A aviation & planes forum. AviationBanter

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » AviationBanter forum » rec.aviation newsgroups » Piloting
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

NTSB



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Prev Previous Post   Next Post Next
  #15  
Old June 30th 04, 08:43 PM
John Galban
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

(Michael) wrote in message . com...

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)
 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
NTSB: USAF included? Larry Dighera Piloting 10 September 11th 05 11:33 AM
Looking for a See and Avoid NTSB report Ace Pilot Piloting 2 June 10th 04 02:01 PM
Learning from NTSB reports Roger Long Piloting 23 December 1st 03 03:15 PM
This month's issue of NTSB Reporter Peter R. Piloting 4 November 28th 03 01:31 AM
NTSB 830.5 & 830.15? Mike Noel Owning 2 July 8th 03 06:51 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:05 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2025 AviationBanter.
The comments are property of their posters.