The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) is something you hear about often in the aviation world. Its role in transportation safety is essential, which is why it’s important to understand what the agency is – and what it explicitly is not. Let’s start from the beginning.

The National Transportation Safety Board’s story begins in 1926, when Congress assigned the U.S. Department of Commerce the responsibility of investigating aircraft accidents. That authority shifted over the years until 1967, when Congress concluded that accident investigations should be the sole responsibility of a singular agency. Thus, the NTSB was established within the larger Department of Transportation (DOT).

But Congress soon saw a deeper issue: you can’t have the same department both promoting and policing transportation. In 1974, they took this commitment and reestablished the NTSB as an entirely solo entity outside the DOT. They reasoned that no agency can properly carry out such investigatory functions, "unless it is totally separate and independent."

And so, the NTSB as we know it became totally independent on April 1st, 1975. Since then, they have investigated more than 153,000 aviation accidents along with thousands of other transportation incidents in highway, marine, pipeline, and railroad transportation as well as those involving the transportation of hazardous material. For the last 30 years the NTSB has also been involved in commercial space investigations. They have issued over 15,500 safety recommendations – all guided by one mission: learn what went wrong and stop it from happening again.

Equally as important is understanding what the NTSB does not do. It does not determine fault, blame, or criminal liability; its focus is exclusively on safety. It is also distinct from the FAA, a common point of confusion. While the FAA is tasked with regulation and enforcement, the NTSB investigates and recommends. The NTSB has no regulatory authority; it can only make recommendations based on safety principles.

Behind the scenes, the NTSB operates through a carefully structured organization. It is guided by five Board Members, each nominated by the President and confirmed by the Senate to serve five-year terms. One of these members serves as Chairman and another as Vice Chairman – each for three years. Supporting the Board is a staff of roughly 440 people, divided among specialized offices which carry out the day-to-day investigative work.

The Chairman is the Board’s chief executive officer and the chief administrative officer who manages investigations, employees, and an annual budget of approximately $150 million. Since 2021 the position has been held by Jennifer Homendy. This is a tiny entity compared to almost any other federal government agency.

Prior to Homendy, Robert Sumwalt held the position from August 2017 to June 2021. Sumwalt now serves as the Executive Director of the Boeing Center for Aviation and Aerospace Safety at Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University. This center, while independent from Boeing, was renamed following a Boeing donation of $5.1 million. Sumwalt did not leave the NTSB for a position at Boeing. But his next employer certainly benefited from a large Boeing donation.

Although on paper the NTSB structure makes perfect sense, it is very dependent on industry representatives for technical support. This is primarily due to the minimal staff within the NTSB. With less than 500 people in total the organization simply doesn’t have the in-house staff necessary to carry out complex investigations in multiple transportation modes. This dependence requires organizations such as Boeing, Airbus, GE, and many other industry players to be named as parties to investigations conducted within the U.S. In the case of international investigations, the NTSB would be named an accredited representative if the aircraft involved is U.S. made or registered, a U.S. airline is involved, or U.S. citizens are fatally injured. NTSB investigators would then be involved in assistance roles and could then name industry partners as technical advisors. Some would say this relationship is vital to the success of each investigation. Others would say this essentially invites the investigated entities to be part of the investigation and amounts to a clear conflict of interest.

The relationship between the NTSB and FAA is also problematic. The overlap is impossible to ignore. The NTSB routinely investigates FAA actions, even issuing safety recommendations to them. At the same time, the FAA is routinely named a party to aviation investigations. This presents a difficult challenge as the NTSB must remain independent in all circumstances and follow the evidence wherever it takes them. How practical is that when they might be investigating those who are part of the investigation? Even the appearance of a conflict of interest can cause serious harm to any investigation and the entity conducting it.

The Foundation for Aviation Safety has called for a complete overhaul of the international aircraft accident investigation process. We covered this in October’s Aviation Watchdog Report. The current system was developed decades ago and is vulnerable to influence from the industry it investigates along with political and media pressures. Any new process must emphasize transparency, collaboration, and independent analysis, enabling global experts to contribute in near real-time. It is understood that the NTSB has valid reasons for keeping analysis and initial conclusions from the public while investigations are underway. In fact, in June 2024, the NTSB sanctioned Boeing for “blatantly violating” its agreement by disclosing non-public details and speculating about the cause of the 737 MAX 9 door plug blowout. But this policy should not prohibit the release of facts that are known to investigators early in the investigation. Clear evidence such as CVR and FDR information along with precise timelines could be released. Conversely, selectively worded descriptions and paraphrasing of actions taken along with the “bread crumbing” of information such as what occurred in the Air India 171 initial investigation report only serve to confuse people, implicate, and encourage speculation.

These incestuous relationships between the NTSB and industry representatives presents opportunity for influence in investigations. In 2022 Boeing submitted comments to the Ethiopian draft ET302 Aircraft Accident Investigation Report. Even though Boeing intentionally concealed the existence of MCAS (and later pleaded guilty to defrauding the FAA) they continued to blame the pilots for the accident. As technical advisors to this investigation they were prohibited from being involved in findings or conclusions. However, they did attempt to cast blame on the pilots by making these comments to the NTSB. In part, their comments included:

We propose that the probable cause in the final report present the following causal factors to fully reflect the circumstances of this accident:

• ‍uncommanded airplane-nose-down inputs from the MCAS due to erroneous AOA values and
• the flight crew’s inadequate use of manual electric trim and management of thrust to maintain airplane control.  

The Foundation for Aviation Safety has also made very clear that the NTSB currently refuses to share Boeing and FAA documents with the Ethiopian Investigator-In-Charge (IIC) of the ET302 crash despite the request to do so from the Ethiopians. This violates ICAO Annex 13 rules and makes a mockery of what should be international cooperation to find the truth behind the crashes. It is not up to the NTSB to make a determination as to the relevance of these documents to the investigation. That falls to the IIC, yet he cannot make that determination without the NTSB formally providing the documents.

To be fair, industry experience and expertise are vital to accurate and complete investigations. But inclusion of these entities directly in the investigation opens a very big can of worms. Yes, there are specific roles and restrictions placed on the parties, accredited representatives, and technical advisors. But what really goes on behind the scenes? A new system that includes independent experts, more transparency, and can better guarantee the integrity of all investigations is vital. After all, the NTSB was born from the belief that safety oversight works best when it is entirely separate. With the interconnectedness we see today, remembering and protecting that principle matters more than ever.