NTSB

[EDR]

NTSB reports, where the FAA were the investigators, are notorious for
their inaccuracies. The NTSB change the original facts quite often. The
FAA inspectors are just as frustrated as you are when they point out
the incorrect facts and the NTSB refuses to correct them.
This is probably why NTSB reports cannot be used in trials.

[Peter Duniho]

"Colin Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> [...]
> I am a few hours away from my commercial checkride, and then I want to
> do the instructor rating... Has this wrecked my career before I finished
> my training?

Seems to me that the FAA enforcement action(s), if any, is what would affect
your career. Even if you did cause the accident, I doubt that would have
wrecked your career, and since the FAA held your instructor to blame, I
don't see why it'd have any significant effect at all.

[Ditch]

>Is it likely to affect my career at all?

Nope....I have an accident on my record..two actually. One was my fault and one
was NOT my fault. I'm flying for a living.
As for the NTSB, they could care less about the facts.
On my 2nd accident (the one that was my fault), they decided not to use pretty
much anything that was in my report to them and the FAA's report...hell, there
was even video and they still got it wrong. Oh well.

But, when you interview for a job in flying, just be honest about it and things
fall into place.


-John
*You are nothing until you have flown a Douglas, Lockheed, Grumman or North
American*

[Newps]

"Colin Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> EDR wrote:
> > NTSB reports, where the FAA were the investigators, are notorious for
> > their inaccuracies. The NTSB change the original facts quite often. The
> > FAA inspectors are just as frustrated as you are when they point out
> > the incorrect facts and the NTSB refuses to correct them.
> > This is probably why NTSB reports cannot be used in trials.
>
> Is it likely to affect my career at all?

No and when you are asked if you ever had an accident the answer is no. The
FAA considered the instructor to be PIC, that's why he had to have another
checkride.

[Gary Drescher]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
>
> NTSB reports, where the FAA were the investigators, are notorious for
> their inaccuracies. The NTSB change the original facts quite often. The
> FAA inspectors are just as frustrated as you are when they point out
> the incorrect facts and the NTSB refuses to correct them.
> This is probably why NTSB reports cannot be used in trials.

I'd assume NTSB reports would be inadmissible regardless of their
reliability, because they're hearsay, not evidence.

--Gary

[Michael]

EDR > wrote
> NTSB reports, where the FAA were the investigators, are notorious for
> their inaccuracies. The NTSB change the original facts quite often. The
> FAA inspectors are just as frustrated as you are when they point out
> the incorrect facts and the NTSB refuses to correct them.

Over the years I've been involved in general aviation, I've had
first-hand knowledge of quite a few accidents and incidents that
eventually wound up in the NTSB database (and some that should have
but did not). Reading the report after the fact, I find that
inaccuracies are the norm. In fact, some of them read like a work of
fiction.

> This is probably why NTSB reports cannot be used in trials.

No, there are other reasons. Nonetheless, based on my experience I
consider NTSB reports to be just slightly more accurate than news
reports.

Michael

[kontiki]

Colin Taylor wrote:

> If I was asked this question, I would say I was *in* an accident, but
> not the primary input at the controls at the time.
> Technically, I was PIC (for the logbook) cos I held a PPL at the time,
> although I was undergoing further instruction in that flight.
>

If you held a PPL at the time I believe you and the instructor can
both log PIC time during instruction, unless you are receiving instruction
for an aircraft category/class/type that you have not yet been signed
off for, then only the instructor is the PIC and can log it.

As far as who is the REAL PIC in the event of an accident, I believe
the FAA places a greater burden on the instructor since HE has been
trained and licensed to insure the training is safe and risks are minimized.

[john smith]

Michael wrote:
> Over the years I've been involved in general aviation, I've had
> first-hand knowledge of quite a few accidents and incidents that
> eventually wound up in the NTSB database (and some that should have
> but did not). Reading the report after the fact, I find that
> inaccuracies are the norm. In fact, some of them read like a work of
> fiction.

Like the JFK report, for instance?

[BTIZ]

its not the NTSB reports that count.. it's what is in your pilot folder at
FAA OKC that matters.. if they did not require you to retake a ride with the
FAA and sent you no letters to that effect.. or findings.. then it is a moot
point.. keep a copy of all FAA correspondence

press on.. fly safe.. and learn from it

BT

"Colin Taylor" > wrote in message
...
> EDR wrote:
> > NTSB reports, where the FAA were the investigators, are notorious for
> > their inaccuracies. The NTSB change the original facts quite often. The
> > FAA inspectors are just as frustrated as you are when they point out
> > the incorrect facts and the NTSB refuses to correct them.
> > This is probably why NTSB reports cannot be used in trials.
>
> Is it likely to affect my career at all?
>
> I am a few hours away from my commercial checkride, and then I want to
> do the instructor rating... Has this wrecked my career before I finished
> my training?
>
> Colin

[C J Campbell]

"EDR" > wrote in message
...
>
> This is probably why NTSB reports cannot be used in trials.

NTSB reports are inadmissible in trials by statute. Otherwise lawyers would
continually interfere with the investigation.

[C J Campbell]

"john smith" > wrote in message
...
> Michael wrote:
> > Over the years I've been involved in general aviation, I've had
> > first-hand knowledge of quite a few accidents and incidents that
> > eventually wound up in the NTSB database (and some that should have
> > but did not). Reading the report after the fact, I find that
> > inaccuracies are the norm. In fact, some of them read like a work of
> > fiction.
>
> Like the JFK report, for instance?
>

The JFK report seems fairly reasonable.

[Colin Taylor]

Hi everyone

Last year, I was doing flight training in the US, and was involved in an
accident where the helicopter contacted the floor during a steep turn in
an air taxi manouver.

The instructor was new, 300 hours total time. He was at the controls at
the time of the accident, and the flight was a brief tour of the local
sights as he was new to the area. I had just passed my PPL and was on my
way to commercial, I had 120+ hours total time, 80+ hours PIC, at the
time of the accident.

During the turns, we were starting at around 50ft AGL, and were losing
altitude to around 5ft AGL coming out of the turn.

On the last turn (to the right), the right skid made contact with the
floor, and a rollover ensued, destroying the helicopter.

We were interviewed bby the FAA, and gave an account of the above
events. The instructor wasw required to take a checkride again, and has
moved on to another school (I believe - he left anyway).

However, the NSTB report for the accident states quite clearly that *I*
("the student pilot") was the one who initiated the manouver. It quite
clearly wasn't - the instructor was in control and I was following on
the dual controls.

The NTSB aren't very interested in changing this to the truth, saying
"it won't change anything".

How can I get them to listen?

Whether or not it will make a difference, I would like the TRUTH to be
on there. Believe me - I'd be doing the same if I had made the mistake
and the instructor was blamed.

Colin

[EDR]

In article >, C J Campbell
> wrote:

> "john smith" > wrote in message
> ...
> > Michael wrote:
> > > Over the years I've been involved in general aviation, I've had
> > > first-hand knowledge of quite a few accidents and incidents that
> > > eventually wound up in the NTSB database (and some that should have
> > > but did not). Reading the report after the fact, I find that
> > > inaccuracies are the norm. In fact, some of them read like a work of
> > > fiction.
> >
> > Like the JFK report, for instance?
> >
>
> The JFK report seems fairly reasonable.

Sanitized is the word I use.

[Colin Taylor]

EDR wrote:
> NTSB reports, where the FAA were the investigators, are notorious for
> their inaccuracies. The NTSB change the original facts quite often. The
> FAA inspectors are just as frustrated as you are when they point out
> the incorrect facts and the NTSB refuses to correct them.
> This is probably why NTSB reports cannot be used in trials.

Is it likely to affect my career at all?

I am a few hours away from my commercial checkride, and then I want to
do the instructor rating... Has this wrecked my career before I finished
my training?

Colin

[Colin Taylor]

Newps wrote:
> "Colin Taylor" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>EDR wrote:
>>
>>>NTSB reports, where the FAA were the investigators, are notorious for
>>>their inaccuracies. The NTSB change the original facts quite often. The
>>>FAA inspectors are just as frustrated as you are when they point out
>>>the incorrect facts and the NTSB refuses to correct them.
>>>This is probably why NTSB reports cannot be used in trials.
>>
>>Is it likely to affect my career at all?
>
>
> No and when you are asked if you ever had an accident the answer is no. The
> FAA considered the instructor to be PIC, that's why he had to have another
> checkride.
>
>

If I was asked this question, I would say I was *in* an accident, but
not the primary input at the controls at the time.
Technically, I was PIC (for the logbook) cos I held a PPL at the time,
although I was undergoing further instruction in that flight.

I was worried that given enough information (such as location/tail
number) a future employer might do some investigation and find the NTSB
report, but the truth is exactly the opposite of the NTSB report. I'm
worried that the employer might think I am a compulsive liar into the deal?

For those of you that are interested, here's the heli:
http://nigni.com/cellar/heli.jpg
Both myself and the instructor walked away from this, and neither of us
needed hospital treatment.

Colin

[John Galban]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
>
> Over the years I've been involved in general aviation, I've had
> first-hand knowledge of quite a few accidents and incidents that
> eventually wound up in the NTSB database (and some that should have
> but did not). Reading the report after the fact, I find that
> inaccuracies are the norm. In fact, some of them read like a work of
> fiction.

I couldn't agree more. After reading the NTSB report on my
accident, I no longer read the reports and think "what was that guy
thinking?" afterwards. It's safer to assume that it didn't happen the
way the report said it did.

My investigation was actually done by airframe and powerplant reps
working for the NTSB (no FAA guys involved). They were extremely
thorough and went the extra mile during the investigation. While
initially, they were leaning towards the ubiquitous "failure to detect
carb ice", which they tend to do if they can't find other evidence for
an engine failure, they kept at it and eventually found that my carb
had actually come apart in flight. The FAA was fine with that and
took no action. When the report came out, it bore little resemblance
to anything that I had told the investigators, or anything that the
investigators had told me or the FAA.

Ultimately, my report was a victim of politics. At the time, the
NTSB was pushing the FAA to issue an AD on the two-piece venturi in
most Marvel-Schebler carbs. The FAA wasn't ready to do that. Someone
up the NTSB chain took my report and magically changed the cause of
the failure to support the proposed AD that the NTSB was pushing for.
I, the FAA rep, and the NTSB reps all know that there was no venturi
failure in my carb. When the bottom half of the carb detaches itself
from the top half of the carb, they type of venturi doesn't make much
difference.

While it is often touted that the NTSB is a totally impartial and
independent body, it's also true that they have their own agendas.
Independence alone doesn't make them impartial. They're still part of
a bureacracy.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Colin Taylor]

kontiki wrote:
> ....
> As far as who is the REAL PIC in the event of an accident, I believe
> the FAA places a greater burden on the instructor since HE has been
> trained and licensed to insure the training is safe and risks are
> minimized.
>

Yes, I had also heard that the istructor is ultimately to blame for such
incidents, as the instructor "failed to take corrective action".

It's annoying though - we lost altitude in all the steep turns, and to
be honest, it felt wrong, and i was scared, but decided the instructor
know what he was doing.

The instructor had only flown R22 Beta II helicopters before - and we
were in an R22 Beta - it has less HP than the Beta II, and therefore,
when he set the required MAP for the turn, the actual HP was
insufficient to hold us up, so we not only loft altitude, but were
slipping in the turn! I noticed it, and we talked about it afterwards,
and he didn't know the difference in power between the two models.

Lesson learnt: question EVERYTHING!

Colin

[Michael]

john smith > wrote
> Like the JFK report, for instance?

I have no first-hand knowledge of the JFK accident. However, the
report (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&key=1)
looks pretty reasonable to me in terms of what it says. Realize that
this is no ordinary GA accident - it was very high profile, and
probably received resources normally allocated to airline accidents.
I would not expect it to contain obvious inaccuracies.

Michael

[John Galban]

(Michael) wrote in message >...
> john smith > wrote
> > Like the JFK report, for instance?
>
> I have no first-hand knowledge of the JFK accident. However, the
> report (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001212X19354&key=1)
> looks pretty reasonable to me in terms of what it says. Realize that
> this is no ordinary GA accident - it was very high profile, and
> probably received resources normally allocated to airline accidents.
> I would not expect it to contain obvious inaccuracies.
>
I'm not even sure if I trust them on the high profile stuff. The
United 811 (747 that lost a cargo door) investigation was pretty bad.
The NTSB refused to amend their original verdict until cargo doors
started opening themselves on the ramp.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

[Tom Sixkiller]

"John Galban" > wrote in message
om...
>
> While it is often touted that the NTSB is a totally impartial and
> independent body, it's also true that they have their own agendas.
> Independence alone doesn't make them impartial. They're still part of
> a bureacracy.
>
But John!! They're government employee's -- THEY CARE!! :~)

[Michael]

(John Galban) wrote
> I'm not even sure if I trust them on the high profile stuff. The
> United 811 (747 that lost a cargo door) investigation was pretty bad.
> The NTSB refused to amend their original verdict until cargo doors
> started opening themselves on the ramp.

I think (and I admit that I could be wrong) that on the high profile
stuff, a reasonable job is done most of the time. There are just too
many players involved to gloss over stuff, and sufficient resources
are avilable to do it right. There will always be screwups and
political pressure, but I suspect that in the high profile cases there
is enough pressure from all sides and no real cost constraint, so
usually a reasonable job is done. Also, when there is a screwup,
people keep pushing and it is possible to reopen the investigation.

In the low-profile GA stuff, it's the good report that's exceptional.
In my experience (and that's some half-dozen accidents/incidents where
I have first hand knowledge) it has not ever happened.

Like you, I no longer consider NTSB reports particularly educational.
Whenever I read one where the pilot's actions make no sense, I no
longer wonder what the pilot was thinking. I wonder what really
happened, and how the NTSB managed to screw it up.

Michael

[Dave S]

C J Campbell wrote:

> "EDR" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>This is probably why NTSB reports cannot be used in trials.
>
>
> NTSB reports are inadmissible in trials by statute. Otherwise lawyers would
> continually interfere with the investigation.
>
>
However, is the testimony of the investigator admissible? And, how would
the admissibility allow lawyers to interfere? I dont see how it could be
so.. at least not right off the bat..

Dave

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave S wrote:
>
> However, is the testimony of the investigator admissible?

Sort of. The problem is that the NTSB farms out the actual investigation to experts
in the area. These experts typically are provided by the manufacturers. For example,
if the accident aircraft had a Lycoming engine, a Lycoming rep would check the engine
out and report problems found and whether or not it was putting out power at the time
of the crash.

> And, how would
> the admissibility allow lawyers to interfere?

Can you imagine what a lawyer would imply about the impartiability and veracity of a
Lycoming rep testifying about the condition of a Lycoming engine?

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.