As long as nobody on the review board has an axe to grind or an agenda, it can work. I understand moving this board to, as an example, Denver, might take it out of the "Beltway", you can't take the Beltway out of the agency. This is especially true in 2026. No idea is perfect, but it would be nice if the politics could be limited. I'd prefer a science agency as far away from politics as possible, but that may not be possible or practical.
Here is a good NTSB example: The Branson area Duckboat Incident 2018
Factual information — a detailed chronology of what happened.
Technical analysis — weather, equipment, human factors, communications, organizational issues.
Probable cause — usually one concise statement summarizing why the accident occurred.
Contributing factors — factors that increased the likelihood or severity of the disaster.
Recommendations — directed to organizations that can reduce future risk.
"What happened, why did it happen, and how do we prevent it from happening again?" rather than "Who should be punished?". The courts and Congress will focus on the rest.
While I am pleased with your continued support for the concept of the National Disaster Review Board, why not name my specific proposal which -- as you know -- already encompasses every suggestion you have made? It includes all natural disasters and it covers all government +and private sector+ entities involved in the disaster warning and recovery process.
While I admit I have pride of ownership, in the 14 years I have been advocating for this I've had the opportunity to think through many of the issues that would arise once a NDRB was underway and have fine-tuned the proposal accordingly.
By not mentioning this proposal, I'm concerned someone will want to start over from scratch, further delaying action on this vitally needed entity.
Please note: Based on unfortunate experience discussing these topics with senior management personnel in NWS and NOAA, I believe any sort of investigation committee or group within Commerce/NOAA/NWS will be doomed from the start. The agency simply does not seem to want to look at itself in a candid and thorough manner.
This needs to be a fully independent agency and, as far as I am concerned, it would be best located well outside of the Beltway.
As long as nobody on the review board has an axe to grind or an agenda, it can work. I understand moving this board to, as an example, Denver, might take it out of the "Beltway", you can't take the Beltway out of the agency. This is especially true in 2026. No idea is perfect, but it would be nice if the politics could be limited. I'd prefer a science agency as far away from politics as possible, but that may not be possible or practical.
Here is a good NTSB example: The Branson area Duckboat Incident 2018
https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/AccidentReports/Reports/MAR2001.pdf
The report follows a solid structure:
Factual information — a detailed chronology of what happened.
Technical analysis — weather, equipment, human factors, communications, organizational issues.
Probable cause — usually one concise statement summarizing why the accident occurred.
Contributing factors — factors that increased the likelihood or severity of the disaster.
Recommendations — directed to organizations that can reduce future risk.
"What happened, why did it happen, and how do we prevent it from happening again?" rather than "Who should be punished?". The courts and Congress will focus on the rest.
While I am pleased with your continued support for the concept of the National Disaster Review Board, why not name my specific proposal which -- as you know -- already encompasses every suggestion you have made? It includes all natural disasters and it covers all government +and private sector+ entities involved in the disaster warning and recovery process.
While I admit I have pride of ownership, in the 14 years I have been advocating for this I've had the opportunity to think through many of the issues that would arise once a NDRB was underway and have fine-tuned the proposal accordingly.
By not mentioning this proposal, I'm concerned someone will want to start over from scratch, further delaying action on this vitally needed entity.
Hi Mike - is there a specific document or post that best lays out your proposal?
Hi Alan,
Thanks for asking.
I believe everything is succinctly listed here: https://rogerpielkejr.substack.com/p/the-case-for-a-us-disaster-review
Please note: Based on unfortunate experience discussing these topics with senior management personnel in NWS and NOAA, I believe any sort of investigation committee or group within Commerce/NOAA/NWS will be doomed from the start. The agency simply does not seem to want to look at itself in a candid and thorough manner.
This needs to be a fully independent agency and, as far as I am concerned, it would be best located well outside of the Beltway.