FA 2008 errata beyond the official list?

[kdburton]

---

Members don't see this ad.

If you have a 2008 FA and the official errata list, is it pretty safe to say that there aren't many other errors in the book? I've got a professor who handed out an errata list that he supposedly came up with and while I haven't compared his to the one on the FA website I'm just wondering if people are still running into a lot of errors...

 

[Dr Roboto]

In the FA 2009 errata thread, folks are talking about additional errors not on the list and that some of the errors are repeated in the 2009 edition.

 

[kdburton]

In the FA 2009 errata thread, folks are talking about additional errors not on the list and that some of the errors are repeated in the 2009 edition.

Right, but the 2009 edition is so new that I'd expect them to be finding a lot more than whats on the "official" list on the firstaidteam.com website. What I mean is - I have FA 2008 and I have the most recent errata list off their website. If I make all of the changes on this list in my book then is it reasonable to say that there is still going to be quite a few errors that went unnoticed over the last year? Or would it be more reasonable to say that most of the errors have been caught in this list? And yes I've heard others say that they didn't fix a lot of the errors in the 2009 FA that were noticed in the 2008 (probably quite a bit of lag in the publishing I guess).

 

[Dr Roboto]

If I make all of the changes on this list in my book then is it reasonable to say that there is still going to be quite a few errors that went unnoticed over the last year?

Yes, that's what I meant to say. The folks in that thread were saying there are errors in FA 2008 that are not on the errata for FA 2008. A post in that same thread contained the additional errors but it seemed like they were edited out.