Report online at
http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2008/report182008.cfm

While the photos of the damaged cab of the 158 are no laughing matter,
I couldn't help having a wry smile at paragraph 9, page 6.

If the link don't work for you, ROT13:

"Gur pnhfny snpgbe jnf gung gur ybeel qevire sbetbg gb shyyl ybjre gur
obql bs gur ybeel orpnhfr ur jnf qvfgenpgrq sebz uvf abezny fnsrgl
ebhgvar ol univat gb haybpx gur pno cnffratre qbbe gb nyybj npprff sbe
gur "Pbagenbyyre bs Fvgr Fnsrgl" (PBFF)."


--
Andy

abe22@cam.ac.uk wrote:

>Report online at
>http://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_2008/report182008.cfm
>
>While the photos of the damaged cab of the 158 are no laughing matter,
>I couldn't help having a wry smile at paragraph 9, page 6.
>
>If the link don't work for you, ROT13:
>
>"Gur pnhfny snpgbe jnf gung gur ybeel qevire sbetbg gb shyyl ybjre gur
>obql bs gur ybeel orpnhfr ur jnf qvfgenpgrq sebz uvf abezny fnsrgl
>ebhgvar ol univat gb haybpx gur pno cnffratre qbbe gb nyybj npprff sbe
>gur "Pbagenbyyre bs Fvgr Fnsrgl" (PBFF)."


Sbetbg gb shyyl?  Yes, I thought that was the case.  ;-)

On 26 Sep, 08:43, ab...@cam.ac.uk wrote:
> Report online athttp://www.raib.gov.uk/publications/investigation_reports/reports_200...
>
> While the photos of the damaged cab of the 158 are no laughing matter,
> I couldn't help having a wry smile at paragraph 9, page 6.
>
> If the link don't work for you, ROT13:
>
> "Gur pnhfny snpgbe jnf gung gur ybeel qevire sbetbg gb shyyl ybjre gur
> obql bs gur ybeel orpnhfr ur jnf qvfgenpgrq sebz uvf abezny fnsrgl
> ebhgvar ol univat gb haybpx gur pno cnffratre qbbe gb nyybj npprff sbe
> gur "Pbagenbyyre bs Fvgr Fnsrgl" (PBFF)."
>
> --
> Andy

I wasn't impressed that they've redefined the mile / chain / yard,
too. See page 28. Did they really pay for this definition??

Rob.

On 26 Sep, 14:52, rob...@hotmail.com wrote:
> I wasn't impressed that they've redefined the mile / chain / yard,
> too. See page 28. Did they really pay for this definition??


Hmmm, yes, I see what you mean.

I presume that the "88 chains in one standard mile" is in actuality
just a typing mistake.  However, if "little" things like that get
through, how much confidence can you put in the remainder of the
report?

PhilD

--
<><

On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:37:28 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be PhilD
 wrote this:-

>I presume that the "88 chains in one standard mile" is in actuality
>just a typing mistake.  However, if "little" things like that get
>through, how much confidence can you put in the remainder of the
>report?

In one report it is probably just a mistake which was not picked up
in proof reading. If reports all/mostly contain "little" mistakes
then one may draw other conclusions.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On 29 Sep, 08:55, David Hansen 
wrote:
>
> >I presume that the "88 chains in one standard mile" is in actuality
> >just a typing mistake.  However, if "little" things like that get
> >through, how much confidence can you put in the remainder of the
> >report?

Someone at RAIB must be reading u.r! I've just downloaded the report
and it now contains the conventional number of chains in a mile.
--
Pat Ricroft, City of Salford, UK
================================

Pat Ricroft wrote:
> On 29 Sep, 08:55, David Hansen 
> wrote:
>>> I presume that the "88 chains in one standard mile" is in actuality
>>> just a typing mistake.  However, if "little" things like that get
>>> through, how much confidence can you put in the remainder of the
>>> report?
> 
> Someone at RAIB must be reading u.r! I've just downloaded the report
> and it now contains the conventional number of chains in a mile.
> --
> Pat Ricroft, City of Salford, UK
> ================================

I'm aware of at least one regular uk.r lurker who works for RAIB. Good 
on them!

In article , David Hansen
 scribeth thus
>On Mon, 29 Sep 2008 00:37:28 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be PhilD
> wrote this:-
>
>>I presume that the "88 chains in one standard mile" is in actuality
>>just a typing mistake.  However, if "little" things like that get
>>through, how much confidence can you put in the remainder of the
>>report?
>
>In one report it is probably just a mistake which was not picked up
>in proof reading. If reports all/mostly contain "little" mistakes
>then one may draw other conclusions.
>
>
>

Indeed their human too ... like the people who have accidents;!....
-- 
Tony Sayer