FYI - NTSB's investigations outside of USA

[Grunf]

Hello.

NTSB added a page for their involvment in investigations outside of their territorial (I emphasize this word) jurisdiction.

Strangly, they somehow ended in YYZ for AF340 investigation :E

[punkalouver]

I think they can because the engines are partly American.

[African Tech Rep]

Think you’ll find it’s more of an “invitation” thing – the country of registry or the country where the accident happened CAN invite anyone they like to assist – they SHOULD involve the Country of Manufacture and most “first world countries” do.

So – Canada involved as it’s where it happened – France (BEA?) involved as that was Country of Registration, this conveniently covering Country of Manufacture involvement as well.

NTSB involvement here should IMHO be welcomed with open arms – it’s as close to a guarantee of an unbiased report as it’s possible to get.

[Grunf]

OK, I am so curios to see someone in Europe calling on NTSB...

I do not question their honesty...and professionalism, far from that...

Still I see that as a political thing...not only professional since both TSB and NTSB are parts of government/administration...


So everything relates to accident investigation is political...especially if it involves investigators from the country of your largest competitor...

;)

[lomapaseo]

OK, I am so curios to see someone in Europe calling on NTSB...

I do not question their honesty...and professionalism, far from that...

Still I see that as a political thing...not only professional since both TSB and NTSB are parts of government/administration...


So everything relates to accident investigation is political...especially if it involves investigators from the country of your largest competitor...

First of all the investigation is not political, the only political part might be the report which is written partly using the investigation facts.

The investigation itself is carried out under ICAO Annex 13 rules and includes countries of manufacture/design as well as passengers and other invited expertise.

[zerozero]

Of all the American bureaucracies I'd say the NTSB is probably the *least* political and most professional.

But still, I can think of one investigation of a *foreign* carrier in *U.S.* territory where some strings were pulled: Egypt Air.

[African Tech Rep]

OK, I am so curios to see someone in Europe calling on NTSB...
But in this case it wasn’t someone in Europe – the accident was on Canadian soil so the “prime” guys are the Canadians – they would have called everyone else in.
(although to be technical the States of Registry and Design should Request the State of Occurrence’s permission to be involved – in this case Canada inform France – France inform Canada they would like to be part of the team – Canada says OK)

Chapter 5 of Annex 13 says :-
The State of Occurrence shall institute an investigation into the circumstances of the accident and be responsible for the conduct of the investigation, but it may delegate the whole or any part of the conducting of such investigation to another State by mutual arrangement and consent. In any event the State of Occurrence shall use every means to facilitate the investigation.
I think if the Concorde report (inc the bit from AAIB) is read carefully it’ll be concluded that the Canadians did Exactly the right thing – after all we want to know what REALLY happened and this way we have a good chance of achieving this.

[Grunf]

Yes, I agree on the political part being the report (Egypt Air) but still I do not see a good reason for NTSB to be there.

Mind you, Canadian TSB is fully capable of doing their business alone and the only other body of investigation needed is the one from France.

Would NTSB invite Canadian counterparts if there was a similar investigation?

What I wanted to say is that I question Canadian decision to invite NTSB since there are no LEGAL reasons to get them involved. Professional yes but in that case inviting a foreign investigation team in your country i.e. jurisdiction IS a political decision and not only a professional one.

Someone from Canadian TSB can not just drop a call to NTSB - it has to go through official channels, I presume.

Cheers

[African Tech Rep]

Legally they only have to inform France the accident happened – France then Requests to be allowed to participate, 99% of the time this is allowed but IT DOSEN’T HAVE TO BE.
(I know of three incidents involving Boeings in the Far East where the FAA / NTSB were not included)
If France didn’t ask to be involved TC can request their involvement and then France HAS to be involved.

Lets face it – the two most “respected” investigation agencies are the AAIB and NTSB – so calling in one these makes perfect sense – in this case without NTSB involvement some people would always question if the report was Fully accurate, especially if the fault was found to lay with the pilots – Canada could be accused of playing down any role the runways / airport etc played in the accident, France could be accused of doing the same for any “aircraft factors”.
NTSB involvement will avoid any possible doubt.

[barit1]

From a purely practical standpoint, CFM56 engines are supported in the Western hemisphere by GE, and in the Eastern by SNECMA.

And NTSB will probably supply more technical coordination than anything else in this case. Canadian TSB can be expected to do a forthright job given the manufacturer's support.

[Bus429]

African Tech Rep, what makes you think the Transportation Safety Board in Canada is any less professional than the AAIB or NTSB?

[African Tech Rep]

Bus429
Umm – I don’t.

But the AAIB and NTSB have “the reputation” – not saying TSB don’t deserve the reputation – it’s just wherever you go AAIB & NTSB are “known”.

I think they are playing this one VERY cleverly.
TSB & BEA team = open for “doubt” about “political interference”
TSB / BEA & AAIB = still open for “doubt” – as UK involved with Airbus.
TSB / BEA & NTSB = perfect team – who can say “political interference” here ?

PS – glad you asked about TSB not BEA :E – I read the Concorde report :(

[Bus429]

African,
Sorry if my comments seemed a bit rude - not meant to be.
As for the BEA report...

[Grunf]

OK I agree with most of the stuff said.

As I said I do not doubt NTSB qualifications (proven beyond the limits) same standing for Canadian TSB. I am cautious however since the impact of Boeing in FAA and NTSB is huge, as well as Airbus' in Europe.

Canada is, however, a different turf and from that point of view I was giving my opinion.

Blatantly I would assume that Boeing would give an arm and leg to get more information from that investigation before the report is officially published. I guess I will hear different comments on personal integrity of the investigators and so on but still…

What would be your comment if BEA is involved (by invitation) in an accident/incident investigation in any European country involving a, let us say, 777 or future 787?

Would you be commenting the same way? My caution would be the same - they have nothing to do there.

I am still thinking this is mostly a political decision, after all.

Cheers

[African Tech Rep]

Bus429
(anything to do with ARNIC ?)
Not a problem – if you want to see rude look how some reply to me in JB :D
I actually took yours just as a direct “justify yourself”.

Grunf
Not sure Boeing will actually be that interested – they sure won’t cry if the 340 is blamed (I think the plane itself has been exonerated in a prelim report anyway) – but I haven’t noticed lots of “our planes crash less than theirs” going on.
A few years ago I was “in attendance” at an airline who were choosing between AI & Boeing and didn’t hear anything about either side playing “accident statistics” – reliability / on-time departures even IFSD – but not accident statistics – either I “missed” that bit, or it’s sort of “off limits”.

BEA involvement on a Boeing incident not in France I would question – but not due to the AI factor – more due to previous reports.
On the other hand I would welcome AAIB involvement in any incident – even though you could say they could be “leaned on” to be AI “friendly”.

Political Decision – it was I belive at least a factor – but for the want of better words “good politics” – after all most people want to know what actually happened and how it can be avoided – even if means grounding all that type or rebuilding an airport.

PS
Years ago I had copies of two supposedly rejected BA adverts – one showed a well built hostie with the words “our stewardesses have bigger t*ts” – the other showing a crashed plane with the words “we crash less than they do” – wish I still had copies :(

[Grunf]

Agree more or less.

Let's hope the investigation will cpome out with something meaningfull.

At least I hope.

Cheers,