agent-maroon said:
Quote:
Anyone who has paid attention to NTSB investigations knows the biggest ones can take 1-3 years to produce the final report, but they will issue multiple interim reports as the investigation progresses.
Don't doubt for a minute that you're correct, but why does it take that long? Ship loses power then ship hits the bridge. Figure out why the ship lost power and BOOM, generate your report.
Thank God it doesn't take an auto mechanic this long to figure out a problem or we would all be walking...
Here's the difference...
What you want:
1. Why did the car explode?
2. Car was rear ended.
What the NTSB does:
1. Why did the car explode?
2. Car was rear ended.
3a. Why was the car rear ended?
3b. How was the car rear ended? What was the relative speed? Angle of impact? Height differential between cars?
3c. Was the type of collision designed for? If not, why not? If so, what was the intended safe outcome?
3d. What is the chain of events that caused the explosion as opposed to the intended safe outcome?
4a. Another driver was not paying attention.
4b. The second vehicle struck the rear end at a relative speed between 25mph and 30mph at an angle of approximately 2 degrees of center of the driver's side based on crumple patterns of the body panels and frame. The center of the bumper of the second car was 1 inch higher than the rear bumper of the car that was struck. (See attached figures 1-7)
4c. This type of collision was designed for. The intended outcome was for the bumper shock absorbers and trunk crumple zone to increase the collision time and absorb the force of the impact to protect the occupants. (See attached figures 8-11)
4d. The bumper shock absorbers are assumed to have worked as intended upon being struck. They were found in a fully depressed position and pinned by wreckage of the frame and trunk. A piece of debris from the trunk bottom panel was found to have pierced the top of the gas tank of the struck vehicle (See attached photos 1-6). Additionally, a the driver's side bolts attaching the gas track support strap were found to have been sheared off, possibly contributing to the piercing by debris from the trunk (See attached photos 7-9). Exposed gasoline vapors were ignited by heat energy from the collision itself or heat from the engine of the second vehicle.
5a. What was the cause of distraction for the second driver? How prevalent is this distraction? How prevalent are distractions in general? What preventative measures can be taken to mitigate this situation in the future?
5c. Was the design adequately tested to ensure the intended outcome? Was this type of collision included in testing? What are the current standards surrounding this type of collision?
5d. What is the likelihood of this chain of events being repeated under similar conditions? Was this possibility understood during design and testing? Why or why not? What preventative measures could be taken to prevent this chain of events in the future?
6. Etc
7. Etc
8. Etc
While the above would fall more under the NHTSA, the NTSB reports are similar in scope and depth, and that's why we have some of the safest and yet most affordable transportation in the world.