An investigative-err, mentioned in Slot 32,
“the air accident investigation into this incident was flawed and that a critical element of the investigation was omitted….”
Don’t think that you are the only man
confronting investigator-err. The AAIU is better than the USA’s authority, re’ err -recognition and err-correction.
Here are the words of "C.O." from thirty years ago – still the same unwillingness to confront investigator err:
"There is reason to believe that because of the excessive workload, the inadequacy of investigations, or the questionable nature of some board members' qualifications, some views of parties associated with a particular case are not communicated or understood by the Board's members. Petitions for reconsideration of the determination of cause or, more importantly, for changes in the report to present a fuller presentation or discussion of the facts, appear to be treated summarily without the objectivity which normally characterize the Board's actions. It is rare for the Board to present in its report the contrary views of competent parties unless one of the members elects to write a minority opinion supporting such a view. Such dissents are infrequent."
["Aviation Accident investigation: Functional and Legal Perspectives," an article by Mr. C.O. Miller, past Director of the Bureau of Aviation Safety of the NTSB; Journal of Air Law and Commerce (Dallas, Tx.: SMU School of Law).]
The USA's Board refuses to even recognize most of their investigator-errs.
= = = edit = = = \/ = ==
Checking a few decades back, before our industry had matured, the earlier participants were disappointed with the quality of investigations. Here's a headline, describing an ISASI gathering in the early '70's:
"Air Crash Probers Called Amateurs", _The Toronto Star_, August 30, 1973.
The annual ISASI
Proceedings of 1981 included several papers which question quality of investigations, see pages 94+:
"Significant accident prevention information is not being obtained." [pg 98]
"The diminished quality of NTSB reports and needed new approach... The elimination of an independent ... quality control function within the Board (1973-4)...." [pg 98]