Slashdot Mirror
Canadian Agency Investigates US Air Crash
knorthern knight writes "When 2 light civilian planes collide in U.S. airspace in Virginia, the usual response includes calling in the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) to investigate and make recommendations based on their results. But what do you do when the crash involves two planes piloted by a crash investigator with the FAA and the chief medical officer with the NTSB? In order to avoid conflict of interest by American investigators working for these agencies, the investigation has been turned over to to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada as a neutral 3rd party."
A rare moment of common sense for an American agency. I didn't think it possible.
Most likely, they can investigate it impartially and come with a neutral conclusions. However, they don't want to take the slightest risk that someone tries to protect, whether conciously or not, their boss, co-worker or underling. Even worse, someone may have a score to settle with one of the people involved. Finally, even if the organization would know everything and manage to carefully pick someone who has nothing to do in any way with the people involved, an outside observer could still claim that the investiagation may not have been impartial. What they did if the right thing and what every organization in a similar situation should have done.
You don't understand pride in your company, do you? They aren't saying that they won't be able to investigate fairly, but they want to avoid the situation where a FAA or NTSB investigator might want to hide some evidence showing that their friend was a drunk who crashed the plane. Again, not saying that they won't be able to investigate fairly, but they just don't want their guys to be in that position.
A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
Seriously? You can't investigate objectively because the people involved were in your organisation?
What would happen if a medical doctor ever became hurt by another doctor? Send them to Canada?
NTSB has 400 employees that includes beaurocrats and administrative staff, those that actually investigate crashes is likely far far smaller (likely even smaller for FAA). You would likely have better luck sitting an inpartial jury in a town of 400. People tend to try to defend people they know and work with, it's human nature and often completely subconcious.
"I don't necessarily agree with everything I say." - Marshall McLuhan
You assume the FAA and NTSB can investigate the incident objectively? No?
Sheesh, can the US become more of a third world country?
I guess they can refuse to investigate unless they get paid by an "interested party", but that's about it.
Seriously? You can't investigate objectively because the people involved were in your organisation?
What would happen if a medical doctor ever became hurt by another doctor? Send them to Canada?
Exactly how big do you think those organisations (FAA, NTSB) are?? The NTSB at least is tiny - everyone would know everyone else. It's not just about them doing their work objectively, it's about being seen to do their work objectively. If a doctor is ever negligent you certainly wouldn't let his mates conduct the investigation.
It's not that they can't be objective, it's that we shouldn't be putting them in a situation to have to choose. Like it or not, we're still human, and the emotional tendency to loyalty shouldn't have to be tested.
It's much the same as judicial refusal. It's entirely likely that the judge could be impartial, but for any cse where they might have an interest, they step aside. That's not an indication of thirld world status...that's acknowledging that we're human, and dealing with it.
It's not even that. If the NTSB or the FAA investigate this accident, and do so entirely dispassionately and fairly, there will still be *someone* - probably on slashdot, at that - who will go "ZOMG WTF CONSPIRACY THEY ARE COVERING UP THE TRUTH! THE PLANE WAS WIRED WITH EXPLOSIVES! THE JEWS/MUSLIMS/PETA/MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR DID IT!".
> You assume the FAA and NTSB can investigate the incident objectively?
It's not really a question of whether they can or can't, but whether they can appear to do it objectively. That's a lot tougher; the average person just plain assumes that organizations don't investigate their own people in an unbiased fashion.
Log in or piss off.
You do realize there are all of about 600 of us working in the US who have been trained in any aspect of accident investigation, and like all but 30, I'm in the military.
You can't investigate objectively because the people involved were in your organisation?
By definition, no.
In principle, no.
In practice, no.
It doesn't even matter if in your mind you were "objective". A characteristic of information is not merely how true it actually is, but how reliable it is known to be.
Agents preparing information have to be able to demonstrate objectivity, independence and integrity to their principal else they cannot produce reliable information.
Compare this to the French investigation of the Air France crash from Brazil a couple of years ago where efforts were made both to protect the pilots' good names and to shift blame away from Airbus.
I have to really take issue with this - right up until the black boxes were recovered, everything the BEA released implicated Airbus, to the point that Airbus had to issue several Airworthiness Directives regarding pitot tube icing and other things.
It was only when the flight data recorders were recovered that the BEAs stance shifted, and the pilots actions were called into question. Its highly likely that the BEA will implicate both the pilots and Airbus in its final report later this year.
So I think your assertion that the BEAs objectivity being in question is absurd.
THE JEWS/MUSLIMS/PETA/MORMON TABERNACLE CHOIR DID IT!".
I'd have mixed feelings about this. On the one hand, blowing things up is generally to be frowned upon. On the other, the fact that these groups could come together to behind a common cause would serve a both an inspiration and a reason to hope for the future of humanity.
how many pairs of boxer shorts should you own?