Canadian Agency Investigates US Air Crash 84
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."
Amazing! (Score:5, Insightful)
A rare moment of common sense for an American agency. I didn't think it possible.
Re:Amazing! (Score:4, Insightful)
That's because you have an incredibly negative outlook on life, possibly to the point of paranoia. It must be horrible to be in a constant state of fear, seeing everything as bad, and everyone out to get you. It must paralyse you. I mean seriously, how do you ever even get out of bed in the morning?
Hopefully one day you'll muster the courage to get counselling, and no doubt there are some SSRI or possibly even psychotropic drug therapy that may help, but until then: stay scared, I guess.
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Amazing! (Score:5, Insightful)
The GP sees a rational decision, you see collusion, and I see paranoia mixed with stupidity--yours, not the agencies'. Either the FAA and NTSB called Canada honestly wanting to avoid conflicts of interest, or they just wanted it to appear that they were avoiding a conflict of interest while secretly getting Canadian investigators to cover something up. Of course in this second scenario their fake out brilliantly brought lots of extra publicity to the story. You know, which is exactly what you want when you're covering something up. /sigh
Have mod point distribution rules changed recently or something? This is the third completely overrated post I've seen recently.
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:5, Insightful)
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!".
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:5, Insightful)
> 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.
Re:Amazing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:4, Insightful)
Why risk the temptation? The FAA and NTSB investigate a lot of crashes that end up being caused by pilot error. Lots of people in the world are reluctant to place the blame on a well-trained pilot acting in good faith by saying that his actions were the cause of what might be hundreds of deaths.
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. In this case, the FAA and NTSB are investigating events involving people who might have been friends, bosses, or co-workers. There is an undeniable risk of losing impartiality here, no matter how incorruptibly good people might have been investigating it. Why take the risk, even if it's small? Why even place that burden on them to begin with?
The whole essence of these investigations is to impartially find the factual causes of these accidents. To investigate them with any kind of doubt placed on the shoulders of the investigators would do everyone, from the people killed, the agencies, and the citizens who employ them, a great disservice.
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re:Investigated under Canadian law? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Amazing! (Score:4, Insightful)
Kind of heart-warming. Americans genuinely like Canadians and share a relatively peaceful border with them. Conflicts are few...the odd fishing-rights shouting matches and, well, ice-hockey skirmishes. Fairly rare on the planet.
Geez, these were probably friends (Score:4, Insightful)
I'm amazed at the number of people debating the objectivity question. What about the effectiveness question? What about the emotional pain question? One of your closest coworkers that you have known for years, worked with for years, has just died. And now somebody wants you to investigate the accident. Oooof. The grieving process has been studied extensively, and I don't think you want someone who is grieving to be conducting the investigation, purely from effectiveness reasons. And I'm pretty sure they would want to do something else, too. Like maybe see if his friend's kids are OK or need anything. These men's best friends have more imporant things to do right now than document an accident scene.