Originally Posted by
WillowRun 6-3
No, WideScreen, I'm very well aware of the purposes of safety inquiries at the Board and otherwise. I'll assume you are also. So, if attorneys are allowed to be present, what is the predicate for legal counsel to say anything? -- the inquiry isn't a contested proceeding, and it isn't under oath. I would guess that if legal counsel are permitted to be present, it is in a non-speaking role. Union reps, probably treated differently, but I don't know.
Beyond the logic which yields to blaming legal counsel for something they might not even be able to do, I think you're missing the point of my presumptive support of APA and the crew. The FAA or the Secretary or some other political player is looking for someone to shoulder the lion's share of the blame and not just limited to this specific incident alone. You may have seen or heard about the recent House T&I hearings to start the reauthorization process - more than incidental semi-alarmist handwringing over the SWA "meltdown", this incident, the Austin TX incident. Of course the Board investigation will be defended as just a fact inquiry, which it is, but: if one believes that there are not significant political pressures around this particular incident, and protestations about the merely factual nature of Board inquiries aside - at least from the cheap SLF/attorney seats I'm in, the crew and APA have reasonable cause to be concerned with being made into examples -- beyond the specifics of the actual incident.
I'll just agree to disagree that your archetypal investigator drills deeper factually just because some sigh or hesitation occurs. Pressures in courtroom cross-examination are even more intense, which is why I used the example. Maybe you've sat in a ton more interrogations than I have. c'est la vie.
Ouch, sorry stepping on your toes.
I think, you did not get my point. Let me write again.
The NTSB investigation/interviews is/are not a court-room.
The AA crew did hand-in a written statement. A statement, the NTSB was not satisfied with and as such, wanted to hear the AA crew in person. Initially just verbal, later with a certified note taker, later as a last resort with audio tape. All of these in person interviews were turned down by the AA crew.
My issue (and presumably the NTSB too), is that the written statement is probably a lawyer "corrected" version of what the AA crew wrote/created themselves, omitting those items, the NTSB is interested in. As such, my critics around negative lawyer influences, as far as it goes for in/accident investigations. The NTSB just wants to know the real version, not the lawyer downgraded one. Even when a lawyer would be present during the verbal interview, it will be much clearer, when the lawyer influence jumps in. Giving the interviewers the opportunity to add questions, etc.
A very clear example of bad lawyer influences is what we publicly see happening in the Trump insurrection investigation, where all important witnesses suddenly have a loss of memory ("proving they are not suitable for the job they did, a better memory is required for that job"), and persistently declare "I have no recollection of blablabla".
Only after Cassidy Hutchinson kicked out her Trump paid lawyer, revising her statements and started telling the real truth to the investigation committee, it became clear, that pesky lawyers had influences witnesses at a large scale in this investigation. To have had a few more witnesses with regrets and the investigation would have dived in much deeper with significantly more clarity around the Jan 6 insurrection attempt. A pretty shameful happening, in a country where honesty, law and order are considered predominant. Not.
Just check, when another presumed Russian spy/murderer is caught somewhere in the world and brought to trial. The moment, they keep denying their guilt, despite overwhelming evidence of the opposite, you know, they are indeed Russian spies........ Yes, I know, innocent, until proven otherwise, but that is the proof part, not the factual guilty.
Regarding your presumable fear to victimize the wrong person(s), that is more an issue due to the FAA hindering and persistently wanting to ignore the NTSB's recommendations. Not to say, the moment the NTBS is able to investigate a case properly (and they are rigorous, as the recent past has shown), the real parties to blame are pretty well identified. Though to come to that point, there is a need to get the facts first, all the facts.
And, we can see, the NTSB does do an excellent job, even producing "alternative" investigation reports, when the official one is obviously politically or commercially motivated watered down, like in the ET302 737MAX crash report.