Posts by user "WillowRun 6-3" [Posts: 26 Total up-votes: 0 Pages: 2]

No, however:

While I have not studied France's law applicable to aviation accidents generally or investigations in particular, it is my understanding that French law does allow earlier, or more direct, participation - or both - in aircraft accident investigations. Annex 13, on the other hand, does not contemplate determination of blame or liability which are substantially the same thing as sought to be determined by prosecutors (albeit in a different form of court proceeding).

Also, one of the most fundamental principles, if not the most fundamental principle, underwriting all of what ICAO does - at least within its traditional or historic remit and not drifitng off into DEI or strident environmental causes - from the Convention through the Annexes and SARPs, is standardization. Obviously criminal investigations will not be, and could not become, standardized across the States which are active in the international civil aviation sector.

At the time of the Alaska Airlines door plug incident and its aftermath, long-time aviation policy worthies decried the way in which the status of the NTSB investigation had been dragged into the criminal matter against Boeing pending in federal district court in Texas. Their reasoning was that accident investigators must have access as unfettered as possible to sources of information, and the presence of criminal processes necessarily makes people reluctant to speak or provide information otherwise. With this reasoning in mind, it could be agreed that although Annex 13 and pertinent SARPs are not the ultimate in investigatory enlightenment, criminal inquiries (and the French version of same) are not an inherently better approach.

Of course, when reasonably specific and articulable facts point to potential criminal conduct, that is a very different matter.

It's the last sentence which prompts me to comment further. First, the relevant excerpt from the Journal item:
"An NTSB spokesman said Homendy has been fully briefed on all aspects of the Air India investigation, including the cockpit voice recording and details from the flight-data recorder.

Homendy said her goal in working with Indian authorities was 'to quickly determine whether the crash presented any immediate safety concerns to the traveling public.'" (internal quotation as in original)

It's quite unlikely the NTSB spokesman would have said more than Chair Homendy had authorized. The content as to the scope of her review isn't the substantive part, but it does set the context for the quote from Ms. Homendy. Her statement refers to "quickly" making a determination about "immediate safety concerns." I read this as not referring only to the time after the Prelim Rpt was released, but all of NTSB's interactions with AAIB as of July 12.

We know no emergency (or other similar labels) ADs have been issued. Early on, when no such emergency ADs were issued, some people speculated that cover-up could be the reason why. And, recalling back to the first days as of July 12, there was wide recognition that a grounding order would have immense impact and consequences, given the widespread numbers in airline fleets.

But now, the Board Chair provides an attributable on-the-record statement about the need for immediacy, had there been an aircraft or engine problem. What I read as substantive is the confirmation from such an official source that no such problem has been shown to exist. Not a large segment of the "traveling public" let alone the public at large reads Accident Board reports, let alone preliminary editions. So in her giving an attributable statement, I read an intention to reach a wider and more general audience with the message, in effect, that the causal chain of this accident does not stem from an aircraft or engine problem implicating safety of flight.

I didn't note the time of the website article from which I took the (exact) quotes. The same website article now refers to the article published in the print edition of today's date (July 17). Why do you ask?

I'm close to being confused (but that wouldn't be even R&N).

I didn't open the link to the article archived in that post.... until just before this reply. I read the article last evening (Chicago time) and again this morning. I noted no changes.

I also noted no changes in the print edition article compared to the website.

I marked the quotations from Homendy quite clearly (I thought). I'm not clear what you're referring to. I don't think you're mistaking my comments in the post for statements attributed to Chair Homendy ...(?).

But I appreciate your evident assumption that I would want to correct any error I may have made in citation - I would, yes. It's definitely an over-the-hill lawyer thing.

An interesting, if also creative phrase. But the standards for various levels of bad intent may vary from state to state in the U.S. and even more likely between different countries. So I'm going to refrain from trying to match levels of criminal culpability to different sets of facts and unknowns in this accident. And even worse, I have not had any significant exposure to the legal process in either the U.K. or India.

Sorry that I inadvertently created a sub-(h)-wheel of sorts. My post about the WSJ reporting could have been more explicit about the inferences I believe can properly be drawn from the statement actually quoted from Chair Homendy.

The NTSB spokesman said the Chair had reviewed everything. Her statement - on the not large assumption it was made after the Prelim Rpt was released (though the reporting doesn't say when) - refers to her, in her official role, wanting to determine quickly if any safety concerns had to be addressed immediately.

When no emergency ADs or other urgent safety messages were forthcoming in the first days after June 12 (other than the Air India inspection order) there was fairly extensive debate on-thread about whether the absence of such urgent safety bulletins could be taken to mean that neither the aircraft nor engines had been implicated as having caused the accident. Several posters pointed out that if there were an aircraft or engine problem there would already have been bulletins issued. Others argued, not necessarily, maybe it was too soon to tell.

Reading the WSJ reporting, and the words quoted from the Board Chair, now after the Prelim Rpt, and after the reporting by The Air Current prior to the Prelim Rpt release was proven accurate, I'm inferring her statement to communicate that, by now , if an aircraft or engine problem was present, it would have been discovered.... and Emergency ADs flying out of FAA etc.

Of course, it can be said that it's still too soon, but that's not how I see the pieces fitting together. And I apologize for allowing my earlier post to be read as if my inferential reasoning was instead part of Ms. Homendy's statement.

[ By the way, to za9ra22, as the head of the NTSB and the U.S. as the State of manufacture, she is hardly just some random federal official, as post 1411 implies. ]