience - it is based on speculation, not facts. It may be fun but it is meaningless exercise. The root cause of any accident is determined on facts, not speculation. Only then can something be learned about the event.
What is most troublesome about "crash talk" is such speculation always effects a pilots reputation, many times unfairly, especially so when the facts are yet to be known.
A pilot's reputation is at stake, that trumps "crash talk" speculation. I am surprised such a forum exists, if it does, but then just about anything goes these days so what's new?
dd