The National Transportation Safety Board and Gulfstream must consider themselves teammates, not adversaries. There’s nothing to hide — and no reason to hide anything either.
Four crew members died when a G650 aircraft crashed April 2, 2011. Both the government and Gulfstream owe it to the families and to the public to work together in the ongoing investigation of this accident, which saddened many in the this community where these aircraft are built.
Anything less is unacceptable. And, quite frankly, senseless.
On May 21, Gulfstream went on record and admitted the buck for this tragedy stops on the company’s desk. In a submission placed last week on the NTSB’s public docket, the company indicated that it “accepts full responsibility for the accident.”
That’s pretty clear. Unfortunately, an exchange of letters that occurred several months prior to May 21, between Gulfstream President Larry Flynn and NTSB Chairman Deborah A.P. Hersman, left the impression that the relationship between the two organizations had devolved into a backroom feud, not a willing partnership. This makes no sense given the NTSB’s mission and Gulfstream’s reputation.
The NTSB is an independent arm of the federal government that has no regulatory or enforcement powers. Its focus is soley on improving safety — a mission the public has supported since 1967, when the board was created to investigate all civil aviation accidents in the United States.
Indeed, Congress took special care to help the NTSB root out all the facts following any crash. The board’s analysis of factual information and its determination of probable cause cannot be entered as evidence in a court of law, according to the board’s Web site. There’s no reason to lawyer up, redact names and other information and become combative.
In some ways, dealing with the board’s investigators is like talking with priests in confessionals. Information that’s obtained through this process can’t be used in potential lawsuits — a hugely important restriction, given today’s litigious world.
Likewise, Gulfstream is a leading corporate citizen in Savannah and the entire state. Its management and employees have earned a well-deserved reputation for their many positive economic and civic contributions to the community and the region.
So what happened? Why did Mr. Flynn feel the need to send a letter to the NTSB chairman on March 31, 2012, as well as an earlier one on Feb. 22, 2012? Those letters triggered a written response on April 4, 2012 — almost a year to the date after the fatal crash — from Ms. Hersman. She fired back with a list of concerns raised by NTSB investigators and managers, including stonewalling and the loss of evidence.
For example, it was reported that a key piece of evidence related to the NTSB investigation — the computer hard drive that contained accident-related telemetry data — was missing. Investigators routinely comb through hard drives to mine data that may be important. But in this case, according to the FBI, the hard drive likely had been “inadvertently discarded in the trash” by a Gulfstream employee charged with its safekeeping. That’s mind-boggling. How could such a thing have happened in a presumably controlled enviroment after a fatal crash?
It’s possible to conclude from the letters between Gulfstream and the NTSB that the company may be concerned about the public release of proprietry information during or after the investigative process.
That’s no small matter.
The G650 is Gulfstream’s ultra-large-cabin, ultra-long-range business aircraft. It has a $58 million base price. The market for these high-end products is extremely competitive. If secrets get out, it could mean lost sales and jobs.
Mr. Flynn obviously tried to reassure the NTSB chairman in his March 30 letter, stating that “Gulfstream has fully supported the NTSB investigation, has behaved with the highest ethical standards and has at all times made the safety of its flight test and flight operations its highest priority.”
But it’s equally clear, given the response from the NTSB chairman just four days later, that concerns remained. “Litigous behavior frustrates the party process and degrades working relationships,” Ms. Hersman wrote. “We expect all parties to work with us toward our mutual goals of fully understanding the circumstances of the accident and improving safety.”
Two months have elapsed since those words were written. That’s plenty of time for the war of words to have ended — and for Gulfstream and the NTSB to be on the same page, not on different planets.
Job One is to cooperate. Job Two is to figure out what happened in Roswell so that it never happens again.
Source: http://savannahnow.com/opinion
Gulfstream crash investigation 'bump in road' for G650 certification
http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/docket
http://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/docket
NTSB Identification: DCA11MA076
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Saturday, April 02, 2011 in Roswell, NM
Aircraft: GULFSTREAM GVI, registration: N652GD
Injuries: 4 Fatal.
This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.
On April 2, 2011, about 0934 mountain daylight time, a Gulfstream GVI (G650) airplane, N652GD, was substantially damaged after impact with terrain during takeoff at Roswell International Air Center Airport (ROW), Roswell, New Mexico. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and a company flight plan was filed for the 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 flight. The two flight crewmembers and the two technical crewmembers were fatally injured. The flight had originated from ROW about 0700 for a local area flight.
The airplane was operating under a Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Experimental Certificate of Airworthiness and was performing a take off with a simulated engine failure to determine take-off distance requirements at minimum flap setting.
Wingtip scrape marks beginning on the runway approximately 5,300 feet from the end of the runway lead toward the final resting spot about 3,800 feet from the first marks on the runway. Witnesses close to the scene saw the airplane sliding on the ground with sparks and smoke coming from the bottom of the wing, and described the airplane being fully involved in fire while still moving across the ground. The airplane struck several obstructions and came to rest upright about 200 feet from the base of the airport control tower. Several airport rescue and fire fighting (ARFF) units responded quickly and fought the fire.
No comments:
Post a Comment