Originally Posted by
ST Dog
Beyond the Army reps that were at the hearing? Day 1 first panel had "CW4 Kylene Lewis, Department of Evaluation and Standardization with the U.S. Army. Mr. Steve Braddom, chief airworthiness engineer with the U.S. Army. And Mr. Scott Rosengren, the chief engineer with the U.S. Army."
Mr. Braddom is with SRD (
https://www.avmc.army.mil/Directorates/SRD/ (formerly AED)) which is the Army airworthiness authority. Basically the Army's version of the FAA (like NAVAIR for the Navy and TAA for the Air Force)
Mr. Rosengren is the Chief Engineer with the Utility Helicopter Project Office which buys the UH-60 and all the equipment installed on it.
Each of those individuals testified with apparently sincere and candid demeanor (I watched most all of that day) even seen and heard just through livestream.
My inquiry was meant to refer to an internal investigation process, possibly with witness testimony. Or does the NTSB investigation in effect preempt any internal Army investigation and reporting functions which presumably are conducted when there is no civilian involvement in an Army aviation accident?
It wasn't mentioned (
afaik) in the NTSB hearings but does the Policy Board on Federal Aviation (which I understand is situated within DoD) have any investigation role in this accident? Or in deciding upon and possibly implementing recommendations the NTSB presumably will make when its report is complete, to the extent the recommendations are directed to Army aviation specifically (or other types of military aviation generally) as these operate in the NAS?