Round Up the Usual Suspects
Alaska criminal investigation starts and Technicians under fire . . .again?
By Stephen P. Prentice
May 2000
It is sad to note that the recent Alaska Airlines tragedy is again raising the specter of criminal prosecution of technicians and management personnel.
We all remember the classic movie Casablanca. At the end of the film, after hearing that a German officer had been murdered, the French police officer blurts out in reply, "Round up the usual suspects." The inference being that this is getting to be a common occurrence, and we will go through the usual motions. The analogy fits.
Criminal investigation
Well, no one is surprised to note that the cops are snooping around in the Alaska Airlines tragedy. The newspapers report that they are searching for any evidence of criminal conduct, and they seem to be focusing on technicians, including management. It just seems that the ValuJet syndrome has taken hold of our trade and won't let go! It's just like in the movie: "Round up the usual suspects."
FBI called in
The papers stated that the FBI is looking into the accident and at a
maintenance facility in Oakland, CA. The criminal inquiry is reputed to be widespread, and investigators are, among other areas, looking carefully at a 1997 jackscrew test for any " irregularities" according to the report.
By now we all know what can result. Of course, the investigators will look into any evidence of negligence or something more serious like reckless conduct that could have had anything to do with the accident. There is a huge difference. You guessed it! One can result in criminal charges, and the other simply means you lose your license. Like the technicians who were involved with the oxygen canisters in ValuJet, the guys who were involved with this test had better be looking to their lawyers and, more importantly, avoid giving any statements until after discussing it with counsel. The defense bar always says most indictments come from statements freely given by the accused.
Whistleblowers
The companion problem that the papers report involves a large-scale complaint by technicians against a supervisor. Why it comes at this time is a little strange. The press report that the supervisor has been placed on leave pending further developments. His lawyer has already proclaimed that his client will be fully exonerated. I hope so.
One can only wonder where these complainants were during the preceding months or years? In fairness to the man complained against, one has to inquire why the complainants only come forward at this relatively late date and only after Federal investigators are snooping around. They would be called whistleblowers earlier. Further, they can't allege that they were fearful of retribution by the company because there is wide ranging protection for whistleblowers in the law. Most companies encourage reports of management errors. Add to this the fact that no FAR violations have been found, at least to date, and the situation becomes strange indeed.
Who's to blame?
The government will always try to ferret out somebody to blame. The person complained against here has little to defend himself save the
fact that no violations have been found and that no one came forward at an earlier date. The man probably did nothing to contribute to any dangerous situation, but he still may be harassed into pleading to something. When the full might of the US Government comes down, it is very difficult to defend yourself. The critical thing for all technicians to recall is that it is one thing to have your license threatened and quite another to be looking at jail time!
We must remember also that for all the posturing in ValuJet and the two criminal proceedings, that's right two, one state and one federal, nothing came of the whole thing. The accused were ,for the most part, exonerated at trial.
Statements
Instructions to technicians by the company were to "alert" top management of any federal inquiries. This was certainly a poor selection of words, but, as reported in the press, it was later changed to say that it applied only to the FAA inquiries and not to FBI-type queries. What's the difference? In any case, all mechanics were urged to "cooperate" with any investigations. What else could they say?
As has been mentioned many times in this column, technicians should be very careful about speaking, i.e. cooperating, with any federal investigator, whether FAA or FBI. In either case, keep in mind that the information you provide is freely exchanged between them. A technician usually has nothing to gain and everything to lose in these cases. There is no lesser threat in your talking to a FAA person than there is to an FBI agent. You don't have to talk to either. The potential threat is the same, and you should be aware of it. Furthermore, as we should all know by now, there is no Miranda warning necessary or required when being questioned by an FAA person. If the person is from the Justice Department ,there is a difference. These people are required to give Miranda warnings under certain circumstances. But one should be very wary of their motives. Be polite, and just say that you wish to speak to your lawyer before giving any statement. Keep in mind that all the information you may provide to an FAA person is readily available to law enforcement. Again, you need not speak with anyone if you don't want to. It is very nice for a company to urge cooperation with investigators but technicians should be aware that their statements could result in actions against them. The technicians in the ValuJet-Sabertech fiasco gave statements and found themselves in Federal court with much pain and anguish.
We don't have to go back too many years to recall Eastern Airlines and the prosecutions against technicians and management for violating FAR's. These people were charged with crimes just like the ValuJet case, even though there were no accidents at EAL before their final flight.
The FAA probe
The FAA knows very well that in the air carrier business the pressure
is on to make airplanes fly. They know employees may feel intimidated by supervision because of managements' zeal to maintain schedules. Where employees are forced to release aircraft to service by bypassing regulations, accidents are bound to happen. Technicians should not fall into the trap of feeling like the good guy trying to keep the airplanes flying. Be very wary with your signature for releasing an aircraft for flight when it really is not ready or signing off on an incomplete inspection process. The job and neck you save may be your own. If you need help in trying to decide what to do, seek competent counsel before you act!
Postscript: Some good news about emergency certificate revocations
I hope all airmen and women noticed that Congress (Senate and House) recently, on March 15, passed the so-called AIR 21 omnibus authorization
bill. Contained therein was what has become known as the "Hoover Bill" in honor of Bob Hoover. This legislation is designed to allow you to seek review at the NTSB of any FAA action revoking or suspending a certificate on an "emergency" basis. The emergency classification, as we should all know, puts you out of business immediately! The review allows you to challenge the finding that there is some emergency in regard to the matter. We in the defense business are pleased with this outcome because it will make the FAA much more careful about the use of emergency procedures, which in recent years have become all too common. Great result!
