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