The NTSB seems to be suffering from the typical mission creep of a large government agency. Asking one agency to oversee everything from pipelines to railroads to air travel at a time when the nation’s infrastructure is showing the strain of age is a tall order. The problem is that, even though they have people trained in different disciplines, the disparity between airplanes, pipelines and bridges is a tough chasm to bridge. And, the difference between airline disasters and GA accidents is equally disparate. Big disasters get big press coverage, so they get the lion’s share of the attention. GA, not so much. As Paul says, that’s not all bad. I suspect that the NTSB is finding it difficult to replace experienced investigators who are reaching retirement age with younger staff that have the same drive and experience level. Welcome to the modern world. Personally, I find it inexcusable that the FAA and NTSB have had their long-running cat fight without someone telling them to get along. Maybe “Mayor Pete” should take the agencies to the woodshed, but I’m not holding my breath. I predict in a year we will see little has changed.
I’ll echo Paul’s comments on the NTSB’s new CAROL system for searching accident reports. It comes across as designed by someone trying to maximize the difficulty in accessing accident information. As part of my work, I read 100 NTSB aviation accident reports a month. The previous search system was fast and intuitive. The CAROL system is anything but intuitive and relies on has a multi-page instruction manual filled with arcane jargon that simply isn’t helpful. I’ve spent several hours working to figure out CAROL and can use it for most of what I need but am constantly frustrated by its shortcomings and the fact that it hides information a user needs to do a search (good luck figuring out how to find accidents between two dates - you can do it, but figuring out how is time-consuming).
I’m also concerned that a number of accident reports for the time period near the end of that covered by the old system and the first year or so of CAROL have been lost or cannot be accessed. I’ve no data, but in 15 years of searching and reading accident reports monthly, I’ve gotten a feel for how many accidents will have occurred for a type of airplane during a year. When the system returns only a fraction of that number, I get concerned.
What has made it worse is that when I’ve tried to reach out to the NTSB through the contact information in CAROL. I’ve never gotten a response to my questions.
The NTSB had an excellent system for searching aviation accident reports - it screwed it up with CAROL. While it might be fun to assert that it was done on purpose, my experience with large bureaucratic organizations in the public or private sector is that it’s just the result of incompetence along with high-level supervisors insisting on having things done their way rather than in ways recommended by subordinates who actually know what they’re doing.
My issue with NTSB is not with the process–it is with the conduct of GA investigations.
We had a medical helicopter crash at the airport I manage. Five other witnesses viewed the crash, myself and another helicopter pilot. I sent all witnesses to a neutral corner to describe what they observed. When we heard from NTSB–they asked us to secure the site (already done)–“don’t let anyone in–INCLUDING THE FAA.”
THE NTSB “investigator” took our notes–“You know what I don’t like about this? These notes are almost all the same.” I assured him that they were done independently. We noted that the helicopter approached the ramp–that there was a puff of smoke from the right side of the helicopter–the the blades coned as he tried to arrest the descent–that it was still coming down at a high rate–that he tried to skid it onto the grass, but the aircraft skid caught the edge of the pavement, causing it to roll over. The NTSB “investigator” was in the cockpit, and announced “I think I’ve found the cause–there were TWO flight nurses on board–the helicopter had an FM entertainment radio installed–I think the pilot was just trying to impress the nurses and boogeying to the music.” I pointed out that ALL of the switches on the audio panel were in the “speaker” position–(though everyone was wearing headsets"–and that it was highly unlikely that he was monitoring 2 comms, 2 VORs, ADF, marker beacons, ambulance frequency, and hospital frequency ALL at the same time. He continued to try to defend his position–I told him "The BIG thing you missed is the fact that this helicopter is flown from the RIGHT seat–not the left–where the switches were ALL selected!
I pointed out to him that the right engine side of the helicopter was sooted and scorched–but not the left side. Firemen on the scene confirmed they extinguished a fire on the right engine. A subsequent teardown THREE MONTHS LATER confirmed the right engine failure.
Yet we PAY these people for their incompetence! I have nice letters from the hospital, emergency helicopter provider, and the pilot–“I’m SO GLAD that we had experienced people that observed and documented the crash!” This is far from the ONLY instance of NTSB incompetence.
RT, while FAA is part of DOT, the NTSB is a completely independent agency since the Independent Safety Board Act of 1974. While some positive action to address these noted issues would be welcome Congress separated NTSB from DOT to avoid potentials for conflict of interest as well as influence of results.
Wasn’t there, but if a bird came through the wind screen at 400 mph and 100 AGL talking on the radio would probably be the last thing on my mind …
I think if you are one of seven doing 400 mph in tight quarters announcing intentions would be key. These guys are beyond pro.
Simply amazing!
It wouldn’t be the Last Thing… but it’d be after the First Thing… FLY THE AEROPLANE.
In my career I once shared a cockpit with a former Red Arrows support pilot and those guys are simply the BEST in the business.
So if a bird can do this much harm by penetrating the cockpit glass of a warbird aircraft, what would a .50 caliber shell do the the jet? I am now a bit more tempted to go with an F18.
Since the Hawk T1 jet is a trainer, could it be the windshield is not “bulletproof” as on true combat aircraft?
Was the bird okay?