Originally Posted by
Chu Chu
IGs generally do (current circumstances excepted) have lump sum annual appropriations to cover all their activities. But they quite possibly lack significant aviation expertise, and their regular funding might not stretch to hiring much in.
I would have thought that the IG office that is part of any particular organization within the federal government, and especially the senior level people in such offices, develop a deep understanding of their "client's" activities. Perhaps not.
I also seem to recall that somewhere in this thread ..... maybe it was a different thread ..... a handful of posts described the Army's own investigation process for accidents such as this, and the admittedly vague recollection includes reference having been made to the rank of the officers who typically run those processes or something else about the process. (Maybe about different levels of inquiry and hearing boards?) It would be logical for an IG not blessed with aviation expertise to nonetheless avail themselves of people with experience conducting official investigations, which would close much or even most of the gap.
Also, the NTSB hearing included testimony by Army witnesses who may not have had aviation expertise in the sense of flying but who according to the information from the hearing and Board docket were members of the Army's cadre of aviation experts. They could possibly be assigned to work with the IG (.....though I don't know how it actually works, obviously).