[Animats]

Because, if Tesla signed up as a "party" to assisting with the investigation, that puts them under certain nondisclosure rules.[1] At the end of the investigation all the info comes out, but not in the early stages. Selectively releasing information that makes some party look good is not allowed if you are involved with the investigation.

This is widely understood in the aviation community. The mission of the NTSB is not to assist with either litigation or PR.

"Contacts with news media concerning the investigation will be made only by the NTSB, through the Board Member if on-scene, the NTSB’s representative of its Office of Public Affairs, or the IIC. The guiding policy is that the NTSB is a public agency engaged in the public’s business and supported by public funds. The agency’s work is open for public review, and the Act under which it operates makes this mandatory. The NTSB believes that periodic factual briefings to the news media are a normal part of its investigation and that, for the public to perceive the investigation as credible, the investigation should speak with one voice, that being the independent agency conducting the investigation. Therefore, the NTSB insists that it be the sole source of public information regarding the progress of an accident investigation. Parties are encouraged to refer media inquiries to the NTSB’s Office of Public Affairs. In any case, release to the media of investigative information at any time is grounds for removal as a party."

[1] https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/Documents/NTSB_Investigation_Part...

[gsnedders]

If they are a party to the investigation, ignoring the non-disclosure rules makes Tesla seem to me like a dodgy company willing to act against established norms designed to ensure transport safety, and I hope they get the book thrown at them for it.

If they are not a party to the investigation, I'd question why not. When was the last time an aircraft manufacturer declined to be a party to the investigation? They recognise that if they get a reputation for being unsafe that has repercussions for future sales; I'd hope the same was true of car manufacturers!

To me, there's literally no way this makes Tesla look good.

[ethbro]

Isn't that a lose/lose for Tesla?

Are not a party to the investigation -- motives questioned, discovering facts takes longer or impossible

Are a party to the investigation and information can only be released by NTSB -- share price gets hammered every time there's a crash and everyone else gets a chance to put out information

I'm inclined to lead towards "special circumstances" here. Does every Ford crash make national news?

[mannykannot]

> share price gets hammered every time there's a crash.

Instituting a more responsible testing program would both signal that they are dealing with the matter and also reduce the possibility of further deaths.

> Does every Ford crash make national news?

Those that indicate a major screw-up do, such as the Explorer rollovers (or Chevvy's ignition switch issue, for that matter).

I don't think the NTSB would be upset if the statements about these autonomous-vehicle accidents were purely factual, relevant and without self-serving commentary and innuendo.

[gsnedders]

Is the same not true for Boeing?

[ethbro]

I'd argue Boeing (and most other companies) have the benefit of amortizating "fear" over the total installed base of similar technologies.

A Chevy engine turns out to have a design flaw, investors say "Yes, but Ford produces and sells tons of engines, so here's how much we think fixing it will cost."

It seems like the recent Uber / Tesla self-driving impact is more of the form of "Gee, maybe this isn't even possible."

If the V-22 Osprey tiltrotor were the only aircraft Boeing made... then I'd say it would be a more similar analogy.

[TAForObvReasons]

"Move fast and break things", including non-disclosure agreements and established norms :/

[hirundo]

Because Tesla should be a subject of the NTSB investigation, they should _not_ be a party to it, any more than a suspected criminal should be a party to their criminal investigation. Tesla should have no discretion over what data they provide to the NTSB. Calling them a "party" sounds like an excuse to control the information flow, not narrowly tailored to a legitimate state interest.

Tesla has an ethical and fiduciary duty to carry out their own independent investigation, to the extent that it doesn't interfere with the NTSB's. These organizations do not have the same interests. They don't have to be adversaries, but it's inappropriate for them to be partners. The public is better served by multiple independent investigations.

[lolc]

While I don't know about how this is percieved within Tesla, the adversarial relationship you paint between NTSB and Tesla is exactly what should not happen. Root causes of crashes must be investigated and published so that Tesla and their competitors can improve safety of their cars.

[hirundo]

> the adversarial relationship you paint

There is space between being an adversary and being a partner in the investigation.

> Root causes of crashes must be investigated and published so that Tesla and their competitors can improve safety of their cars.

Yes, and two independent such investigations are better than one. With less opportunity for the subject to steer the result.