243129 CSSHEGEWISCH Somebody has an ax to grind. Pointing out an obvious contradiction/error is considered having "an ax to grind"?
CSSHEGEWISCH Somebody has an ax to grind.
Somebody has an ax to grind.
Pointing out an obvious contradiction/error is considered having "an ax to grind"?
Applies to various staff at the NTSB too. Speaking as a cynic, if there is an issue, almost everyone has an ax needing at least some grinding. Or as lawyers say with considerable truth, "It all depends on whose ox is being gored. "
OvermodClearly the NTSB has no particular interest in revising its work product.
Wouldn't the NTSB report be considered "evidence"?
As such I believe it needs to be protected "warts and all" through the entire process. You really wouldn't want evidence to be tampered with even when some well meaning samaritan phones in a correction, let alone anyone who might have a vested interest.
Kind of like the thread about the letter to the head of Amtrak. With the target surrounded by an army of well paid experts expected to have a mastery of their field, isn't it rather grandiose for John Q Public to assume that such people eagerly await input from the peanut gallery ?
CSSHEGEWISCHSomebody has an ax to grind.
No resumption of ad hominems, please. There may be a point of actual interest here.
Clearly the NTSB has no particular interest in revising its work product. What's going to be interesting is that lawyers are going to take a particular interest in this issue, and perhaps specifically in errors in the NTSB work product, at which point I somewhat grimly expect to see an increasing flood of changed versions, perhaps with hysterical accompanying letters throwing the perceived culprits under the bus. In certain government prosecutions and proceedings, dotting the 'i's and crossing the 't's in legal material is of almost NS-like preternatural importance, regardless of cost.
Probably more likely is a note from someone at NTSB over the Secretary's signature indicating that what they meant 'all along' was what is indicated (overt and tacit) in their interview results and the logical conclusions that can be drawn from them. And then the beat will go on.
I would agree, though, that this is likely not a 'smoking gun' proving nitwit incompetence at the NTSB. Although I would not be too keen on having to argue the point...
Today is October 6, 2019, and the contradiction remains in NTSB report RAB 1901 even though it has been directly reported, by me via telephone May 2019, to NTSB.
Why am I not surprised?
After the impact, at 11:18 p.m., the engineer placed the train into emergency braking, announced emergency three times on the radio,
According to the event recorder and the engineer interview, the Amtrak engineer responded immediately and applied emergency braking upon seeing the CSX employees walking near the tracks.
FYI: Event recorders cannot sense impact.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.