Blog NTSB Says Tesla Was Dropped From Crash Investigation For Releasing Details

Tesla has been removed from the National Transportation Safety Board’s investigation into a fatal accident that occurred while a Model X was using Autopilot, the agency announced today.

“The NTSB took this action because Tesla violated the party agreement by releasing investigative information before it was vetted and confirmed by the NTSB,” the agency said in a statement. “Such releases of incomplete information often lead to speculation and incorrect assumptions about the probable cause of a crash, which does a disservice to the investigative process and the traveling public.”

Still, its unclear if Tesla was removed or voluntarily left the investigation. Tesla said Wednesday that it chose to leave the investigation over the dispute.

“Tesla withdrew from the party agreement with the NTSB because it requires that we not release information about Autopilot to the public, a requirement which we believe fundamentally affects public safety negatively,” the company said in an emailed statement to Bloomberg. “We believe in transparency, so an agreement that prevents public release of information for over a year is unacceptable.”

[Update: 5:30 p.m. ET] Further advancing the public feud, Tesla sent Thursday an updated statement to CNBC saying they left the investigation on Tuesday and plan to complain to Congress.

“It’s been clear in our conversations with the NTSB that they’re more concerned with press headlines than actually promoting safety, the Tesla statement to CNBC said. “Among other things, they repeatedly released partial bits of incomplete information to the media in violation of their own rules, at the same time that they were trying to prevent us from telling all the facts. We don’t believe this is right and we will be making an official complaint to Congress.”

The accident in question took place on March 23rd near Mountain View, Calif. when the driver crashed into a concrete lane divider. Tesla issued a statement after the crash saying that while Autopilot was activated, the vehicle’s recorded data suggests that the crash occurred when the driver failed to put his hands on the wheel after several warnings to do so.

The NTSB said it was “unhappy” with the statement.

“In each of our investigations involving a Tesla vehicle, Tesla has been extremely cooperative on assisting with the vehicle data,” an agency spokesman told the Washington Post. “However, the NTSB is unhappy with the release of investigative information by Tesla.”

Musk then responded to a TMC story posted on Twitter to justify the release of information.

https://twitter.com/x/status/980876926830039041

Following a television appearance by the driver’s family, Tesla again issued a statement saying the  driver ignored warnings to take the wheel. That statement seems to have contributed to the conflict with NTSB.

As noted by Bloomberg, Tesla’s loss of formal status as a party to the NTSB investigation means it can lose access to certain information uncovered in the probe and the ability to shape the official record of the incident.

While rare, the NTSB has revoked party status in other investigations. In 2009, the NTSB revoked the party status of the National Air Traffic Controllers Association in the investigation of a midair collision over the Hudson River. In 2014, the party status of both the Independent Pilots Association and UPS were revoked during the investigation of the crash of UPS Flight 1354 in Birmingham, Ala.

 

[MrAustraliaTax]

Did the system override the driver? No, the system recorded no steering torque commands.

Here's the problem with Tesla's wording.

Your statement accurately reflects what happened. No more and no less.

Tesla's version ("hands not detected on wheel") is clearly designed to make people believe the driver did not have his hands on the wheel and was not paying attention.

 

[bhzmark]

Tesla's version ("hands not detected on wheel") is clearly designed to make people believe the driver did not have his hands on the wheel and was not paying attention

He wasn't.

 

[hacer]

Here's the problem with Tesla's wording.

Your statement accurately reflects what happened. No more and no less.

Tesla's version ("hands not detected on wheel") is clearly designed to make people believe the driver did not have his hands on the wheel and was not paying attention.

If we instead deny the "spin" and think that the driver was paying attention, with his hands on the wheel, as the car struck the barrier at full speed without turning the wheel or applying the brakes that would be suicide. The driver could have passed out or was otherwise suffering a medical emergency but then he would not have been paying attention, and likely wouldn't have control of the steering; that's the worst-case for Tesla but it's no different than ordinary dumb cruise-control which could have killed in the same way.

Tesla only looks bad because the autopilot system, in the absence of required driver oversight, steered into the barrier without slowing. So it's imperfect under conditions in which lots of other drivers have crashed into the same barrier.

 

[Chocomonsters]

Here's the problem with Tesla's wording.

Your statement accurately reflects what happened. No more and no less.

Tesla's version ("hands not detected on wheel") is clearly designed to make people believe the driver did not have his hands on the wheel and was not paying attention.

Bottom line, we can not be certain if the driver had his hands on the wheel or not. Even if he had his hands on the wheel, we don’t know if he was or was not distracted.

Problem is that Tesla is trying to shape the narrative of the event they are not certain about.

Often I get AP flashing warning driving Tesla even with my hands on wheel. If something happens during that time, Tesla would release statement that my hands weren’t on the wheel.

 

[Chocomonsters]

Maybe I have missed it somewhere, but where was the story about the vehicle that hit this same barrier prior to this accident? Did NTSB investigate that accident as well?

Maybe driver survived that crash? Maybe barrier did it’s job?

This crash made on NTSB radar as fatality occurred using a new technology.

People die from heart attack every day. When someone dies from heart attack using a new technology medical device, FDA / CDRH gets involved.

 

[PhantomX]

Tesla should look at the current NTSB investigation on this week's Southwest accident and learned how parties in the investigation should behave. Only NTSB is issuing official statements regarding the accident investigation, even though there have been plenty of speculations in the media about potential causes. All parties involved have sent representatives to work with the investigation, but no one outside of NTSB is talking investigation data or drawing conclusions. And NTSB will recommend an emergency airworthy directive to FAA if urgent safety matter needs to be addressed, which FAA will turnaround and enforce it quickly. This is how the process should work under an official accident investigation.

 

[mongo]

Bottom line, we can not be certain if the driver had his hands on the wheel or not. Even if he had his hands on the wheel, we don’t know if he was or was not distracted.

Problem is that Tesla is trying to shape the narrative of the event they are not certain about.

Often I get AP flashing warning driving Tesla even with my hands on wheel. If something happens during that time, Tesla would release statement that my hands weren’t on the wheel.

High level view: whether or not the driver's hands were on the wheel, they weren't recorded turning the wheel to avoid the collision. Tesla is certain of that. Not detected is a polite way of saying the data doesn't support the driver attempting to avoid the crash.

 

[mongo]

Tesla should look at the current NTSB investigation on this week's Southwest accident and learned how parties in the investigation should behave. Only NTSB is issuing official statements regarding the accident investigation, even though there have been plenty of speculations in the media about potential causes. All parties involved have sent representatives to work with the investigation, but no one outside of NTSB is talking investigation data or drawing conclusions. And NTSB will recommend an emergency airworthy directive to FAA if urgent safety matter needs to be addressed, which FAA will turnaround and enforce it quickly. This is how the process should work under an official accident investigation.

Its apples and oranges though. Southwest had a mechanical failure that should not have occurred. The failure shows the current inspection schedule/ type may not be adequate, so there is potential action to be taken.
Unless it is shown, via data that has not been presented yet, that AP causes the car in the Tesla crash to swerve at the last second, the system operated as designed. There are some things lane assist/FCW/AEB do well, and many things they don't handle. That operating spectrum is quite different from a jet engine that very much should not break apart during normal operation (even less so at cruise).

Tesla is already aware of the shortcomings and working on making the systems better so that they cover more cases.

 

[hacer]

Its apples and oranges though. Southwest had a mechanical failure that should not have occurred. The failure shows the current inspection schedule/ type may not be adequate, so there is potential action to be taken.
...

Plus Southwest is out there doing damage control Southwest Airlines Newsroom of it's own prior to final conclusions of the NTSB. For example, the cowling is supposed to be able to contain any engine failure from damaging the fuselage or fuel tanks. Yet here they are reassuring everyone that it's all about fan blades and that they've always been on top of it going above and beyond, even though the NTSB has announced that they haven't yet examined the maintenance records. So I'd say it's a total double standard that NTSB isn't unhappy with Southwest.