FAA & NTSB ... Food Fight!

[Daleandee]

Get outta my business!

FAA Tells NTSB To Stay Out Of Space Crash Investigations

https://www.avweb.com/aviation-news/faa-tells-ntsb-to-stay-out-of-space-crash-investigations/

 

[Bob Noel]

yeah, the FAA is the expert on space flight.

 

[Brad Z]

This sounds like a great opportunity for Congress clarify roles and responsibilities of the two agencies and confirm whether NTSB’s role in accident investigation and safety recommendations extend into commercial space activities.

 

[Albany Tom]

Government agencies shouldn't be allowed to issue public statements. It's bad enough we let the elected officials do it. 1A applies to individuals, not corporations, not branches of government. Sorry, just ranting.

What FAA is worried about is that whatever "rules" they come up with will be determined to be silly and ineffective. The last thing that a government agency wants is bad publicity, and for that reason the last thing they should be able to do is talk. It's not supposed to be a popularity contest, nor an industry supported pretend watchdog.

 

[Clip4]

yeah, the FAA is the expert on space flight.

They do have some space cadets employed.

 

[Brad Z]

Government agencies shouldn't be allowed to issue public statements. It's bad enough we let the elected officials do it. 1A applies to individuals, not corporations, not branches of government. Sorry, just ranting.

What FAA is worried about is that whatever "rules" they come up with will be determined to be silly and ineffective. The last thing that a government agency wants is bad publicity, and for that reason the last thing they should be able to do is talk. It's not supposed to be a popularity contest, nor an industry supported pretend watchdog.

This was the FAA responding to a request for public comment. It’s commonplace for agencies to comment on other agencies’ policies. Often, the notice and comment process is the only way one agency may learn of an action intended by another agency (although I doubt that was the case here).

I think the FAA is concerned about a duplication of effort with two agencies conducting parallel investigations, potentially with disparate findings.

 

[Daleandee]

If the reasons given are the truth I can understand why the FAA is taking this stand i.e. to let space exploration have some freedom to experiment. From the article:

The commercial space industry pushed back, fearful that the new layer would curtail the operational and test freedoms it has enjoyed as it developed the technologies and protocols for the burgeoning industry. Those freedoms were mandated by Congress as a kind of developmental breathing period while the embryonic industry finds its wings.

As noted the NTSB has been asked to assist in accidents before and were part of the Challenger investigation:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/arch...e-shows/2092a51e-d393-45aa-a8a0-10d30f3874c0/

 

[flyingron]

Certainly, I wouldn't trust NASA to self-investigate. They've got a track record of white washing over the issues. You saw the same mistakes in all three major investigations (Apollo 1, Challenger, and Columbia). Space events are going to be high enough profile to make the NTSB do a decent job rather than delegating it to people with a pecuniary interest in the outcome.

 

[Albany Tom]

This was the FAA responding to a request for public comment. It’s commonplace for agencies to comment on other agencies’ policies. Often, the notice and comment process is the only way one agency may learn of an action intended by another agency (although I doubt that was the case here).

I think the FAA is concerned about a duplication of effort with two agencies conducting parallel investigations, potentially with disparate findings.

You could be right. Yours is a kind and optimistic view of the agency. My experience w/ various state and federal agencies is that the individual people are normally driven by the best of intentions, but that the overall culture of the organization is to first, and above all else, protect itself. Maybe I'm cynical.... But that said, even the best writer is usually terrible at proofreading their own work.

 

[Brad Z]

You could be right. Yours is a kind and optimistic view of the agency. My experience w/ various state and federal agencies is that the individual people are normally driven by the best of intentions, but that the overall culture of the organization is to first, and above all else, protect itself. Maybe I'm cynical.... But that said, even the best writer is usually terrible at proofreading their own work.

I get the sense that Congress realizes that commercial space is higher risk and has to accept much more risk in order to not stymie the industry, and thus intended the FAA to regulate the industry with as light of a touch as possible. Within the FAA, there’s very little crossover between commercial space and aviation that takes place below the Karman line—the standards for “safe” are quite different. The NTSB doesn’t really have an established level of acceptable risk, so I could see a situation in which NTSB pumps out safety commercial space recommendations at a breathtaking pace that inevitably causes more work for the FAA with little ultimate benefit to the industry.

 

[Daleandee]

Certainly, I wouldn't trust NASA to self-investigate. They've got a track record of white washing over the issues.

True. If Allan McDonald would not have stepped forward the commission itself may not have ever gotten to the truth in the Challenger investigation.

No doubt that NASA (or whomever is doing exploration work) needs to be accountable. But having said that I also understand that they must have some latitude to experiment. There is always going to be risk involved in moving forward into unknown areas. Hopefully with new technologies being employed in testing the risk to human life will be greatly reduced.

 

[flyingron]

Which is why the NTSB results aren't supposed to be used for anything other than improving safety.