Lyman,
If not the NTSB or BEA, who, in your mind should do airline/aircraft accident investigations? What would be the make up of that organization in terms of expertise?

Somebody like "ExPonent, Failure Analysis Associates", in Menlo Park, California.

Or RTCA, who published strict rules for Lithium Ion Batteries, which Boeing then completely ignored, relying instead on their own in house generated "special conditions".....Which they then failed completely, because the authority, FAA, allowed them to certify themselves?

But certainly a private and independent entity, some one who is not paid by the people who compose their mission statement....(Congress).

Who would you choose? Some one who receives Lobby Money, or someone who is paid out of independently managed and scrutinized funds? Subject to independent Grand Jury Audit, at random?

:ok:

May I submit for the approval of the assembly the most egregious and flagrant "OXYMORON" known to mankind?

"CONGRESSIONAL OVERSIGHT"

Yeah - 'cos whoever heard of a private entity being corrupt? :rolleyes:

Look - while the independent agencies are funded by the various governments, the funds ultimately come from taxes paid by (among others) the people of the country. Ultimately it's those people those agencies are answerable to, because they are chartered to ensure their safety. Imperfect as it is, I for one have more faith in that social compact than I would in a for-profit organisation trying to do the same.

Dozy

You my friend, have two annoying idiosyncratic tendencies.

First, your habit is to respond to a post that is in conversation with two other parties.

Second, you jump in and defend or attack an exchange of semi personal flavor involving others.

Oh, and three.

Your belief, without question, is that your mere disagreement with another poster is sufficient to successfully extinguish the other position.

I charge it off to exuberance.

Meet me at the TechLog thread Batteries and Chargers, and we will discuss the utter incompetence and blatant conflict of interest of the two American entities, NTSB and FAA.

I would like to bid adieu to this thread, pending the ultimate release of the complete data by BEA.

Hey Bill,

Firstly, all forum discussions are group discussions - so I, or for that matter anyone else, should be free to contribute at will. The PM system exists for more private discussions. Secondly, my opinion is just that - I don't ascribe myself psychic abilities or consider my word on any matter final; if you choose to read me this way then I suggest you're reading me wrong.

Finally, the 787 issues have not involved the NTSB at any point, because the NTSB can only become involved in the event of an accident or serious incident (usually involving injury). Don't make the mistake of assuming that because they are both government agencies they get their marching orders from the same people.

Sorry?

Enough OT, out

Lyman,
It is a small world out there in the accident investigating field. Most private firms wouldn't have the capability to do a complex investigation on their own. Exponent does have a person knowledgable in transportation investigations according to their web page:
Exponent was used by the NTSB in the investigations of TWA800 and AA587. They were also used in the Turkish Airlines 981 accident investigation lead by a French Commission of Inquiry appointed by the Minister for Transportation.

Personally, I am generally satisfied with the way the NTSB does their investigations and don't see the advantage of taking this function private. OTOH, I think the FAA could do a better job when given recommendations by the NTSB.

Hi TD

Yep. The only current gripe I have re: NTSB is that its chief, Deborah Hersman, is at the top of a short list to head the Department of Transportaton for President Obama. The current chief resigned just after the grounding of 787, but was pressured into staying on, to avoid making Boeing look bad.

As to FAA, my recommendation is to scrap the entire agency, with prejudice ("and don't come back").....

I favor a review of NTSB findings, why not? Second opinions are de rigeur in other important realms.

FAA should be a legal and administrative agency/entity, familiar with transport law, risk manaagement, and safety issues, not "to promote Aviation" (from the FAA charter, I kid you not)

and
This is one of the (unfortunately) not so frequent occurrences where I absolutely have to agree with you!

Sometimes I have the feeling the last sentence should in reality even read it is "to promote Aviation INDUSTRY". Joe public doesn't seem to rank terribly high on their agenda...

That said, your bashing/mistrust of NTSB on the other hand I don't share.
They have often stated unfavourable/critical things regarding aircraft/airlines/other companies only to be later ignored by FAA.

That is neither here nor there. You are all falling for the bait. Lyman/Bearfoil/Airfoilmod/Will Fraser etc. is simply here to perpetuate an argument.It does not matter what is right or wrong, what is truth or opinion. All that matters is impugning anything that can be seen as authority and maintaining a perpetual argument

This is nothing but a rerun of an attention seeking individual.

TWA 800 was the worst case of NTSB manipulating the final center fuel tank explosion as the cause of the crash. All observers of how it happened were disregarded to make their case. They decided to make the cause of crash what they wanted and worked backwords to make it seem logical.

KBPsen: we are occasionally advised to play the ball not the man. ;)

Bubbers: what, was Salinger right? Was it an Aegis cruiser shooting an SM-2 missile that really brought it down? :eek:

Lonewolf, every conflict is not your responsibility, so you do not have to resolve all.. Grow up.

No quibble with that observation. Trying to be a peacemaker.
Play the ball, not the man ... boy.

Guess it didn't work. May have to do with pigs and sows's ears. :p

Folks, can we keep ourselves nice, please ? Lest the sword be wielded.

Please see bold from my post:

Contrary to what we might like to believe, not all of the report production process in an accident investigative body uses objective thinking. This includes part of the process when plotting the numbers onto graphs.

vapilot: given that most raw data needs a bit of interpretation, should we toss into the bin, then, all FDR based analysis, deliberation, and conclusion? (I doubt you feel that way.)

Does the BEA's analysis not achieve the "good enough" standard in this investigation?

If not, why not?

TurbineD

I was involved (at the investigative level) in a fatal motor vehicle accident (MVA). The client was charged with Vehicular manslaughter and looking at 15 years in prison.

The Official Report by the Highway Patrol was damning, and on the face of it, impenetrable. My partner, through diligent research, found record of an interview done by the State investigator. The eyewitness was a registered Nurse, and first on the scene, performing unfortunately unsuccessful resuscitative work on the dying victim.

The record of the interview was nowhere to be found in the Official Report.

The witness was incredulous, "They did not quote my statements?"

Fifteen minutes after the District Attorney found out that the witness had been found, and was willing to testify at Trial, he dropped all charges.

NOTHING in the Official Report was false. It portrayed a slam dunk case of manslaughter. One piece of evidence, excluded from the report, (when "found"), trashed the Official report to smithereens.

The eyewitness report was wilfully and illegally hidden, suppressed.
There was no reason to support a charge of felony obstruction, the person who hid the interview was someone who would participate in many more actions, and one needed to be circumspect about those kinds of things. We were happy with the dismissal, and satisfied that "Justice" had been won.

I do NOT charge misfeasance; BEA has released a FINAL report, no one may ever know what is in the full record. Probably nothing of importance.

Confucius: "A Half Truth is a Whole Lie".

Trust in GOD, all others must disclose....

NATURAL LANGUAGE IS NOT CONTEXT-FREE
 

@ Lonewolf_50, Turbine D, DozyWannabe, Other

I agree with Lyman and vapilot2004 conclusions for that reason :

CVR and Witness report are in NATURAL LANGUAGE , a NON-CONTEXT-FREE language. So you cannot replace or modify them.:=

Not modified CVR and Witness report bring us not only the FORMAL CONTEXT-FREE words but also the Context which helps us to understand the words and semantic of NATURAL LANGUAGE of the Crew and of the Witness.

It is the main difference between Human and software production.

Roul, thank you. I am on board with that challenge to any investigation.

While that applies to the CVR, I was asking va about FDR and raw data interpretation. ;)