Talk:National Transportation Safety Board

Accidents table
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)


 * There are several lists linked from Aviation accidents and incidents. -- Beland 16:53, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Board members of the NTSB
Four members of the NTSB are shown on the official website: 

Their names should be included in the article. Links to biographical articles would be very desirable. --DThomsen8 (talk) 20:43, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

✅, 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)

Archives
WhisperToMe (talk) 04:54, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/agency_reports/SPC0003.pdf
 * http://www.webcitation.org/5zkJQD0i0

NTSB Site links not valid
links to the ntsb's website are no longer valid Where's My Cheese?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)

Controversy
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)
 * I think those articles do a good enough job, and in the case of SilkAir 185 one of the Indonesian investigators went on Mayday to say that the Indonesian side was making a coverup, not the American side. It's all about WP:UNDUE, making sure coverage is proportionate to the importance to the subject. WhisperToMe (talk) 15:40, 15 September 2014 (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)

Slant
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)

"The Party System"
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".

I have reverted this edit multiple times, and consider it inappropriate for the following reasons:


 * The phrase "NTSB's investigation process relies upon the Party System" does not explain at all what the "Party System" is or why it is relevant, forcing users to follow an external link to learn context.


 * The sentence includes an inline citation, which violates WP:CITE and its clear rule: "Embedded links should never be used to place external links in the content of an article".


 * The external source that people are being driven to is a photo slideshow, which is wholly inappropriate and unreliable. There is a citation to a report by the RAND Corporation also, but this is not available online (or at least not linked online), which results in driving confused readers to the photo slideshow.

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)
 * IGhhGI, I never said that I regard any mention of the "party system" as inappropriate. If you want to add a description of what the "party system" is, one that actually explains what the "party system" is or why it's relevant enough to deserve mention, please feel free to do so.  However, that's not what you've been doing.  If you want it in the page, write an actual description of what it is!  Expand the page with actual knowledge!  Links/citations are there for backup, to confirm what you've written is accurate, but the reader shouldn't need to follow any links to understand what the "party system" is.  You have to actually describe it in the page, adding links to other things that describe it is not enough.  That just isn't how Wikipedia works. Shelbystripes (talk) 02:56, 12 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)


 * Once again, if you want to write up an actual description of "the party system" and add it to the NTSB page, please do so. I'm not the "sole arbiter" of anything, I'm just insisting that you follow Wikipedia's standard policies.  You are welcome to add something to the page, if you write it in the format that Wikipedia uses.  Shelbystripes (talk) 04:25, 21 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)


 * You are the one that wants to add it, not me. Part of maintaining Wikipedia is making sure that people follow the style and formatting pages.  It is never okay to put in an inline hyperlink to an external source into the main article body.  Citations need to be added using tags.  That's it.  You don't embed links into the article text.  This isn't a sole arbiter thing, it's a standing Wikipedia rule.  You need to contribute to Wikipedia following Wikipedia's basic formatting standards.  Shelbystripes (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Third Opinion
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)

Useful links
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)
 * Scolaire, to be clear, I have no objection to the subject matter itself. If someone wants to actually add a new section that explains "the party system" as well as criticism toward it, they're welcome to do so.  I have tried to make clear that I am not opposed to this kind of information being added.  My only concern is that they do so properly, in accordance with WP:MOS, and in a way that makes sense to the reader.  The objection here is not the subject matter of "the party system", it's the improper way of addressing it. Shelbystripes (talk) 17:14, 11 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I was clear about that, thanks. I was simply leaving the links there so that you or somebody else could do the edit. This is not my area of expertise. Scolaire (talk) 18:45, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

Addition of new section
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)