[ncc-services-wg] Divergence of RIPE / RIPE NCC policy
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Divergence of RIPE / RIPE NCC policy
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Divergence of RIPE / RIPE NCC policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]
Nigel Titley
nigel at titley.com
Wed Mar 20 13:00:16 CET 2013
On 20/03/2013 11:48, Daniel Roesen wrote: > On Wed, Mar 20, 2013 at 11:09:16AM +0000, Nigel Titley wrote: > 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. > I suspect you may be right. And I also suspect that this analogy has been stretched a little too far. Your point is taken though. All the best Nigel
- Previous message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Divergence of RIPE / RIPE NCC policy
- Next message (by thread): [ncc-services-wg] Divergence of RIPE / RIPE NCC policy
Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ]