4 ms·
Sometimes I read NTSB reports for fun. It's a pleasure to read such well-thought-out analyses that perfectly straddle technical minutia dissection with layman a
by dvt 7y ago
Sometimes I read NTSB reports for fun. It's a pleasure to read such well-thought-out analyses that perfectly straddle technical minutia dissection with layman accessibility. In my opinion, it's the pinnacle of technical writing. It's also incredibly important work: these kinds of reports have made air travel magnitudes safer than it was just 50 years ago.
- wuunderbar 7y agoAre there any particular reports you found most interesting? Can you provide a link?
- metanoia 7y agoAny of these, these are major investigations carried out by the NTSB: https://huntlibrary.erau.edu/collections/aerospace-and-aviation-reports/ntsb/aircraft-accident-reports https://huntlibrary.erau.edu/collections/aerospace-and-aviat...
- dvt 7y agoThe Galloping Ghost is one of my favorites: https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAB1201.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/... It's a terrible accident (that happened during an air show/race), but the work that went into figuring out exactly what went wrong and where is awe-inspiring. Also a very interesting (but tragic) story from a human standpoint. Here's the video of the accident: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyWUTXuXjr0 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JyWUTXuXjr0 (No gore, but still: viewer discretion advised. Eleven people lost their lives and sixty-nine were injured.)
- AceyMan 7y agoThis one from 2004 involves a modern regional jet (Bombardier RJ) dead-stick crashing on a reposition flight. The crew's decision-making & remedial actions boggle the mind. I'd call it a case study in horrendous pilotage. Thankfully, no innocents died. https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/AAR0701.pdf https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/...
- tialaramex 7y agoA full decision in a good court case is pretty interesting to read too. A judge working through exactly why, in this particular scenario, they have decided to reach the decision they did. For example Baskin v Bogan + Wolf v Walker (State appeals on Gay Marriage before a Circuit Court that decided to bundle together both cases since they essentially go "Yeah, but, gay marriage doesn't make babies, so it makes sense we don't allow it") http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D09-04/C:14-2526:J:Posner:aut:T:fnOp:N:1412339:S:0 http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Disp... Now there are two much more famous "Gay Marriage" cases in the US, before the US Supreme Court. The problem is, those decisions are garbage. Windsor is "good" only in that it had the effect Gay Marriage proponents wanted, but the arguments offered by all the justices on both sides feel like weak excuses. Scalia seems to be desperately reaching for reasons why it's OK to do something manifestly unfair that he happens to support, Kennedy and the majority have to do mental gymnastics to explain why a case where one side has no real standing is even allowed to proceed to a decision in the first place (the real reason being: So they can decide in favour of Windsor) Much older, but very interesting for this reason and with great benefit that it doesn't involve any politics you might worry taint your understanding, would be Carlill v Carbolic Smoke Ball Company in England. Read as three of the best legal minds essentially /invent/ modern contract law to find a path for how to get Mrs Carlill her money from the scumbags who lied to her about their bogus cure for the flu.
- dvt 7y agoAgreed. I listen to SCOTUS oral arguments all the time on Oyez!