The year got off to a particularly bad start for the Dutch Research Council. First, it was the court in The Hague that ruled on Jan. 8, 2020, that the council should be allowed to operate after the plane crash that took place in Faro in 1992, did not report with sufficient care.
Weather conditions were incorrectly identified as the root cause, while mistakes made by the pilots were not adequately highlighted. That led to the decision that the State was partially liable for the victims' damages due to that careless reporting.
Next came the New York Times on Jan. 20, 2020 with critical questions about the Dutch Safety Board's report on the crash - with the Turkish Airlines plane - that occurred at Schiphol Airport in 2009. The council allegedly did not adequately name manufacturing defects by aircraft manufacturer Boeing, which in turn was allegedly pressured by the Americans.
Major interests
This is not good for the Safety Board and not good for the public trust that should be able to exist in its judgment after a disaster. It goes without saying that major interests are involved in the outcome of a disaster investigation. Because of this, it is understandable that those involved will try to influence that outcome.
In an investigation following a air disaster may involve the airline, local authorities and aircraft manufacturer. Each may have its own interest in doing so.
Reliance on independent judgment
The task of the council is to arrive at an independent and correct judgment. This is especially important for the only interested parties who are never involved in the investigation: the victims or their relatives. They must be able to trust the council's judgment and that judgment must not be able to be cast in a bad light. It is of the utmost importance that trust in the Safety Board be restored where necessary.
If you have questions about this blog, please contact the author, John Beer.