Deficient NTSB Investigation?

flyingcheesehead said:
I dunno - Usually with this sort of thing you see "The pilot did not obtain a pre-flight briefing."

This guy did everything right and still got burned, and they blamed it on him rather than the fact that either the airport manager didn't issue a proper NOTAM, or FSS omitted it during the briefing. Neither case is the pilot's fault, yet the NTSB faults the pilot.

Most of the time, when the NTSB blames an accident on pilot error, I agree that there was *something* the pilot could have done. This case, I think they're out of line in blaming the pilot.
Click to expand...

Well said, it is not that this investigaton was any different from the usual one, just that this set of facts merits a better investigaton to answer the questions left unanswered.
 
lancefisher said:
Arnold, my take on your OP was that you felt the pilot had done as much as any of us could/would have done in the same circumstance yet was unable to learn the runway was closed before colliding with a "ditch" dug across the runway (and I pretty much agree with that). You also obviously (to me) seemed to feel that the NTSB could/should have done a more accurate and complete assessment of the accident's cause and while a sort of agree with that, IME they rarely bother with a truly adequate investigation and report in these types of incidents. IOW the "deficiency" is not unusual.

I would also add that your post did get me to consider that it would be wise to check on runway conditions for any non-towered airport I might land at during darkness.
Click to expand...

Yes I think they should have done better, and the accident got me thinking about landings at uncontrolled fields and how would I have known, or not known, what that pilot did not know. It is time for a trip through the AIM for me.
 
GigG601XL said:
This is where the confusion on my part lies. I've been reading NTSB reports since I was about 8 years old and I don't see where this one is in any way worse than the average for an accident of this type.
Click to expand...

I have always joked about the NTSB finding a way to pin any accident on the pilot somehow, if for no other reason than the primary cause being "The pilot's choice to fly that day."

This crosses the line of the joke into reality. The pilot did nothing wrong here (from the details apparent in the NTSB's report), but they still hung him. The probable cause should have been:

"The FAA's failure to report the closed runway condition to the pilot. A contributing factor was the functioning runway lighting system at a closed runway and lack of lighted closed marking."
 
Arnold said:
I think it might help you to view the posts in threaded mode, if you do so then this is what you would find:
-------------Summary of Posts in this thread ---------------------------
Arnold - initial post
Bitz - response
GigG601XL - Asserting that I am more upset about the language used than the facts and making a statement about the likely success of litigation
Arnold - Responding to the Assertion regarding wording, acknowledging GigG601XL comment about litigation and stating I would not comment.
alaskaflyer - an out of context quote and a bunch of emoticons.
Arnold - Explaining that the part alaska flyer quoted was in reference to GigG601XL post.
SkyHog - Expressing confusion and asking if I have any connection to the accident.
-----------------------------------------------
I hope this helps to clarify the timeline, but since my prior post on the subject was apparently insufficient, allow me to elaborate.

NO I do not have any connection to the accident, I do not represent any of the parties involved. I have not even a remote connection to the accident, but to put your mind at ease, and because it brings back some happy memories of a great summer spent flying, I will outline all of my prior interaction with the possibly related people, places and things. If you think of others let me know and I'll tell you if there is any connection.

I used to fly to Lake Placid while I was time building for my commercial ticket. I would stop in BUF and pick up my cousin and we would do lunch in Lake Placid. Then I would drop her off in BUF and I would return to 6B6. It was a very enjoyable way to build hours and I made the trip perhaps 3 times during the summer of 1979 (I think it could have been 78) and I have not been back since. I flew a rented TR-2 (only paid $19.20 per hour wet). I state now that I have never flown the accident aircraft, in fact, of my more than 7000 hrs flight time my total C-310 time is about 0.6 hrs. I do not know the pilot or the passenger. I have not been to Lake Placid in about 30 years. I do not know who the insurance company is but I'm not a customer of theirs nor are they a client of mine. I've only been to AR a few times and that was solely to deliver SD-360 aircraft to overhaul and paint facilities. The last time I was in the relevant ARTCC airspace was my daughter's graduation from U. Michigan when I flew a Mooney Ovation (it lives in the BOS area and has had the same owner for its entire existence and that person, to the best of my knowledge, has no interest in the accident) from LOM to Ann Arbor for the festivities and that was in 2006. President Clinton spoke at the Commencement but I have never met him nor have I engaged in any sort of conspiracy with regard to the airport, aircraft, air traffic control facility and controllers, or airport.

I don't know what else you think might be my connection or why my somewhat more succinct answer to the same question asked by another board member was insufficient. I'll refresh your memory I answered

"NONE."

My SOLE INTEREST in this matter arises from my noticing the blurb on AvWeb and then going to the NTSB web site and getting the full report. I did this because I thought it odd that the NTSB blamed the pilot. I analyzed the report (such as it was), and I posted that analysis on my web site and posted a link on this board because I thought it would be of interest to the community.

As you noted in one of your earlier posts most people will not criticize the NTSB, and generally I do not, but I think they merit criticism in this mater.
Click to expand...

Sorry man, you gotta understand why I asked. Its not very common to see someone respond with "no comment" to something they're not involved in:

"Did you murder that man?" No Comment.
"Did you pay money to the police officer to avoid imprisonment?" No comment.
"A lawsuit could be made against the FAA or airport operator for this." No comment.

You see what I mean? I didn't mean to insinuate anything, it was just weird.
 
Arnold said:
Yes I think they should have done better, and the accident got me thinking about landings at uncontrolled fields and how would I have known, or not known, what that pilot did not know. It is time for a trip through the AIM for me.
Click to expand...
I was glancing at AIM 2-3-5(?) last night, and they said that if a runway is closed for an extended period that the lighting system is disconnected, but did not make any mention of that for one that is temporarily closed. They also didn't indicate that the 'X's would be lit.
 
gprellwitz said:
I was glancing at AIM 2-3-5(?) last night, and they said that if a runway is closed for an extended period that the lighting system is disconnected, but did not make any mention of that for one that is temporarily closed. They also didn't indicate that the 'X's would be lit.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I reviewed the AIM before I drafted my comment on the report and I noticed that as well. If the NTSB had actually done their job they may have noticed this as well and perhaps suggested a change to the FAA.
 
SkyHog said:
I have always joked about the NTSB finding a way to pin any accident on the pilot somehow, if for no other reason than the primary cause being "The pilot's choice to fly that day."

This crosses the line of the joke into reality. The pilot did nothing wrong here (from the details apparent in the NTSB's report), but they still hung him. The probable cause should have been:

"The FAA's failure to report the closed runway condition to the pilot. A contributing factor was the functioning runway lighting system at a closed runway and lack of lighted closed marking."
Click to expand...

No joke really, it is normally their immediate reaction. This is why there is a union rep at the scene and closely involved in every airline accident. When I was a union official I went to the NTSB training that qualifies the pilot to be at the accident scene as did all the airlines I knew (not all at the same time).

They are busy right now trying to pin the blame for the Buffalo accident on the pilots. They are selectively releasing portions of the CVR and FDR data, out of context, and building a case against the pilots. They should be ashamed, but of course they are not.

In the late 80's and into the mid 90's there was a series of turboprop accidents related to icing. These included Jetsream 31 and ATR-72 aircraft (there may have been others). Since that time it has been widely acknowledged that there are icing conditions so severe that aircraft equipped with boots will not handle them well. Occasionally the plane will crash.

If we are going to have an all weather air transportation system then we need to have tools that will accurately identify those conditions and disseminate that information to the crews and dispatchers, or else accept that every few years a hundred or so people are going to die (a number we easily accept for nearly all other forms of transportation). At the moment the icing forecasts are too broad and too vague to be of much use. Forecasts of widespread moderate occasionally severe icing for the entire northern quadrant of the country don't provide enough information to justify a flight cancellation. Turbulence forecasts have the same limitations but when an airliner stumbles into CAT that injures crew and pax you do not find the NTSB slowly leaking easily misinterpreted out of context information about the event.

It is true that the NTSB has amazing capabilities and does amazing things, but they remain too quick to blame the crew rather than the true culprits.
 
SkyHog said:
Sorry man, you gotta understand why I asked. Its not very common to see someone respond with "no comment" to something they're not involved in:

"Did you murder that man?" No Comment.
"Did you pay money to the police officer to avoid imprisonment?" No comment.
"A lawsuit could be made against the FAA or airport operator for this." No comment.

You see what I mean? I didn't mean to insinuate anything, it was just weird.
Click to expand...

No problem, as I said I rather enjoyed thinking back on that summer long ago - 50 comes alot quicker than we think it will when we are 20. I also see why you thought the way you did. You will note though that the difference between your first two examples and the third is the element of accusation. In the first two the statement starts with an accusation while in the third, like the one I responded to, there is no accusatory element, it is simply a statement of opinion. But I see how you got to where you got an hope you can see why I did not.

Peace
 
gprellwitz said:
I don't think we currently have that, and I think it's probably unrealistic to expect it any time in the near future.
Click to expand...

Heck, even Star Trek's transporter had "weather" limitations (interference from severe "magnetic storms").
 
Last edited:
Arnold said:
If we are going to have an all weather air transportation system then we need to have tools that will accurately identify those conditions and disseminate that information to the crews and dispatchers, or else accept that every few years a hundred or so people are going to die (a number we easily accept for nearly all other forms of transportation). At the moment the icing forecasts are too broad and too vague to be of much use. Forecasts of widespread moderate occasionally severe icing for the entire northern quadrant of the country don't provide enough information to justify a flight cancellation.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they only provide enough information to hang the pilot. :mad3:

Arnold, what you say above is absolutely true, and very disappointing. As a result of the overly cautious forecasts, pilots begin to ignore them. I know of a well-known instrument instructor who calls Airmets "Scaremets" for that exact reason. My first "tool" is to compare PIREPs with the forecasts to see if they were anywhere near right, but I've also been trying to learn more about ice and it seems like for every bit I learn, I discover that there are 10 more bits that I don't know and need to learn. The aviation weather folks could probably give us much more accurate forecasts than they do, but they're probably concerned about my least favorite word, "liability". Sad how a concern about liability can lead to MORE death and destruction - It's not about safety any more, it's about "who can we point the finger at." :mad3::frown2:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top