Jim Harris of the TSB, as quoted by china_k, on the Aviation Safety Board, explains the TSB's "Confidential Draft Review process" as follows:

"The Board sends the report, in confidence, to those whose operations, actions, or products will be mentioned in the report. This is done to ensure accuracy and for procedural fairness."

If you or I were responsible for killing 229 people, do you think the investigators would give us a chance to review their report out of an abiding sense of procedural fairness? Enough fairness to the perpetrators, it's time for some fairness to the victims and their survivors!

As for accuracy, do those "whose operations, actions or products are mentioned in the report" have any interest in accuracy? In all cases, their interests lie in the avoidance of reponsibility. Will anyone point out an innaccuracy that errs in their favor?

We may never learn exactly why Swissair 111 crashed. But we have learned a lot. We've learned that there is a tacit agreement among aircraft manufacturers, operators and regulators that the current rate of air crashes is acceptable. We have learned that work harder that avoiding safety improvements than they do at implementing them. And we have learned that regulators nod and wink at those who effectively avoid sound practices by going through the motions of the certification process.

Knowing what we do, the TSB's concerns for accuracy and fairness lack the moral clout that such words are intended to evoke.

The only thing more confidential review will accomplish is to water down the findings. It's time for the TSB to tell us what they know. If somebody thinks the findings are unfair or inaccurate, let them make their case in the court of public opinion.

From the TSB website:

Report Production

The draft investigation report is reviewed by the Board and may be approved, amended, or returned for further staff work. Once approved, the Board's draft report is sent on a confidential basis to "persons with a direct interest in the findings" (see "PDI" below) for review and comment. Representations received from PDIs are considered by the Board and may result in changes to the report. The accident report is then released to the public. The TSB aim is to release reports within one year of the date of the accident; however, accident reports for major, very complex or unusual investigations may take longer.

Involved Individuals or Organizations

Under the provisions of the Act and at the discretion of the Board, individuals who are not members of the investigation team may be accorded official status as PDIs or observers. Others have information needs, especially survivors or next-of-kin of passengers. These groups are described below.

PDI A PDI is a person, in the opinion of the Board, whose behaviour or the performance of whose products may be commented on in the report and who may see his/her rights or reputation adversely affected by the report. Typically, PDI status is given to TC/NEB, operators, manufacturers, and flight/locomotive/ship crews or their next-of-kin.

Observer An observer is a person who, in the opinion of the Board, has a direct interest in the subject matter of the investigation and who, because of his/her knowledge or expertise on a specific subject, is, in a capacity other than as a witness, in a position to contribute to achieving the Board's objective.

Survivors or next-of-kin Survivors or next-of-kin of other than crew members are not given observer or PDI status. Although it is recognized that such people have a definite interest in the investigation and its outcome, their rights or reputation cannot be affected by the report and the knowledge they possess regarding the accident because of their involvement can be ascertained through interviewing them as a witness.

TSB - Investigation Process

CD, thanks for posting the TSB's official position on "persons with direct interest" (PDIs).

The statement contained therein, that surviors or next of kin are not given PDI status because "their rights or reputation cannot be affected by the report," is absurd and outrageous. Does the TSB mean to assert that surviors have no right to truth or justice? The vistims can no nonger assert their rights, nor can they defend their reputations. If not their survivors and next of kin, then who speaks for the dead.

Essential to the criminal justice system is the propoisition that The State speaks for the dead as the prosecutorial advocate. The TSB, however, explicitly rejects this role, on the rationale that affixing blame hampers the determination of truth, and that various parties will be less forthcoming if they fear being held responsible. Ultimately, more future tragedies will prevented. But the theory is flawed. Safety investigators' recommendations are often ignored. And while individuals may indeed be less forthcoming of they fear accountability, we believe that the attachment of consequences to negligant actions would go a long way toward promoting safety conscioiusness.

Safety investigators are dedicated individuals who are certainly to be admired for the difficult work they do. They are not the problem. The problem is inherent in a set of basic assumptions which are, at best, wrong. At worst, they are the inevitable outcome of the political influence of those far more powerful than the victims.