Hypothetical roundelay.
It’s a bit rum when a question may be dismissed as ‘hypothetical’.
“Hypothetically, could a drone hit a car on the harbour bridge and cause a major accident”? If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?
“Hypothetically could control of an aircraft lost near buildings close to the runway?” If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?
Mostly – safety ‘development’ comes from the ‘hypothetical’, could a lady skid on a wet floor and get hurt; could a gent with a walking stick fall down the escalator – there are a million examples of where the hypothetical is not ‘dismissed’ out of hand, but considered – every hour of every day in cockpits around the world – it is called risk analysis. Risk analysis is better discussed on the ground, safe and tucked up at the bar – the what if game – has saved many lives. Yet serious questions which probe the depth of ‘safety think’ from our ‘safety watchdogs’ are just fobbed off and mildly ridiculed, by those who should be able to intelligently discuss the matters honestly raised.
But for me, it is the glib, sleight of hand tricks which earn the contempt; slippery and despicable; disingenuous and misleading. What’s wrong with this statement, from Hansard:-
Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.
Give in; here’s a clue:-
Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.
There is little to no public risk in “the runway end zones”; there is great public risk with the ruddy buildings parked on the actual runway; and, those runway 'end zones' already exist.
Enough – Barkeep – two more here please and keep ‘em coming; I’ve a rotten taste of flim-flam in my mouth, I wish to rid of.
It’s a bit rum when a question may be dismissed as ‘hypothetical’.
“Hypothetically, could a drone hit a car on the harbour bridge and cause a major accident”? If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?
“Hypothetically could control of an aircraft lost near buildings close to the runway?” If so, whatcha gunna do about it then – huh?
Mostly – safety ‘development’ comes from the ‘hypothetical’, could a lady skid on a wet floor and get hurt; could a gent with a walking stick fall down the escalator – there are a million examples of where the hypothetical is not ‘dismissed’ out of hand, but considered – every hour of every day in cockpits around the world – it is called risk analysis. Risk analysis is better discussed on the ground, safe and tucked up at the bar – the what if game – has saved many lives. Yet serious questions which probe the depth of ‘safety think’ from our ‘safety watchdogs’ are just fobbed off and mildly ridiculed, by those who should be able to intelligently discuss the matters honestly raised.
But for me, it is the glib, sleight of hand tricks which earn the contempt; slippery and despicable; disingenuous and misleading. What’s wrong with this statement, from Hansard:-
Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.
Give in; here’s a clue:-
Mr Mrdak: The Commonwealth's position is that we believe there should be runway end public safety zones established. We are seeking to do that. At the March meeting of the National Airports Safeguarding Group, jurisdictions agreed to proceed with public safety zones. We are hoping to conclude that work by the next meeting of that in August this year.
There is little to no public risk in “the runway end zones”; there is great public risk with the ruddy buildings parked on the actual runway; and, those runway 'end zones' already exist.
Enough – Barkeep – two more here please and keep ‘em coming; I’ve a rotten taste of flim-flam in my mouth, I wish to rid of.