Originally Posted by IGh
Now the USA's "independent" NTSB suffers the consequences of "unreviewable discretion": no obligation to acknowledge past investigative mistakes, nor "retract" mistakes in any Aircraft Accident Report.
It may or it may not have escaped notice or attention, but the term “unreviewable discretion” does not mean anything other than the fact that the opinions expressed by the NTSB, either as a body or as individual members or staffers, may be expressed without having those opinions reviewed and altered, if required by the “reviewer,” prior to those opinions being made public.
That “unreviewable discretion” does not guarantee that the opinions or conclusions are infallible, or that they include ALL the “facts, and only the facts.” As I’ve said previously, humans make up the membership of the “board,” and humans make up the staff. If that human board member or staffer is convinced (based on his/her background, experience, training, and what he/she saw, heard, or learned during the investigation) that what he/she desires to say is factual (whether or not that “fact” is the whole story or merely a part of it) he/she is authorized to say whatever he/she desires to say … and to do so without having someone else “review” that statement and thereby potentially exert some/any influence on that person to modify the statement or, alternatively, prevent it’s publication.
It has always been my impression that having such an unreviewable discretion “guarantee” would, or at least
should, allow any participant to feel completely free to reach and disclose whatever conclusion he/she feels is accurate. Anyone who has ever participated on, or even observed, the public hearings held by the NTSB would and should recognize that everyone offering opinions are welcome to do so – regardless of any bias they may be suspicioned to have.
Of course, the board has set policies and agreements under which all participants allowed/invited to participate (either directly on site or through analysis or other review) are knowledgeable of the agreements regarding release of data or conclusions beyond the agreements they’ve each made. Violations of those agreements should logically be expected to incur consequences – from the most menial through removal from further participation … and that shouldn’t come as a surprise.
However, after saying all this, I also think we all need to note that those persons who DO comply with every aspect of all the agreements, and I include both the board members and the staff members themselves, all are human, subject to all the limitations, tendencies, and inclinations which humans are known to have and which are known to have an effect on human perceptions and understandings. To me, at least, this is the limitation we have to recognize if we allow anyone/everyone who participates in such accident/incident reviews to express opinions with “unreviewable discretion.” I am not sure how to better ensure that the conclusions reached are, indeed, the personal, professional, and considered opinions of the specific individual involved – and that of ONLY that specific individual.
Originally Posted by aterpster
The NTSB is a political hack government agency at the Board level, and has been for many years. (TWA 841, 1979, investigation controlled by Boeing.) And, even at the investigator level, it is not what it once was because of "PC" hiring and lack of control.
Of course, you, as all of us, are free to have whatever opinion you desire – but I think it would be better to couch such as statement as “opinion,” and not some level of “fact.” Of course, I do not know what level of familiarity you may or may not have with any of the NTSB board members or staffers … but I know what my personal level of familiarity is in that regard … I’ve personally worked with 2 of the 5 current board members, and have had the same pleasure to work with literally dozens of NTSB staffers … all of whom have always impressed me with their desire to “do the right thing,” uncover whatever facts can be learned, to provide more relevant conclusions to, hopefully, develop methods, processes, equipment, and/or procedures that will prevent the same or similar circumstances from occurring in the future.
I’m not sure that anyone, anywhere, could have a more sobering or more seriously clearheaded approach to accident/incident investigation. And, it is my opinion that the quality (including the background and experience levels) of those who have become employed at the NTSB over the years that I have been an active part of the aviation system in the US, has regularly, and substantially, improved
And, for whatever value it may offer, I say all of the above with full recollection of the times where I believe I would have reached a different conclusion … and DID … on more than one occasion.