This will be an interesting investigation...

Cazadores said:
I don't know the details, my understanding is the Gander DC-8 investigation pretty much served to eviscerate the Canadian accident investigation communities credibility. I don't know if there was anything else in its history before this.
Click to expand...

CASB was dissolved as a result of the Arrow 1285 investigation, and the conclusions that were adopted from it, with 4 board members dissenting due to complete lack of evidence. Eventually, both major theories on the accident were found to lack enough evidence.
 
Damnit, no I am saying that they could oversee an investigation done by the NTSB and FAA, to make sure there is no hiding of evidence. I think the DOD or Marshall service would be capable of doing it on their own though.
 
Seggy said:
You are saying have the FBI do an airplane crash investigation?
Click to expand...

FBI will only take an accident investigation as lead agency if there was crime involved. And even then, the NTSB assists, pretty much doing the accident portion, while the FBI handles the criminal investigation portion. The FBI doesn't do an entire accident investigation, with regards to all the technical aspects of it, and really shouldn't due to their specific governmental agency position.
 
Pilotforhire587 said:
Damnit, no I am saying that they could oversee an investigation done by the NTSB and FAA, to make sure there is no hiding of evidence. I think the DOD or Marshall service would be capable of doing it on their own though.
Click to expand...

Ok, you do understand that the FAA doesn't oversee aircraft accident investigations?? The call to have our friends from up North help was that of the NTSB and a right one at that. Also, MikeD can answer this, but pretty sure the DOD doesn't oversee aircraft accidents as a whole. It is the individual branches. Furthermore, not even sure if they use the group party system that the NTSB and Canadians use.
 
Pilotforhire587 said:
Damnit, no I am saying that they could oversee an investigation done by the NTSB and FAA, to make sure there is no hiding of evidence. I think the DOD or Marshall service would be capable of doing it on their own though.
Click to expand...

I could see DOD, maybe, but the Marshals service would be likely way over their heads trying to oversee an aircraft accident investigation, so I guess, why not the Canadians? They have proven to be competent in recent major investigations, like the Air Ontario icing accident or the Air France overrun, and will likely have no bias. I get what you are saying, bringing in a foreign investigative body when we already have the capability here, but I want for my money an investigation I can trust, and we owe it to the victims, so why not the Canadians?
 
Seggy said:
Ok, you do understand that the FAA doesn't oversese aircraft accident investigations?? The call to have our friends from up North help was that of the NTSB and a right one at that. Also, MikeD can answer this, but pretty sure the DOD doesn't oversee aircraft accidents as a whole. It is the individual branches. Furthermore, not even sure if they use the group party system that the NTSB and Canadians use.
Click to expand...

That's correct. The FAA can be handed investigations by the NTSB to accomplish, normally simple ones or non-injury ones requiring a single investigator to mainly just put a basic paperwork report together. Those can be handled by individual FSDOs.

Each DoD service has its own individual Safety Center (USN/USMC being the same one) that handles that services particular investigations on their own. DoD and their services do not do civilian accident investigations, nor oversee them. Even an civil accident on a military installation is investigated by the NTSB, with assistance of investigators from the particular service.
 
I know the FAA doesn't oversee any investigations but they have a part. I can't remember off the top of my head what accident it was but up until the late 80's or early 90's I believe accident investigations were mostly the job of the FAA, it wasn't until some things started being hidden and accident investigations going awry that the NTSB became the governing body over all aviation accident investigations in the US.
 
Seggy said:
Ok, you do understand that the FAA doesn't oversee aircraft accident investigations?? The call to have our friends from up North help was that of the NTSB and a right one at that. Also, MikeD can answer this, but pretty sure the DOD doesn't oversee aircraft accidents as a whole. It is the individual branches. Furthermore, not even sure if they use the group party system that the NTSB and Canadians use.
Click to expand...


Quit poking me Seggy. ;)
 
Seggy said:
Do the branches use the 'group party system' for the investigations?
Click to expand...

A USAF investigation is actually two separate boards: First a Safety Investigation Board, then an Accident Investigation Board. The first is for safety purposes only, the second is to find fault and assign blame. First board is privliged info, second issues a public summary. Both boards have a Board President, an Investigating Officer, a Pilot Member, and specialists for fields that may have a factor in the accident: ATC, Life Support, Weather, etc. Prior to either of these boards being convened, an Interim Safety Board is convened from either the closest base to the accident, or from the base the aircraft is from if it's closest. ISBs job is evidence collection and preservation, in preparation for passing that to the oncoming SIB while they're being formed.
 
During an accident investigation, the FAA is guaranteed to be allowed on the group party for the investigation and not be kicked off. That is the only 'special' treatment they get. The NTSB has to approve others to sit on the group party and can even kick others groups off an investigation. So basically during an investigation the FAA is like all other parties to the group.
 
Seggy said:
During an accident investigation, the FAA is guaranteed to be allowed on the group party for the investigation and not be kicked off. That is the only special treatment they get. The NTSB has to approve others to sit on the group party and can even kick others groups off an investigation. So basically during an investigation the FAA is like all other parties to the group. Am I correct here Cruise?
Click to expand...

FAA has to be allowed, but they are merely a group member. NTSB retains overall authority and can add or kick off anyone they want; UNLESS there's a crime involved.
 
This is turning into an interesting topic.

So in the case of the ATAC accidents recently, would NTSB still be involved even though they involved military style high performance aircraft and the accidents occurred on DOD installations, since the aircraft were civilian owned/operated?
 
Cazadores said:
This is turning into an interesting topic.

So in the case of the ATAC accidents recently, would NTSB still be involved even though they involved military style high performance aircraft and the accidents occurred on DOD installations, since the aircraft were civilian owned/operated?
Click to expand...

It's an NTSB investigation as those are civilian aircraft, civilian registered. Reference my previous explanation.
 
MikeD said:
FAA has to be allowed, but they are merely a group member. NTSB retains overall authority and can add or kick off anyone they want.
Click to expand...
This hasn't always been the case though right, I was under the impression that only in the last 20 or so years has the NTSB had oversight or directed aircraft accident investigations. Before that it was the FAA.
 
Pilotforhire587 said:
This hasn't always been the case though right, I was under the impression that only in the last 20 or so years has the NTSB had oversight or directed aircraft accident investigations. Before that it was the FAA.
Click to expand...

In the '60s and before with the Federal Aviation Agency, yes. After 1967 that changed, and full independance came in 1975.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top