The Dutch review #83 could get very messy:-
- Boeing do not attend … unlikely scenario.
- Boeing submits a formal denial which might deflect the issue towards the NTSB - they were the 'accredited representative', Boeing was only a 'party' in the investigation. Avoids difficult questions.
- Boeing attends or are represented; difficult questions to be answered, which again could be redirected to the NTSB.
- Dutch view "… it is common for the parties involved to be able to comment on the findings of the Research Council, as long as that is limited to factual inaccuracies." Implying that Boeing could have commented - which they did via NTSB, but apparently not on the HF report. See the accident report, appendix M, NTSB/Boeing comments ( page 140), without any reference to the Dekker report (did NTSB/Boeing see the Dekker report; hard to believe they did not).
- The Dutch investigators might have downplayed the HF report as not being sufficiently 'factual', HF is only soft science. Yet the industry accepts HF for training and knowledge to improve human behaviour and safety.
- There may have been decenting opinion, but not published.
- Alternative HF commentary could have been sought; more experts, greater opportunity for split opinions, but it would be difficult to overcome the weight of a world-renown HF investigator, type rated on the 737, who's report references world wide, and specifically US research.
A likely outcome; accept differing views and move on.
The Dutch House of Representatives could direct their investigators to treat HF as factual, a good example for other Nations and reinvigorate ICAO advice in Annex 13.
Keep lawyers, commerce, and manipulation of public opinion out of investigations.
Dr Dekker; please publish similar reports on 737 Max, 777 SFO, AF447, CRJ Sweden.