NTSB and Social Media: Friction Escalates in Air Crash Probe

[APFPilot]

This is from another thread but I think it merits discussion on its own: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...79035231353396714.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp

I've mentioned before that the way the NTSB is moving from an agency that quietly worked in the background and solved some of the most complex aircraft accident mysteries of all time to a grandstanding political agency is distressing. It used to be that they were mum (absent an immediate safety of flight issue) until the hearing and their issuance of a report. This enable all of the facts to considered at the same time. With their recent practice of tweeting out snippets of information as it is discovered it is easy to take them out of context and for the news media, and the public to have their own speculation on what caused the event, which often times is way off base and can be damaging to the reputation of an airline, manufacturer or flight crew.

I know this will probably degrade into a discussion of WN taxing too fast and that this is all Obamas fault, however I kind of hope we can have a good discussion about regardless of who you fly for or if you are ALPA, IBT, TWU, UAPA or LMNOP this needs to stop.

 

[chqflyer]

This is an unprecedented amount of information being released by the NTSB so early on. I'm thinking its driven in part to counter all the wild BS speculation by the mainstream media. I've come across some amateur investigator websites that have all sorts of fancy graphs and analysis that could easily be misconstrued as actual investigation data. The media is more concerned with just throwing out anything to the public with no concern for the accuracy of the information.

 

[Dan Roman]

=yahoo_itp


I know this will probably degrade into a discussion of WN taxing too fast and that this is all Obamas fault, however I kind of hope we can have a good discussion about regardless of who you fly for or if you are ALPA, IBT, TWU, UAPA or LMNOP this needs to stop.

Clearly Air Force one taxis too fast but it's a trend that started under Bush.

 

[APFPilot]

Clearly Air Force one taxis too fast but it's a trend that started under Bush.

At times under Clinton it didn't taxi at all

 

[HowardBorden]

This is from another thread but I think it merits discussion on its own: http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100...79035231353396714.html?ru=yahoo?mod=yahoo_itp

I've mentioned before that the way the NTSB is moving from an agency that quietly worked in the background and solved some of the most complex aircraft accident mysteries of all time to a grandstanding political agency is distressing.

My real question of the NTSB is why? I get it that news agencies and the FAA are clamoring for information, but I really don't believe that that has changed over the years. The NTSB used to simply give the standard response: "We don't have any details right now, the investigation is ongoing." Or something similar to that. What has changed that makes them want to move away from that position? Who cares that everyone really want preliminary info to disseminate to the masses, why not simply refuse to discuss an ongoing investigation like they used to?

From the article:
Escalating public pressure for nearly instantaneous details about airliner incidents and accidents has shaken up the previously staid, traditional world of accident investigations. The safety board's leaders increasingly are turning to Twitter to rush out details of significant findings—sometimes before advising on-site investigators of impending messages.

In an email response, an NTSB spokesman said the board relies on social media since many journalists use Twitter because "it is instantaneous and often meets their deadlines." The statement called it a valuable tool "to inform the media and the general public about the status of accident investigations."

What purpose does this serve? Public safety? No. Quicker certificate action by the FAA? No. I just can't understand why they have chosen to change their tactics.

 

[LearLove]

No facebook, no twitter, no whatever else "hey look at me website" = ADULT.

A few months back my niece asked me why I wasn't on facebook. My response was "because Uncle Learlove is 38 not 13".

 

[Flyer1015]

Kim Kardashian is running the NTSB, that's why. The tweets should hopefully stop soon.

 

[Luv2BFlyin]

No facebook, no twitter, no whatever else "hey look at me website" = ADULT.

A few months back my niece asked me why I wasn't on facebook. My response was "because Uncle Learlove is 38 not 13".

You're on FI

I agree though 100%. I very much dislike FB and do not participate.

 

[Newkem]

Whats the problem?

If they release only pertinent facts as they become known, what is the problem? Looking back on the Asiana SFO accident and the SWA LGA accident, the information released was only cold hard fact. Tactfully imho, they released only the pertinent kernels of hard fact info that would lead anyone with half a brain to understand the basics of what may have happened.

For instance, in the SWA LGA accident, they released the fact that LP took the controls from the RP/PF at 400 feet. VERY unusual, and pertinent to why this wheel barrow landing may have happened thus damaging the airframe. Had they, for instance, come out and interpreted this info by saying something like:
"There was an obvious CAT FIGHT in the cockpit between the two female pilots all the way from departure to the point of transfer of controls at 400 feet AGL shortly before the accident" then it would be understandable that all would be upset. However, NTSB did not say that. Did they?

Provided they do not make assumptions or extrapolate actions from what is preliminary info, or form and tweet opinions on what may have happened prior to conclusion of the investigations, what is the problem?

 

[Flyer1015]

If they release only pertinent facts as they become known, what is the problem? Looking back on the Asiana SFO accident and the SWA LGA accident, the information released was only cold hard fact. Tactfully imho, they released only the pertinent kernels of hard fact info that would lead anyone with half a brain to understand the basics of what may have happened.

For instance, in the SWA LGA accident, they released the fact that LP took the controls from the RP/PF at 400 feet. VERY unusual, and pertinent to why this wheel barrow landing may have happened thus damaging the airframe. Had they, for instance, come out and interpreted this info by saying something like:
"There was an obvious CAT FIGHT in the cockpit between the two female pilots all the way from departure to the point of transfer of controls at 400 feet AGL shortly before the accident" then it would be understandable that all would be upset. However, NTSB did not say that. Did they?

Provided they do not make assumptions or extrapolate actions from what is preliminary info, or form and tweet opinions on what may have happened prior to conclusion of the investigations, what is the problem?

Because even that small piece of "factual" information is still not in full context. Even if there was a takeover at 400 feet, what other details surround that? All it does is give the media and their beloved "aviation experts" something to conjecture on and causes more speculation. Being quiet about it altogether and saying that they are still investigating would be better for all. Then without anything official to go on, the media can speculate all they want but they are limited without any facts at hand. IMO, it would be a lot better without the tidbit release of information.