This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is this here? Do we have reason to list these particular accidents? NTSB selects a number of accidents for a more comprehensive investigation, in their terms a "major" investigation; in the last 10 years or so, there's been 35 of these. I suggest that if we're gonna have a table, it should just include these major investigations, unless we want to come up with some sort of notability criteria for otherwise. Akradecki 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't like that one either, it contained mostly US/airplane accidents. However, I do think there should be a complete list somewhere... Thatmarkguy 12:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Four members of the NTSB are shown on the official website: [1]
Their names should be included in the article. Links to biographical articles would be very desirable. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 20:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Done, I did include the other current members. I was only able to find a biographical article on one other member though. Sam.gov ( talk) 18:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
links to the ntsb's website are no longer valid Where's My Cheese? is what is displayed. 2.216.43.52 ( talk) 16:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
ive sorted it a while ago(just remembered to put it here) Gregory1132 ( talk) 19:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
In some cases NTSB clearly hiding major fails of Boeing. United Airlines Flight 811, SilkAir Flight 185 in particular. May be this should be included in an article? 91.77.242.66 ( talk) 18:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Just above "WhisperToMe" offers his opinion, re' the USA's "independent" Safety Board, citing: "... Neutrality requires that each ... page ... fairly represent all significant viewpoints ..."
Wikipedia just can NOT do that: wiki-contributors are mostly unfamiliar with the hidden-problems interacting just ahead of the mishap, and interacting inside the "ntsb" _INVESTIGATION_. A few Wiki-folks unfamiliar with S&C, who never qualified on any airliner, simply crowded-out others who had qualified: Review that worthless wiki "April 2015 rewrite" for TWA841/4Apr79. Parallel to the actual NTSB-investigation, one wikipedia-guy became the sole arbiter of the evidence presented in that wiki-page (deleting previous).
As one investigator familiar with that case, who actually has that NTSB- docket, I'ld suggest that that Wiki-page for the TWA841/4Apr79 case be frozen-as-is: to preserve the weaknesses of the Wikipedia-method for presentation of NTSB's mishap-_INVESTIGATION_ history. IGhhGI ( talk) 16:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Feb'8th 2016 -- A recent exchange [obstructive-repeat undo's] highlights the weaknesses of Wiki':
Folks who haven't any background in the industry can slant the story, as in the aspect of NTSB's investigation PROCESS of The Party System --
Jim Hall, long time Chairman of the Safety Board;
The Rand Report,
IGhhGI (
talk) 13:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
User IGhhGI has repeatedly made the same edit to this page, which has the following substance:
NTSB's investigation process relies upon "the Party System". [1]
References
- ^ Safety in the Skies: Personnel and Parties in NTSB Aviation Accident Investigations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2000.
I have reverted this edit multiple times, and consider it inappropriate for the following reasons:
Based on the above, this edit is inappropriate for this page. If IGhhGI (or anyone else) wants to add something about the "party system", they are welcome to do so, but should do it within WP's guidelines.
Shelbystripes (
talk) 21:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Feb' 11th 2016 - - Very amusing: this guy (above) regards any mention of the "Party System", as "inappropriate".
So, that is the END of DISCUSSION:
One man can become the sole-arbiter of the history of USA's "independent" Safety Board.
Just for the record, again,
-- here's Jim Hall's comment on the Party System;
-- here's the perspective of The Rand Report.
Reader can find a more accurate description elsewhere, use the web
(other authorities do NOT rely on the USA's "party system";
and read about the
investigative "safeguards",
NTSB vs ATSB, TSB/c, AAIB.
Oh, and that
LINK to The Rand Report
IGhhGI (
talk) 17:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Now you are the sole arbiter of this NTSB -page.
You could maybe learn about
the NTSB's Party System;
The Rand Rpt, (you deleted the footnote shown below);
some players who should be excluded;
and some
special status for one party.
IGhhGI (
talk) 05:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
?? A wiki - "contributor" ??
versus a wiki-"vandal" or Sole Arbiter
-- Tuesday Feb'23rd
You deleted information from a "contributor".
Your comments suggest that you have NO Background in this field.
Your ignorance of the NTSB's Party System suggests
that you have NEVER participated in any major accident investigation.
Perhaps you should reconsider your role:
-- don't simply delete.
Perhaps you might "contribute" some improvement to the information added?
IGhhGI (
talk) 17:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
71.35.110.159 (
talk) 17:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
A Third Opinion has been requested about "the Party System". User:Shelbystripes is correct that the insertion of an external link in the article text is contrary to Wikipedia policy. So don't do it. Aside from that, the contested text doesn't clearly explain what "the Party System" is, but as a matter of policy, just don't insert an external link. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I just came across this discussion now. The "Party System" is explained in this pdf. A criticism of it can be found here. It is obviously an important part of NTSB investigations, and ought to be dealt with in articles. Scolaire ( talk) 12:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and written a new section describing the "party system". I've tried to make it balanced and to cover both its benefits and drawbacks, without letting it dominate the entire NTSB page. I hope that
IGhhGI is pleased. If it needs to be further expanded from here, it may warrant a separate Wikipedia article.
Shelbystripes (
talk) 17:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Review of this MAY-2016 rewrite of the Wiki-page,
re' the USA's "independent" Safety Board:
Several crucial concepts are still missing from this page.
Do you find any mention of that unique scientific-privilege granted to USA's
NTSB -- "Unreviewable Discretion".
There is NO technical review of any NTSB-AAR:
No IG, no Review Board, no Scientific Ombudsman, is ever permitted to openly correct errs in any ntsb AAR. NTSB remains outside of the USA's OSTP-guidelines toward Scientific Integrity.
Lacking the traditional
investigative-safeguards, Who INSIDE of USA's "independent" Safety Board will
call-out "Scientific Misconduct"??
IGhhGI (
talk) 16:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
More HISTORY -- the NTSB's site omitted much of the history of the "independent" ASB: the 1938-1940 cross-currents, infighting, is difficult to sort.
The concept of an "independent" ASB belongs entirely to Behncke -- a man _NOT_ LOVED by industry.
I'll just add some of my notes (pre-web) -- then maybe one of you wiki-types can develop a more detailed wiki-history of the CONCEPT:
[my notes]
. . . Civil Aeronautics Act of '38 created Civil Aeronautics Administrator, 5-member Authority CAA (regulatory, economics, certificates, Airways); and on 22Aug 1938 a 3-member independent Air Safety BoardBold text established, Chairman Tom Hardin; ASB did investigation and issued recommendations. ASB abolished in reorganization effective July 1st '40. ALPA paper highlighted importance of an independent Safety Board: The Air Line Pilot Vol 16 #12, Jan'48, pg 1. See Civil Aeronautics Journal, July 15'40.]
"The third step taken by Congress [in enacting the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938] is to provide . . . for a Safety Board charged with the duty of investigating accidents . . . The Board . . . is not permitted . . . to exercise . . . regulatory or promotional functions . . . It will stand apart, to examine coldly and dispassionately, without embarrassment, fear, or favor, the results of the work of other people." —Edgar S. Gorrell, President, Air Transport Association, 1938 [quoted by Nick A. Komons, The Cutting Air Crash: A Case Study in Early Federal Aviation Policy, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1973, p. 1.]
Some helpful sources-links: The Cutting Air Crash
Flying the Line, Vol-1, Ch9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGhhGI ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Why is this here? Do we have reason to list these particular accidents? NTSB selects a number of accidents for a more comprehensive investigation, in their terms a "major" investigation; in the last 10 years or so, there's been 35 of these. I suggest that if we're gonna have a table, it should just include these major investigations, unless we want to come up with some sort of notability criteria for otherwise. Akradecki 17:18, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I didn't like that one either, it contained mostly US/airplane accidents. However, I do think there should be a complete list somewhere... Thatmarkguy 12:32, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
Four members of the NTSB are shown on the official website: [1]
Their names should be included in the article. Links to biographical articles would be very desirable. -- DThomsen8 ( talk) 20:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)
Done, I did include the other current members. I was only able to find a biographical article on one other member though. Sam.gov ( talk) 18:39, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
WhisperToMe ( talk) 04:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
links to the ntsb's website are no longer valid Where's My Cheese? is what is displayed. 2.216.43.52 ( talk) 16:10, 30 November 2012 (UTC)
ive sorted it a while ago(just remembered to put it here) Gregory1132 ( talk) 19:58, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
In some cases NTSB clearly hiding major fails of Boeing. United Airlines Flight 811, SilkAir Flight 185 in particular. May be this should be included in an article? 91.77.242.66 ( talk) 18:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
Just above "WhisperToMe" offers his opinion, re' the USA's "independent" Safety Board, citing: "... Neutrality requires that each ... page ... fairly represent all significant viewpoints ..."
Wikipedia just can NOT do that: wiki-contributors are mostly unfamiliar with the hidden-problems interacting just ahead of the mishap, and interacting inside the "ntsb" _INVESTIGATION_. A few Wiki-folks unfamiliar with S&C, who never qualified on any airliner, simply crowded-out others who had qualified: Review that worthless wiki "April 2015 rewrite" for TWA841/4Apr79. Parallel to the actual NTSB-investigation, one wikipedia-guy became the sole arbiter of the evidence presented in that wiki-page (deleting previous).
As one investigator familiar with that case, who actually has that NTSB- docket, I'ld suggest that that Wiki-page for the TWA841/4Apr79 case be frozen-as-is: to preserve the weaknesses of the Wikipedia-method for presentation of NTSB's mishap-_INVESTIGATION_ history. IGhhGI ( talk) 16:55, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Feb'8th 2016 -- A recent exchange [obstructive-repeat undo's] highlights the weaknesses of Wiki':
Folks who haven't any background in the industry can slant the story, as in the aspect of NTSB's investigation PROCESS of The Party System --
Jim Hall, long time Chairman of the Safety Board;
The Rand Report,
IGhhGI (
talk) 13:54, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
User IGhhGI has repeatedly made the same edit to this page, which has the following substance:
NTSB's investigation process relies upon "the Party System". [1]
References
- ^ Safety in the Skies: Personnel and Parties in NTSB Aviation Accident Investigations. Santa Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2000.
I have reverted this edit multiple times, and consider it inappropriate for the following reasons:
Based on the above, this edit is inappropriate for this page. If IGhhGI (or anyone else) wants to add something about the "party system", they are welcome to do so, but should do it within WP's guidelines.
Shelbystripes (
talk) 21:30, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
Feb' 11th 2016 - - Very amusing: this guy (above) regards any mention of the "Party System", as "inappropriate".
So, that is the END of DISCUSSION:
One man can become the sole-arbiter of the history of USA's "independent" Safety Board.
Just for the record, again,
-- here's Jim Hall's comment on the Party System;
-- here's the perspective of The Rand Report.
Reader can find a more accurate description elsewhere, use the web
(other authorities do NOT rely on the USA's "party system";
and read about the
investigative "safeguards",
NTSB vs ATSB, TSB/c, AAIB.
Oh, and that
LINK to The Rand Report
IGhhGI (
talk) 17:57, 11 February 2016 (UTC)
Now you are the sole arbiter of this NTSB -page.
You could maybe learn about
the NTSB's Party System;
The Rand Rpt, (you deleted the footnote shown below);
some players who should be excluded;
and some
special status for one party.
IGhhGI (
talk) 05:54, 20 February 2016 (UTC)
?? A wiki - "contributor" ??
versus a wiki-"vandal" or Sole Arbiter
-- Tuesday Feb'23rd
You deleted information from a "contributor".
Your comments suggest that you have NO Background in this field.
Your ignorance of the NTSB's Party System suggests
that you have NEVER participated in any major accident investigation.
Perhaps you should reconsider your role:
-- don't simply delete.
Perhaps you might "contribute" some improvement to the information added?
IGhhGI (
talk) 17:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
71.35.110.159 (
talk) 17:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
A Third Opinion has been requested about "the Party System". User:Shelbystripes is correct that the insertion of an external link in the article text is contrary to Wikipedia policy. So don't do it. Aside from that, the contested text doesn't clearly explain what "the Party System" is, but as a matter of policy, just don't insert an external link. Robert McClenon ( talk) 21:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)
I just came across this discussion now. The "Party System" is explained in this pdf. A criticism of it can be found here. It is obviously an important part of NTSB investigations, and ought to be dealt with in articles. Scolaire ( talk) 12:05, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
I have gone ahead and written a new section describing the "party system". I've tried to make it balanced and to cover both its benefits and drawbacks, without letting it dominate the entire NTSB page. I hope that
IGhhGI is pleased. If it needs to be further expanded from here, it may warrant a separate Wikipedia article.
Shelbystripes (
talk) 17:12, 11 May 2016 (UTC)
Review of this MAY-2016 rewrite of the Wiki-page,
re' the USA's "independent" Safety Board:
Several crucial concepts are still missing from this page.
Do you find any mention of that unique scientific-privilege granted to USA's
NTSB -- "Unreviewable Discretion".
There is NO technical review of any NTSB-AAR:
No IG, no Review Board, no Scientific Ombudsman, is ever permitted to openly correct errs in any ntsb AAR. NTSB remains outside of the USA's OSTP-guidelines toward Scientific Integrity.
Lacking the traditional
investigative-safeguards, Who INSIDE of USA's "independent" Safety Board will
call-out "Scientific Misconduct"??
IGhhGI (
talk) 16:57, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
More HISTORY -- the NTSB's site omitted much of the history of the "independent" ASB: the 1938-1940 cross-currents, infighting, is difficult to sort.
The concept of an "independent" ASB belongs entirely to Behncke -- a man _NOT_ LOVED by industry.
I'll just add some of my notes (pre-web) -- then maybe one of you wiki-types can develop a more detailed wiki-history of the CONCEPT:
[my notes]
. . . Civil Aeronautics Act of '38 created Civil Aeronautics Administrator, 5-member Authority CAA (regulatory, economics, certificates, Airways); and on 22Aug 1938 a 3-member independent Air Safety BoardBold text established, Chairman Tom Hardin; ASB did investigation and issued recommendations. ASB abolished in reorganization effective July 1st '40. ALPA paper highlighted importance of an independent Safety Board: The Air Line Pilot Vol 16 #12, Jan'48, pg 1. See Civil Aeronautics Journal, July 15'40.]
"The third step taken by Congress [in enacting the Civil Aeronautics Act of 1938] is to provide . . . for a Safety Board charged with the duty of investigating accidents . . . The Board . . . is not permitted . . . to exercise . . . regulatory or promotional functions . . . It will stand apart, to examine coldly and dispassionately, without embarrassment, fear, or favor, the results of the work of other people." —Edgar S. Gorrell, President, Air Transport Association, 1938 [quoted by Nick A. Komons, The Cutting Air Crash: A Case Study in Early Federal Aviation Policy, Department of Transportation, Washington, D.C., 1973, p. 1.]
Some helpful sources-links: The Cutting Air Crash
Flying the Line, Vol-1, Ch9. — Preceding unsigned comment added by IGhhGI ( talk • contribs) 20:31, 31 July 2016 (UTC)