Ziggy:
I have this info from a very reliable honest source who does not tell fibs.
I would have love to have a snapshot a such a scene.
And:
He was in a CASA car...oops!
God forbid not a Comcar? Well I hope they followed SOPs and put an entry in the trip and tech logs?
And did they pull the tapes?
That'd be interesting to see...no wonder his ears were already beetroot red by the time they got to the AMROBA meeting....love it!
Almost as good as Albo going to the AAT or Beaker forgetting to memo his underlings and Albo's circus troupe on the new Beakerised
'Beyond all Reason' world's best practice investigative methodology!
Slight drift here but I noticed
Ben's article on the 2nd and final day of the NTSB inquiry and thought it was worth relaying:
FAA exposed as captive and incompetent over 787 safety
Let’s be frank about the just completed two day NTSB hearing in Washington DC which looked at how the FAA certified the Boeing 787 Dreamliner as safe.
Based on the disclosures admitted in the hearings, the FAA was captive to Boeing’s wishes, failed to do its job in a safe and professional manner , and foisted on the travelling public an airliner which met only second rate standards when it came to its use of the heavy duty lithium-ion batteries whose failures in January led to the Dreamliners being grounded.
Consider this measured editorial article in Forbes by John Goglia, a distinguished and widely respected former NTSB board member.
No one expected the two-day NTSB hearings that concluded Wednesday to answer the question why the Boeing 787’s lithium ion batteries dangerously overheated and in one case caught fire after only 52,000 hours of flight when Boeing had predicted that possibility as one in ten million flight hours. That answer is likely months, if not a year or more, away. But one could have expected an answer to why Boeing failed to use the standards developed by an independent advisory board – an advisory board that Boeing co-chaired – to re-assess the batteries before the aircraft was approved for passenger use. And why the FAA failed to mandate that re-assessment.
Despite sharp questioning from NTSB Chair, Deborah Hersman, both the FAA and Boeing witnesses failed to give satisfactory answers. In what was described by observers as smooth, obviously prepped performances, FAA and Boeing witnesses artfully dodged responding to why they didn’t take the time to re-test these batteries against a standard the FAA asked to be developed after a fire broke out at SecuraPlane, the Arizona manufacturer of the 787’s battery charger. The best these witnesses seemed able to muster were that the standards developed were too severe.
Minimum Standards Should Have Been Addressed
But how severe could they be if they’re termed “minimum standards”? The document prepared at the FAA’s request is titled Minimum Operational Performance Standards for Rechargeable Lithium Battery Systems. According to RTCA, the developer of the standard, the document is “a comprehensive standard that addresses large rechargeable lithium battery systems installed on aircraft used as a power source…” The standards cover the gamut of certification issues from safety to design to production to quality assurance and even proper shipping. RTCA is a private, not-for-profit association that serves as a federal advisory committee to the FAA for certification of avionics products used in aircraft. The FAA’s own advisory circular recommends compliance with RTCA-developed standards.
If the public is to have any faith in FAA certification, it needs an answer to why industry developed minimum standards were not used when new technology was introduced into our nation’s airliners. The implications for future certifications are obvious – and of tremendous concern.
The performance of the FAA as the supposed preeminent air safety regulator in the world in relation to the 787 was disgraceful, and has undermined public safety to satisfy Boeing’s commercial imperatives.
The additional unanswered questions arising are whether, when and how the FAA will reform itself to do the job the world expects, and what else, if anything, it has botched in its certification of the Dreamliner.
The 787 airlines and their Dreamliner passengers will soon have an opportunity to find out the answer to that last question.
Fancy that a transport safety watchdog not pulling any punches nor afraid to call it it for what it is..."Obfuscation" (day one) and "Regulatory Capture" (day two)
.
The difference in process is striking and I bet Congress won't be sitting on their hands saying "
The evidence is overwhelming that you've all been very naughty boys'n'girls but here's another bucket of money to squander as you see fit, after all you guys are the experts..." 
Hmm back to climbing Mt Noncompliance....
