necrails posted:Article states operator should have been trained better. What would that entail? Also for discussion, if this had been an aircraft and the NTSB determined pilot failed to fill in the blank what would the FAA do as a result? Would a commercial pilot involved in an incident that resulted in a fatality be able to be a pilot in command in a commercial setting again?
Yes. it depends on the totality of the causes. In addition to the NTSB saying "pilot failed to maintain control" of aircraft, as an example, we have to know why.
One must be very careful how they read an NTSB report. When a report states a pilot failed...., they are simply stating fact, not placing blame, until a more intensive investigation is finished.
The pilot's lack of control may be due to loss of elevator control. Not his fault.
Or it could be because he failed to correctly identify which engine failed in his King Air, and stepped on the wrong rudder pedal. His fault.
In all cases, the FAA will look at all of the pilot's records. Training, logbook total time, total time in type, medical records, and so forth.
I have been the subject of said inquiries once. I was forced to make an off-field landing once that damaged the plane pretty well, and caused injuries to the other guy in the plane. I did hold a commercial license at the time, although this flight was a non commercial pleasure flight (part 91) to go get that $100 hamburger (when 100LL gas was still $1.50/gal)
All of my stuff was in order, and the cause was determined to be a crankshaft issue in the Lycoming, that caused catastrophic failure. What made it worse was this was not a constant-speed prop, so no feathering of the prop.
I can't speak to how the FRA/DOT looks at railroad personnel.
