Service limited to fixing leaks!

We have become aware recently, based on direct information confirmed
by reliable sources, that it is highly likely that the RCMP, and
possibly other authorities, are conducting an investigation to
determine the identity of the source of the information reported on
this board and on the SR111 Yahoo Group by beanspiller_ca. We
apologize for being cryptic. We never expected to have much of
anything in common with the CIA, but like them we can't say much more
without compromising the sources.

Of course the obvious question is: If the information "leaked" is not
factually correct, why bother looking for the source? I'm quite sure
that if we reported that we had learned from a highly placed source
in the TSB that the crash had been caused by faulty lavatory smoke
detectors, there would be no investigation. The report would be
dismissed on the assumption that either we were lying or misinformed.
What other than a distinct ring of truth or the presence of factual
information not known outside the investigative inner circle would
motivate such an inquiry?

If the fact of this inquiry, in combination with the other evidence
reported here, leads one to presume that the IFEN was indeed a
significant contributor, if not the root cause, of the fire and
resultant crash, then why not investigate its finance, design,
engineering, approval, purchase and installation, aspects of every
one of which give rise to reasonable cause to investigate further? To
be specific,

- Financed by a investment banker who was subsequently indicted for
securities fraud (IFT's IPO is named in the indictment)
- *Led by individuals with little or no experience in the development
of aviation products
- Guided through the approval process by a company whose FAA
designations were "surrendered" along with the IFEN certification
after an extensive investigation
- Assisted in governmental and regulatory affairs by the same
consultants who helped American Home Products gain FDA approval for
Fen-Phen
- Purchased for Swissair by one or more individual(s) who held IFT
company stock
- *Installation rushed based on incomplete specifications
- *Wiring practices questioned
- Electrical design found to be fundamentally incompatible with the
architecture of the MD11
- Rejected after being tested by other major air carriers, sold only
to Swissair
- Sold based on the promise of huge profits from in-flight gambling
(that never materialized)
- *Overheated, failed frequently

(*reported or suggested strongly by credible sources; all other items
are, to the best of our knowledge, unchallenged on factual basis)

The TSB takes the position, ostensibly on the basis of Canadian law,
that the information gathered in the course of its investigations
shall not be used for the purpose of civil litigation or criminal
prosecution. The stated rationale behind this is that any other
policy would diminish the TSB's investigative effectiveness. And
there is undoubtedly some truth to this. To the extent that the TSB
is credible in its assurance of complete confidentiality and
protection from prosecution, backed by the full weight of the law,
one would reasonably expect witnesses to be more forthcoming than
they might be otherwise. Leaks undermine the credibility of such
assurances and are therefore are, we suggest, an anathema to the TSB.
This all hangs together logically given the assumption that accidents
are just that and nothing more. Ever. Ah, but therein lies the rub.
What of the case, however rare, when there is true criminal conduct
that leads directly to loss of life? Does the end (better future
safety) then justify the means (letting the guilty go)? One inclined
toward forgiveness (to a fault IMHO) might assert that indeed it
does. Nothing can be done to bring back the dead. Better to
concentrate on averting future tragedy. But the obvious flaw in this
logic is that criminals repeat their offenses. We don't just punish
criminals to satisfy an abstract sense of justice. We do so to deter
future crimes. If reckless disregard for human life (especially in
the pursuit of personal gain) is unpunished, it is encouraged. The
prospect of consequences is removed. The prospect of gain remains.

It is generally culpable act to: Do something one shouldn't do; or
not do something one should do, that creates substantial and
unjustifiable risk. Statutes lay out degrees of culpability. One who:
should be aware of an unjustifiable risk is negligent ; is aware of
an unjustifiable risk, but takes it anyway, is reckless; knows that a
harmful outcome is nearly certain to occur is knowing; has the
conscious object of achieving a harmful result is purposeful. A drunk
driver who causes a fatal car crash is criminally liable. To the
extent he knows the risk involved but takes it anyway, he may be
guilty of reckless homicide. If he was able to convince the court
that he was unaware of the risk (not likely these days), he might be
found guilty of negligent homicide. So, one can be liable if he
reasonably should have known that his action or inaction created
substantial risk. Furthermore, criminal liability is not limited to
actively and knowingly doing something that endangers another, but
can be the result of failure to take actions that one should have
known were necessary to avoid the unjustifiable risk.

So we ask:
- Should people who built add-on systems for aircraft be aware of
issues such as "compatibility with the design philosophy" of the
aircraft.
- Doesn't skirting the mandated certification process pose a risk
(even if "no regulations were violated", technically)?
- Doesn't hasty installation of a complex system introduce the risk
of mistakes?
- Does solving an add-in systems "heat problem" by simply cranking up
the air conditioning sound like the safe solution or a risky one?

As we see it, there is a more than ample basis to suspect that the
actions of various parties did indeed constitute criminal behavior.
Yet the TSB insists that confidentiality is the more important
matter. This goes well beyond just giving the parties the benefit of
the doubt. No, we don't have the smoking gun in hand. If the TSB
encountered a memo from a senior engineer to the CEO of one of the
companies involved that said, "This system is unsafe and will cause
in-flight fires!" would they keep it a secret according to the
mandate of Canadian law? The evidence is mounting. In our opinion,
there is already "probably cause" to conduct a criminal
investigation. The TSB might well take the position that this is not
their concern, but all other authorities are waiting with bated
breath for the pronouncement of cause by the TSB. We already know
that their conclusion will be that that crash was the result of a
number of coincident factors. Even if they report that the IFEN was a
substantial contributing factor, they will not disclose the details
from which that conclusion was drawn. In fact, one can only suppose
that, if a particular item of information is incriminating, they are
bound by law to withhold it!

So the criminal is protected and the citizen who has the courage to
tell the truth to the families of the victims becomes the object of a
police investigation. A system, no matter how well-intentioned that
could have this as its outcome is broken and needs to be repaired.

Mark

http://www.swissair111.org