Article: ...the CAIB charter "just doesn't pass the smell test."

Here's an old article criticizing lack of independence in CAIB:

http://www.space.com/missionlaunches...on_030616.html

Excerpts:
______

The lawmaker [Rep.Bart Gordon] has been less than pleased with the
internal intricacies of the Columbia Accident Investigation Board
(CAIB). Gordon warned NASA earlier this year that the CAIB charter
"just doesn't pass the smell test."


"I still don't understand why NASA believes it can adequately
investigate itself and produce a report the public will accept."


Leaving investigations up to ad hoc procedures, internal agency rules
and self-appointed boards will eventually break the vital public trust
that this national undertaking relies on," Representative Gordon
warned.
______


~ CT

Leaving investigations up to ad hoc procedures, internal agency rules
and self-appointed boards will eventually break the vital public trust
that this national undertaking relies on," Representative Gordon
warned.

I have only read about half of the 248 page initial volume of the
report, and I have to say that so far I think the CAIB has done a very
rigourous and frank job of it.

They are very critical of NASA management and engineering methodology
(or lack of) in many areas, where such criticism is reasonable.
Particularly in the following areas:

- Failure to recognize the signals of potential foam-related disaster
from incidents over the years - specifically regarding the left bi-pod
ramp, with some such incidents being missed on previous examination of
launch footage;

- The failure to properly rigourously assess the danger from an
engineering standpoint when such assessment was possible;

- The ignoring of specifications regarding no foam impacts being
allowed on the Orbiter.

I think the only addition I would make is that all of the CAIB's
recommendations be binded by law.

The lack of independence is suspect and unfortunate, but so far I
don't see the CAIB report being anything less than thorough and
complete.

From Sal Bruno:
snip
The lack of independence is suspect and unfortunate, but so far I
don't see the CAIB report being anything less than thorough and
complete.

I would agree that the report is very methodically done.

But Hal Gehman being critical of Sean O'Keefe would be biting the hand
that feeds him. It was Sean O'Keefe's obligation to call a stand down
after the STS-112 SOFI impact. -112 was the Russian roulette bullet
wizzing past NASA's head, and they kept on clicking.

CAIB weighs heavily on Dan Goldin, but I've seen little criticism of
NASA's current leader. It's ironic to see O'Keefe field questions
regarding accountability of those who were under him when he falls way
short on accountability himself.

Another key reason why I stop short of calling CAIBv1 "thorough" is
that it has no mention of the planned upgrade to strengthen the
shuttle's Wing Leading Edges that got cancelled in the late 90s. Here
again, O'Keefe had the obligation to review past administration
decisions to check funding priorities. He had the opportunity to
apply correction.

Gehman had the opportunity to report on this.


~ CT

(Stuf4) wrote:

From Sal Bruno:
snip
The lack of independence is suspect and unfortunate, but so far I
don't see the CAIB report being anything less than thorough and
complete.

I would agree that the report is very methodically done.
CAIB weighs heavily on Dan Goldin, but I've seen little criticism of
NASA's current leader.

Quite likely because the problems predate the current leader by a very
large margin, and he has had little opportunity to change those
situations.

Another key reason why I stop short of calling CAIBv1 "thorough" is
that it has no mention of the planned upgrade to strengthen the
shuttle's Wing Leading Edges that got cancelled in the late 90s.

It probably fails to mention it, because it's presence would not have
prevented the damage that killed Columbia.

D.
--
The STS-107 Columbia Loss FAQ can be found
at the following URLs:

Text-Only Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq.html

Enhanced HTML Version:
http://www.io.com/~o_m/columbia_loss_faq_x.html

Corrections, comments, and additions should be
e-mailed to , as well as posted to
sci.space.history and sci.space.shuttle for
discussion.