Canadian Agency Investigates US Air Crash 84
Posted
by
timothy
from the sounds-like-a-law-school-hypothetical dept.
from the sounds-like-a-law-school-hypothetical dept.
knorthern knight writes "When 2 light civilian planes collide in U.S. airspace in Virginia, the usual response includes calling in the FAA (Federal Aviation Administration) and NTSB (National Transportation Safety Board) to investigate and make recommendations based on their results. But what do you do when the crash involves two planes piloted by a crash investigator with the FAA and the chief medical officer with the NTSB? In order to avoid conflict of interest by American investigators working for these agencies, the investigation has been turned over to to the Transportation Safety Board of Canada as a neutral 3rd party."
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:5, Interesting)
Compare this to the French investigation of the Air France crash from Brazil a couple of years ago where efforts were made both to protect the pilots' good names and to shift blame away from Airbus.
I have to really take issue with this - right up until the black boxes were recovered, everything the BEA released implicated Airbus, to the point that Airbus had to issue several Airworthiness Directives regarding pitot tube icing and other things.
It was only when the flight data recorders were recovered that the BEAs stance shifted, and the pilots actions were called into question. Its highly likely that the BEA will implicate both the pilots and Airbus in its final report later this year.
So I think your assertion that the BEAs objectivity being in question is absurd.
Re:"But what do you do?" (NB: Not a trolling attem (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, I think that individuals who are honest and care about their work can contain their personal biases by conscientiously following lines of inquiry that lead in directions they'd rather not take. If that were not possible, it would be impossible to be honest with yourself about your own behavior. But like being honest with yourself, it's a lot easier to convince yourself you're being impartial than to actually do it.
I see a number of good reasons for bringing in outsiders, but the most compelling one is credibility. If an inside investigator clears a colleague or wrongdoing, people will suspect a cover-up. If he concludes that a colleague bears individual responsibility, *that* can be seen as a cover-up too: they might be throwing someone under the bus to protect the organization.
That last scenario actually happened in the US Navy investigation of the 1989 investigation of an explosion that killed 47 men in the gun turret of the USS Iowa. The bodies were removed without documenting their location or condition, the equipment in the turret removed and thrown overboard, and the interior repainted. All this was done with the knowledge of the admiral running the investigation. Witness testimony was coerced and in some cases altered, and the technical lead in the investigation was the officer who had overseen the packing of the powder bags that exploded. The only reason we know all this was the attempt at scapegoating was so transparent.