AA 106 @ JFK (13 Jan 23)
Right. A statement is essentially an answer to questions you’ve decided to ask yourself.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A recorded audio statement will clearly mark answer hesitations and lawyer intervention, so, yeah, can be highly valuable, especially when pesky lawyers did ruin the value of the earlier write statement. And where witnesses show "hesitation" as an investigator, you know you hit a relevant "sweet" spot to check out on, further on.
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is why, in criminal matters, the Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury of one's peers.
If you believe that "hesitation" denotes something to hide, then if we ever meet up in person, remind me to tell you the story of the cross-exam that went off the rails (off, badly) for opposing counsel when she pounced on a "hesitation" in an answer. (The witness had nothing to hide but the meat loaf sandwich for lunch, well . . .). And yeah, we won at trial.
If you believe that "hesitation" denotes something to hide, then if we ever meet up in person, remind me to tell you the story of the cross-exam that went off the rails (off, badly) for opposing counsel when she pounced on a "hesitation" in an answer. (The witness had nothing to hide but the meat loaf sandwich for lunch, well . . .). And yeah, we won at trial.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Which is why, in criminal matters, the Constitution guarantees the right to trial by jury of one's peers.
If you believe that "hesitation" denotes something to hide, then if we ever meet up in person, remind me to tell you the story of the cross-exam that went off the rails (off, badly) for opposing counsel when she pounced on a "hesitation" in an answer. (The witness had nothing to hide but the meat loaf sandwich for lunch, well . . .). And yeah, we won at trial.
If you believe that "hesitation" denotes something to hide, then if we ever meet up in person, remind me to tell you the story of the cross-exam that went off the rails (off, badly) for opposing counsel when she pounced on a "hesitation" in an answer. (The witness had nothing to hide but the meat loaf sandwich for lunch, well . . .). And yeah, we won at trial.
Just to give a (very) stupid example. When the FO gives a statement, something like, "I told the captain, blablabla" and then sighs, the investigators can ask further and maybe found out, the captain was (for example) mentally absent at that moment. Something potentially highly relevant, but probably not make it into a written statement, where lawyers scrap out everything that can not be proved (how did you conclude the captain was, etc ?).
There are systems which are reasonably mature which could assist both pilots and ATCOs. Worth a look:-
https://www.skybrary.aero/articles/a...e-systems-asas
https://www.asas-tn.org/workshops/5th-workshop/session-3/5_ATSA_SURF.ppt
https://www.asas-tn.org/workshops/final-seminar-paris-14-15-april-2008/session-3/1_Runway_incursions.ppt
https://www.skybrary.aero/articles/a...e-systems-asas
https://www.asas-tn.org/workshops/5th-workshop/session-3/5_ATSA_SURF.ppt
https://www.asas-tn.org/workshops/final-seminar-paris-14-15-april-2008/session-3/1_Runway_incursions.ppt
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 851
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: I wouldn't know.
Posts: 4,498
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
At least in EASAland 25 hour CVRs are mandatory. That requirement might not have made it across the pond, but even on the east side there is no retrofit requirement. No idea about other types, on the A320 CVR and FDR have been integrated into one single unit (CVDR) which holds both datasets on one solid state memory, to give a higher chance of finding all data there are two of those integrated units on board, one in the tail in the traditional section 19 and a second one in the E&E (90VU) compartment, both with identical memory and crash proofing.
Here’s how the NTSB investigators kicked off the first (face-to-face) interviews with the TransAir 810 pilots:
Today we’ll be using a digital recorder. After the interview we will send that recording out for transcription and the party members will have an opportunity to review that transcription to correct it for typographical errors.
Once again, the purpose of the investigation is to determine probable cause and prevent reoccurrence. Our role is not to assign fault, we’re here as simply for you to share your insight with the goal of preventing accidents. Having said that, however, we cannot offer any guarantee of confidentiality or immunity, and the transcription of this interview will eventually be made part of the public docket for this investigation.
As previously discussed, Mr. Katt [attorney], you can direct the witness to -- actually he’s not actually the witness -- you can direct Mr. Ryan [FO] to answer a question, you can request a short break to confer with him, if needed, but if you would please refrain from answering any questions for him or on his behalf that would be appreciated.
The pilots were allowed to have a representative present, which in both cases was the same attorney. In the follow-up telephone interviews, both pilots declined to have their attorney present. The FO was also a family law attorney. TransAir (Rhoades Aviation) is (was?) a non-union air carrier.
I don't discount the possible or likey probative value of further investigation, including in-person interviews, and even recording of voice, in-person visual clues(eye-roll, scowl, laugh, smile, brow furrow, etc). There is a mandatory reporting requirement for the crew, and by making their report/statement they have now fulfilled the regulation. After that, one party(NTSB) decided to go all 'we will MAKE you testify in person' with the threat of subpoena. For me, at that point - I have now decide that my voluntary cooperation has come to an end, and we have just entered what I consider adversarial territory. At this point, there will be no more discussion, interview, examination, evaluation, or reaction without benefit of counsel(solicitor). If that doesn't satisfy, issue the subpoena, bring me in to the appropriate venue, swear me in, and you can hear me say the famous words; 'I decline to answer on advice of counsel as my statement MAY be used against me in a court of law'. They we all file out, and let the media find out who the bad guy is/was.
They may want my help, and may ask and I may offer. NTSB/FAA/fedguv demand my help - go **** in one hand and demand in the other and see which get filled first. As someone who has been on the wrong side of Johnny law more than once, the feds are not there to help you, or be your buddy, pal, friend, defender.
YMMV, objects in mirror, pro driver on closed course, contents have settled and may cause anal leakage.
They may want my help, and may ask and I may offer. NTSB/FAA/fedguv demand my help - go **** in one hand and demand in the other and see which get filled first. As someone who has been on the wrong side of Johnny law more than once, the feds are not there to help you, or be your buddy, pal, friend, defender.
YMMV, objects in mirror, pro driver on closed course, contents have settled and may cause anal leakage.
If one is not satisfied with the mandatory reporting method by the FAA as it involves incidents they can seek to have the language changed. If they want to require in person interviews, in person recordings, and repeated investigation techniques then have that added to the FARs by issuing a NPRM, gathering the replies from the notice, and then publish the new rules. I do not know for certain, but pretty sure anything like that would violate the legislature approved Pilot Bill of Rights act(public law 112-254) which would clearly trump any administrative regulation.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't discount the possible or likey probative value of further investigation, including in-person interviews, and even recording of voice, in-person visual clues(eye-roll, scowl, laugh, smile, brow furrow, etc). There is a mandatory reporting requirement for the crew, and by making their report/statement they have now fulfilled the regulation. After that, one party(NTSB) decided to go all 'we will MAKE you testify in person' with the threat of subpoena. For me, at that point - I have now decide that my voluntary cooperation has come to an end, and we have just entered what I consider adversarial territory. At this point, there will be no more discussion, interview, examination, evaluation, or reaction without benefit of counsel(solicitor). If that doesn't satisfy, issue the subpoena, bring me in to the appropriate venue, swear me in, and you can hear me say the famous words; 'I decline to answer on advice of counsel as my statement MAY be used against me in a court of law'. They we all file out, and let the media find out who the bad guy is/was.
They may want my help, and may ask and I may offer. NTSB/FAA/fedguv demand my help - go **** in one hand and demand in the other and see which get filled first. As someone who has been on the wrong side of Johnny law more than once, the feds are not there to help you, or be your buddy, pal, friend, defender.
YMMV, objects in mirror, pro driver on closed course, contents have settled and may cause anal leakage.
They may want my help, and may ask and I may offer. NTSB/FAA/fedguv demand my help - go **** in one hand and demand in the other and see which get filled first. As someone who has been on the wrong side of Johnny law more than once, the feds are not there to help you, or be your buddy, pal, friend, defender.
YMMV, objects in mirror, pro driver on closed course, contents have settled and may cause anal leakage.
These regulations are from a time in history, when it was considered an honor to contribute substantially. Nowadays, the contribution is generally torpedoed down into something useless. With the consequence, the NTSB starts to use more formal instruments to enforce substantial cooperation.
All due to the tendency to use NTSB reports in court to blame people, ruin their lives, etc.
Legal/lawyers does/do have a substantial influence on this happening/tendency.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Qoting WideScreen :
That is the key sentence. By allowing lawyers into incident invstigations we will learn nothing valuable, because the onus wiil no longer be on what actually hapenned in order to proppse recommendations to pervent it happenning again , but the focus is on avoiding or deflecting blame and criminal prosecutions. Fortunately only a very few countries are following that , but it is a worrying tendency. If we continue down that path safety will never improve.
I pesronally find it a shame for a large Professional pilots union to attack the NTSB as they did instead of working together with them to get rid of judicilary interferences in their work . The Union has the money and the political lobby power to change things, attacking the NTSB instead wil not.do any good. As for the NTSB to issue subponeas to crews, that will also not advance safety in any way.
The NTSB investigation/interviews is/are not a court-room.
I pesronally find it a shame for a large Professional pilots union to attack the NTSB as they did instead of working together with them to get rid of judicilary interferences in their work . The Union has the money and the political lobby power to change things, attacking the NTSB instead wil not.do any good. As for the NTSB to issue subponeas to crews, that will also not advance safety in any way.
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: France
Age: 62
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The solution to this classical conflict of interest would be 'just culture'. FAA / prosecutors grant immunity, crew has no reason and no right to refuse full cooperation.
Way to learn from honest mistakes to avoid them in the future.
Way to learn from honest mistakes to avoid them in the future.
Except that, in a way, they are:
We shouldn't underestimate the influence of The Court of Public Opinion, or more specifically that of the experts (and "experts") in the media, who will be all over the testimony once it's in the public domain.
however, we cannot offer any guarantee of confidentiality or immunity, and the transcription of this interview will eventually be made part of the public docket for this investigation
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,693
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As to the Court of public opinion once it becomes public, what ? an incident a year or two later ? will be old news . But again this seems to be more a US issue .
In context perhaps one should remember the November Oscar incident in 1989 where Glen Stewart refused to go into the office and was hung out to dry eventually topping himself after being prosecuted in a civil court by the authority.
It was after a long flight, with sick crew members, in crap weather with an autopilot that wasn’t fit for purpose (at that time) and had been given dubious permission to ignore the copilots lack of qualification for said approach, The relevant tech log pages were “lost” although a mate had the aircraft the next week and the coupled approach was again displaced off the ILS and entered in the tech log.
It was after a long flight, with sick crew members, in crap weather with an autopilot that wasn’t fit for purpose (at that time) and had been given dubious permission to ignore the copilots lack of qualification for said approach, The relevant tech log pages were “lost” although a mate had the aircraft the next week and the coupled approach was again displaced off the ILS and entered in the tech log.
Join Date: Dec 2018
Location: Florida
Posts: 247
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Immediately after the "incident ", the crew of AA106 was told to make a phone call to the tower. I don't know if that call was recorded. I haven't heard anything about that call. The flight did not depart 31L for LHR for a half hour. While that time lapse may be perfectly normal at JFK, I would like to know what was said on that call. Were other calls made by the AA crew prior to takeoff, perhaps to their company dispatch? Was any consideration whatsoever given to cancelation or delaying the AA106? Or did the AA crew only learn about the gravity and notoriety of the "incident " after they arrived in London?