X-Virus-Scanned: clean according to Sophos on Logan.com Return-Path: Sender: To: lml Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 11:55:00 -0400 Message-ID: X-Original-Return-Path: Received: from mail8.tpgi.com.au ([203.12.160.46] verified) by logan.com (CommuniGate Pro SMTP 5.1c.2) with ESMTPS id 1280096 for lml@lancaironline.net; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 02:55:24 -0400 Received-SPF: pass receiver=logan.com; client-ip=203.12.160.46; envelope-from=domcrain@tpg.com.au X-TPG-Antivirus: Passed Received: from CRAIN (220-245-137-22.tpgi.com.au [220.245.137.22]) by mail8.tpgi.com.au (envelope-from domcrain@tpg.com.au) (8.13.6/8.13.6) with ESMTP id k6I6sTMW006978 for ; Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:54:31 +1000 From: "Dominic V Crain" X-Original-To: "'Lancair Mailing List'" Subject: RE: [LML] Re: Sharing Bloopers X-Original-Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 16:54:27 +1000 X-Original-Message-ID: <003401c6aa37$03b4edb0$0202a8c0@CRAIN> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0035_01C6AA8A.D560FDB0" X-Priority: 3 (Normal) X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook, Build 10.0.6626 Importance: Normal X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2900.2869 In-Reply-To: This is a multi-part message in MIME format. ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C6AA8A.D560FDB0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Hamid, my friend, Your suggestion that my post suggests we don't criticize anyone who = makes mistakes clearly demonstrates that we can read what we want into almost anything. A cursory analysis of anything I have written is all that is needed to = show that it is how criticism is handled by the critic. I did not, nor would = I logically suggest, no one should be criticized. I don't think your attempt to relate as comparative Columbine type characterizations is relevant. (Yes, we do know about events other than = in our own country). What is relevant is the supervisory system which should be in place to determine those who appear marginal, and assessments made on how to = properly deal with these people. Now, I don't know if you have ever been in a sim or sat in on a check = ride with other cultures, but I can assure you that some of them still = believe the 50,000 decibel approach to the debrief, or even in the sim, is still = the way to go. In the example I gave which you thought, incorrectly, I = derived there should be NO critique, the particular culture involved often used = that method. Another culture close to where the current ME flare up is occurring was similarly disposed to using not only the same decibel approach, but = having check captains switch off IRU's and just about every switch within reach = of the jump seat on short finals, in wide bodies, with full loads of unsuspecting passengers. Try not to read nonsense into the posts. But when it comes to mistakes - you can call them bloopers if you wish, there are better ways of handling them than reaching for the = sledgehammer. And I can assure you that in the case I exampled, the supervisors well = new of the prickly nature of the individual involved. =20 Regards =20 Dom Crain =20 VH-CZJ =20 =20 -- For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/ ------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C6AA8A.D560FDB0 Content-Type: text/html; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

Hamid, my = friend,

Your suggestion that my post = suggests we don’t criticize anyone who makes mistakes clearly demonstrates = that we can read what we want into almost anything.

A cursory analysis of anything I = have written is all that is needed to show that it is how criticism is = handled by the critic. I did not, nor would I logically suggest, no one should be = criticized.

I don’t think your attempt = to relate as comparative Columbine type characterizations is relevant. (Yes, we do = know about events other than in our own country).

What is relevant is the = supervisory system which should be in place to determine those who appear marginal, and assessments made on how to properly deal with these = people.

Now, I don’t know if you = have ever been in a sim or sat in on a check ride with other cultures, but I can = assure you that some of them still believe the 50,000 decibel approach to the = debrief, or even in the sim, is still the way to go. In the example I gave which = you thought, incorrectly, I derived there should be NO critique, the particular = culture involved often used that method.

Another culture close to where the = current ME flare up is occurring was similarly disposed to using not only the = same decibel approach, but having check captains switch off IRU’s and just = about every switch within reach of the jump seat on short finals, in wide bodies, = with full loads of unsuspecting passengers.

Try not to read nonsense into the = posts.

But when it comes to mistakes = – you can call them bloopers if you wish, there are better ways of handling them = than reaching for the sledgehammer.

And I can assure you that in the = case I exampled, the supervisors well new of the prickly nature of the = individual involved.

 

Regards

 

Dom Crain

 

VH-CZJ

 

 

--

For archives and unsub http://mail.lancaironline.net/lists/lml/

------=_NextPart_000_0035_01C6AA8A.D560FDB0--