3 ms·

This is a really interesting point you bring up. I think the issue is that we look at air travel as inherently risky and as such want to do everything to reduc

This is a really interesting point you bring up. I think the issue is that we look at air travel as inherently risky and as such want to do everything to reduce risk. Over the past 100 years we've come to deeply understand risk management in the space and as such are careful to only assign blame in cases of blatant negligence (he wasn't IFR rated but flew into the side of a mountain while in a cloud) while treating other accidents as learning opportunities (Ok, the pilot fucked up but the MU-2 handles differently than most planes, we should require more training in type...). The industry also had it's fair share of litigious behavior but it was generally recognized that it wasn't productive and legislation has since attempted to keep it at bay with varying degrees of effectiveness It makes me wonder why similar practices aren't followed in the medical field...

maxxxxx 9y ago
In my view the medical boards should have a nationwide malpractice insurance that investigates, pays out quickly to the patient and then decides if procedures need to be improved or the doctor needs to be reprimanded. But as with everything else in the US medical system there is a lot of money to be made with the current status quo so nothing will change.
- pdelbarba 9y ago
  Couldn't agree more. The FAA-NTSB-NASA relationship doing the same thing works extremely well in the aerospace sector. The FAA creates the rules, NTSB investigates accidents and NASA handles "near miss" reporting, all working to eliminate conflict of interest. All of this creates a nice closed feedback loop. It's not without it's flaws but the fact that you can hurl yourself through the stratosphere in an aluminum tube and essentially be statistically assured survival is nothing short of miraculous, especially when compared to the early days of aviation.
tialaramex 9y ago
Note that accident investigators, including the FAA are NOT interested in blame. They are about preventing future harm which is different. As a result the accident report is specifically protected in law so that you can't use it as evidence for a lawsuit. Medics have a mechanism for preventing future harm too, it's called a mortality & morbidity conference or M&M. Again it isn't interested in assigning blame and mustn't be used as evidence in a lawsuit.

maxxxxx 9y ago

In my view the medical boards should have a nationwide malpractice insurance that investigates, pays out quickly to the patient and then decides if procedures need to be improved or the doctor needs to be reprimanded. But as with everything else in the US medical system there is a lot of money to be made with the current status quo so nothing will change.

pdelbarba 9y ago
Couldn't agree more. The FAA-NTSB-NASA relationship doing the same thing works extremely well in the aerospace sector. The FAA creates the rules, NTSB investigates accidents and NASA handles "near miss" reporting, all working to eliminate conflict of interest. All of this creates a nice closed feedback loop. It's not without it's flaws but the fact that you can hurl yourself through the stratosphere in an aluminum tube and essentially be statistically assured survival is nothing short of miraculous, especially when compared to the early days of aviation.

tialaramex 9y ago

Note that accident investigators, including the FAA are NOT interested in blame. They are about preventing future harm which is different. As a result the accident report is specifically protected in law so that you can't use it as evidence for a lawsuit. Medics have a mechanism for preventing future harm too, it's called a mortality & morbidity conference or M&M. Again it isn't interested in assigning blame and mustn't be used as evidence in a lawsuit.