[ncc-services-wg] Divergence of RIPE / RIPE NCC policy

On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:09:16AM +0000, Nigel Titley wrote:
> On 20/03/2013 10:21, Daniel Roesen wrote:
>> That's the thing with research and proof-of-concepts. There is no 
>> guarrantee that it will move to production phase. What's happening here is 
>> what is called "go-minded" in aviation. Just that you are on approach, 
>> doesn't mean you're going to actually land. In fact, it's being trained 
>> that every approach leads into execution of a missed approach procedure at 
>> decision altitude/height UNLESS every parameter really indicates that it's 
>> safe to land. Very bad accidents have happend (and still continue to 
>> happen) because folks at the yoke/stick are "go-minded" and try to rescue 
>> an approach (or in this case, continue a project without broad backing of 
>> those affected). IMHO, the pilot monitoring (RIPE community) has called 
>> out "go around!" late (at decision altitude), but soon enough.
>
> To continue the analogy though, the aircrew in this case thought that the 
> dangers were worth risking but still felt it worth while asking the 
> airplane owners (some of who were on board) whether they wanted to take the 
> risk of landing. The passengers and the folks on the ground were too busy 
> shouting at each other for any sensible decision to be made.

Not really. The aircrew comprises of the pilot flying (NCC) and
pilot monitoring (RIPE community). If either one calls out "go around!", a
missed approach is executed. Too bad in this case the veto (no consensus
in vafor _is_ a factual veto in PDP) was ignored by the pilot flying.
Instead of following good CRM procedures and listening to the pilot
monitoring, he called the aircraft owners. What happens in that kind of
scenarios then can be read up here: http://avherald.com/h?article=429ec5fa

Regarding the RIPE community only as "passengers" would be troublesome
to me. The RIPE community is part of the aircrew, in fact the "pilot
monitoring". The aircraft owner thought the risk was worth taking,
and the pilot flying adopted that opinion being bound by it, while
the pilot monitoring vetoed but was ignored. In aviation, that's called
a complete breakdown of CRM (crew resource management) and utterly
bad airmanship. :)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crew_resource_management#United_Airlines_Flight_232
and following sections.

I guess we differ in our interpretation of the role of the RIPE
community in that analogy.

Best regards,
Daniel

-- 
CLUE-RIPE -- Jabber: dr at cluenet.de -- dr at IRCnet -- PGP: 0xA85C8AA0