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:5, Funny)
Yeah, it's aboot time.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
Re:Amazing! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
He said in China. They do that sort of thing there.
Re: (Score:1)
You don't bury the survivors - you let their families do it when they die.
Re: (Score:1)
Not in Texas.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
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: (Score:1)
From the constant complaining and moaning on Slashdot, I can only assume there are a lot of mentally ill people out there.
Re: (Score:2)
Bullshit. One can have high standards and still have a positive outlook on life.
Re: (Score:3)
There's only one person in this world you can control, and that's you.
Having high standards are for yourself. Having high standards doesn't require you to also have high expectations.
Re: (Score:2)
Exactly. The people asserting otherwise are the ones who are either delusional or rather just not understanding what having high standards means.
Re: (Score:2)
I mean seriously, how do you ever even get out of bed in the morning?
I get out of bed just to sit here and tell people like you that the world really is out to get you, and that if you go into every interaction with the mindset that the other side wants to fuck you in the ass, you'll at least be prepared with the lube.
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: (Score:2)
You see a rational decision, I see an opportunity for collusion.
So what should the US federal government have done instead? Create a third independent agency for investigating airplane accidents?
Re: (Score:2)
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.
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:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:5, Informative)
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.
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, Funny)
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.
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:4, Informative)
What would happen if a medical doctor ever became hurt by another doctor? Send them to Canada?
No. You'd find a third doctor that wasn't connected to either of the two doctors. If you were looking for a medical opinion for a malpractice case for instance, you wouldn't use a doctor that is part of the same practice as the accused doctor. There may not be any actual bias, but even the appearance of such can have negative consequences.
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
I'm surprised, are there that many crashes to keep you all busy? If I had to guess (completely uneducated guess) I would've thought that NTSB crash investigators would number about 10.
Re: (Score:2)
The FAA and NTSB get called out for all kinds of incidents, not just crashes.
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: (Score:1, Troll)
If a doctor is ever negligent you certainly wouldn't let his mates conduct the investigation.
actually, that's standard practice [wikipedia.org]
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.
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: (Score:2)
The tradition of judicial recusal (not refusal) is based on exactly what is seen here. By simply removing any implied connection between the authorities and the participants, the court is seen to function as it should, at arms-length from those involved.
This is a wise decision, and I am sure the favour would be returned if there were a similar situation in Canada.
The decision to invite the Canadian participation has nothing at all to do with the quality of U.S. investigators and those complaining about it s
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:"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, Interesting)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I think that individuals who are honest and care about their work can contain their personal biases by conscientiously following lines of inquiry that lead in directions they'd rather not take. If that were not possible, it would be impossible to be honest with yourself about your own behavior. But like being honest with yourself, it's a lot easier to convince yourself you're being impartial than to actually do it.
I see a number of good reasons for bringing in outsiders, but the most compelling one is credibility. If an inside investigator clears a colleague or wrongdoing, people will suspect a cover-up. If he concludes that a colleague bears individual responsibility, *that* can be seen as a cover-up too: they might be throwing someone under the bus to protect the organization.
That last scenario actually happened in the US Navy investigation of the 1989 investigation of an explosion that killed 47 men in the gun turret of the USS Iowa. The bodies were removed without documenting their location or condition, the equipment in the turret removed and thrown overboard, and the interior repainted. All this was done with the knowledge of the admiral running the investigation. Witness testimony was coerced and in some cases altered, and the technical lead in the investigation was the officer who had overseen the packing of the powder bags that exploded. The only reason we know all this was the attempt at scapegoating was so transparent.
Similar to judicial recusal (disqualification) (Score:2)
> You assume the FAA and NTSB can investigate the incident objectively?
> No? Sheesh, can the US become more of a third world country?
The mere appearance of conflict of interest would greatly reduce public confidence in the results of the investigation. This is a long-standing legal principal, e.g. judicial "recusal" (disqualification from judging a legal case) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Judicial_disqualification [wikipedia.org]. This attempts to ensure that a judge doesn't preside over a case where s/he is related
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously? You can't investigate objectively because the people involved were in your organisation?
Sure you can, but there would be a billion internet trolls yelling about subjectivity of any such investigation, if it did happen... using words like "Seriously" and "Sheesh" nonetheless.
How much will it take to buy the TSBC off? (Score:2)
Because nobody ever tampers with these kinds of things
http://www.canada.com/ottawacitizen/news/story.html?id=eb936079-122d-4d64-9c0d-9be2730f7a6b [canada.com]
TSA (Score:2)
I am surprised that they didn't get the TSA to do it...
[/SARCASM] (added just in case someone can't see the humour in this)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Investigated under Canadian law? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:1)
The objective of the Canadian TSB is to analyze the evidence and come up with findings. They are well known and well respected within the accident investigation community and there is frequently significant cooperation between the NTSB and the Canadian TSB.
Any time a Canadian registered, designed or manufactured aircraft goes down in the USA it will be the Canadian TSB involved in the investigation. The converse is also true within Canada. I think if you look up annex 13 you'll find a complete section of th
Re: (Score:2)
Argument from fallacy (Score:1)
In my opinion there is a logical fallacy in your comment.
What arguments do you have for the assumption that Canadian law (specifically) has not evolved with the times? Canada naturally needed laws that applied to their domestic circumstances a long time ago. What's more the close relationship and borders with the US have necessitated the creation of similar laws for trade and commerce. US political influence and monetary power certainly have had their effect on Canadian law.
Both the US and Canada were found
Re: (Score:3)
I don't think law has anything to do with it. It is an investigation. What happened in what sequence leading up to the crash. It will be lawyers and victims afterwards that decide who gets sued, charged, fined etc (if their dead good luck) if anyone.
That's a Good Start (Score:4)
Now, I would like to see a disinterested, neutral 3rd-party investigate the rest of our three-letter-agencies.
I'd also like to see that same level of oversight on three branches of our Government.
Re: (Score:2)
Or regular local police as well. How often do you hear of a police-involved shooting being investigated by the same agency that was involved?
Treat them the same as the police. (Score:3)
Just like any other police force, they should never be allowed to investigate their own. Even having a separate "independent" police force investigate does not eliminate "thin blue line" bias.
Picking one from another country is as good as it gets from an objectivity perspective.
I realize neither were likely the pilots (Score:2)
But does anyone else find it funny (in a sick way) that the two agencies involved in flight safety had a mid-air collision? At that point calling in the TSB is like calling in the triads to sort out what happened between the crips and bloods :-) Somehow we need non-biased people in this incident but when it comes to professions we let them police themselves (doctors, accountants, lawyers etc).
Re: (Score:2)
> Somehow we need non-biased people in this incident but when it comes to
> professions we let them police themselves (doctors, accountants, lawyers etc).
Not only do you need an impartial 3rd party, they also have to have the necessary expertise. Who else do you know of who is qualified to and capable of conducting the air crash investigation? It's a specialized field with a very limited number of qualified people. And the vast majority of them work for either the FAA or NTSB.
I've only got 5 mod points... (Score:3)
...and there are enough worthy candidates here to burn through 15 easily, so I''ll just say
...the crash involves two planes piloted by a crash investigator with the FAA and the chief medical officer with the NTSB...
is something even Clancy wouldn't think he could get away with as a plot device, even if he had dreamed it up.
It's all aboot knowing who you're dealing with eh. (Score:1)
Whoever ponies up a double double with a maple dip donut wins this one.