Originally Posted by
safetypee
WS, ?
Context, viewpoint, subjectivity. Which report is to be believed, why.
'Seeing' is in the minds eye of the beholder.
Of course. So, when you want a conclusion of the reality of the factual situation, you'll need to go back to the technical facts.
Compare that to Trump's 2020 election denials. Still, 50+% of the GOP "believers" follow their holy leader, despite the facts showing different (and got persistently confirmed in courts).
Originally Posted by
safetypee
The Ethiopian report challenges NTSB, what if it is correct?
Of course, the NTSB could be wrong. Though, maybe you missed that part in my writing, when the different pillars around aviation in a country all merge into the same responsible / in-charge dictator or single ruling party, the pillars are no longer independent and the results start to show the preference of the leader vs. the reality of the situation (compare that to the zero-covid madness in China, this whole developed and derailed under the rain of Xi/CCP, it's simply the result of the way the state is organized).
After KLM-Tenerife, the Western world concluded that the airline industry would need several independent (!) parties (the pillars) to significantly improve safety in the airline industry. This has been implemented, and recent history of improved safety in Western countries has shown, this works. And when things go MAX-haywire, it shows the pillar-independence got compromised.
In countries like Ethiopia, ME, China, Russia and you name it, these instances are only independent on severe punishment, when not complying with the dictator or single ruling party in place. So, principally, the conclusions of the not so independent pillars are doubtful, right from the start. As such, I have significantly more trust in the correctness of the NTSB findings, than, in the probably politically and lobby saturated Ethiopian accident report. I did not read the Ethiopian report, though, I am just comparing the environments where the reports are created.
Originally Posted by
safetypee
Anyone party to the investigation (ICAO annex 13) can challenge the finding. It just so happens that this one is a little late. Note the glib comment re 'not in the NTSB format'.
Yep, challenging, though it takes courage to stand-up with a deviating (and properly founded) description of the reality (I am not speaking about the Trump/Putin/Xi nonsense we are seeing in the past couple of years, this does suggest equivalents with the demise of the Roman Empire, some 20 centuries ago).
I don't think, the NTSB is "a little late", though they decided to stand-up, because of the faults in the Ethiopian report. And it just takes time to mature for such a decision.
Originally Posted by
safetypee
Who judges accuracy, relevance, how can we tell ?
For this, you will need to go back to the facts, before these are colored by political and lobby interests. Unfortunately.
Originally Posted by
safetypee
cf Dekker / Dutch AMS report; significantly different from Boeing, FAA view presented by NTSB; their comments on the Dutch report.
Who was lobbying (influencing) who.
My understanding is, the Dekker research results didn't make is into the original published Dutch AMS report, because it was considered to be too controversial towards Boeing. Please check, if it was referred to in the draft report.
Please note, the Dekker and the Dutch AMS report are reports at a different level. The Dekker report is focusing on the Human behavior around the just bad logic around the RA sensor usage with strings towards a conclusion, whereas the Dutch AMS report is an accident report, where the Dekker results got rejected in the final one.
Originally Posted by
safetypee
Also note NTSB comment on Dutch report re not using an appropriate format; to which the Dutch replied that their format followed that in ICAO Annex13 !!
Yeah, typically Dutch, just stubborn, though that is a subject of the "format", not the content itself.