By Matt Underwood The recent news that NTSB board member Todd Inman claims to have been fired by the White House without explanation is, frankly, quite concerning. It’s particularly troubling when you consider the nature of the NTSB’s work – a critical independent body dedicated to investigating transportation accidents and making our skies, roads, and railways safer. Inman himself seemed deeply committed to his role, having served as the on-scene board member for two significant and tragic accidents: the American Airlines collision near Washington National Airport and the UPS cargo plane crash in Louisville. His dedication to his work, and the passion he clearly felt for improving safety, appears to have been a hallmark of his tenure.
The suggestion that Inman was dismissed because he correctly identified a government entity as being responsible for the Washington crash is, to say the least, a disheartening prospect. The NTSB’s mandate is to find the facts, no matter who or what they point to. If a board member is penalized for presenting an accurate, albeit inconvenient, finding, it undermines the very foundation of the organization. It raises serious questions about whether the pursuit of truth and safety is being overshadowed by political considerations or a desire to avoid embarrassment for certain government entities.
This situation also brings to mind the previous firing of NTSB Vice Chair Alvin Brown, a Democrat, who has since filed a lawsuit challenging his dismissal. When you see two instances of board members being removed, particularly one like Inman, who was a Republican appointee, it suggests a pattern that transcends typical political appointments. The NTSB is meant to be an independent investigative body, focused on data and safety recommendations, not a political battleground. The idea that an independent safety board could become so politicized that someone is fired for doing their job is, frankly, a jarring thought.
The departure of a board member who has witnessed and analyzed horrific accidents firsthand, and who has stated that these experiences have positively changed his perspective on regulating public safety, feels like a significant loss for the NTSB. His comments about serving on the board being a great honor and how the tragedies have impacted him on a personal level highlight the gravity and emotional toll of the work. To lose someone with that level of engagement and lived experience in the face of such critical investigations is a disservice to the safety of the traveling public.
One can’t help but wonder what kind of replacement the White House might be seeking. If the concern is that a board member is too honest or too analytical – traits that are fundamental to the NTSB’s purpose – then the implications are dire. The hope would be for someone who is objective, fact-driven, and committed to the NTSB’s mission, not someone who would toe a political line or offer convenient narratives. The NTSB’s work has a profound impact on the safety of air travel, which has historically been a success story for the United States. To jeopardize that through political interference seems counterintuitive and potentially dangerous.
Ultimately, the dismissal of a board member from an independent safety oversight body, especially without a clear explanation, is a cause for serious concern. It speaks to a potential disregard for the principles of transparency, accountability, and the unwavering pursuit of safety that the NTSB is designed to uphold. The effectiveness and credibility of such an institution hinge on its ability to operate free from undue political influence, and any perceived erosion of that independence warrants close scrutiny and public discussion.