4 ms·
I still think it's ideologically consistent with insulating companies from externalities. Without official investigations, companies can assert their own inter
by rectang 1y ago
I still think it's ideologically consistent with insulating companies from externalities. Without official investigations, companies can assert their own interpretations of events. Boeing did this with the NTSB recently:
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boeing-punished-by-ntsb-for-releasing-information-about-737-max-investigation/ar-BB1p1cYp https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/boeing-punished-by-ntsb-fo...
- mulmen 1y agoOk but the NTSB's response was to refer to DOJ because NTSB has no teeth.
- throwaway173738 1y agoIn a hazard investigation you don’t want the investigators to have teeth. It’s not about finding wrongdoing it’s about determining what happened and how to avoid it in the future. If a company takes negligent actions referring to DOJ should be enough.
- mulmen 1y ago> In a hazard investigation you don’t want the investigators to have teeth. Did I say I want the NTSB to have teeth? > Without official investigations, companies can assert their own interpretations of events. They can do this with investigations too. Just as Boeing did. NTSB can't do anything about it. The "punishment" was a referral to DOJ who can.