Next  proceedings in court:

 

  Attorneys then asked   that the

     9th Circuit Court of Appeals   review

      the NTSB's   May 4th '95  denial of Gibson's Petition,

            pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 1153(b):

 Argued and Submitted November 5, 1996.            


     United StatesCourt of Appeals, Ninth Circuit,

                        decided    July 7, 1997,


"... At issue is   the  NTSB's denial   of  a petition to reconsider  ...

...We do not have ... jurisdiction   to review   the NTSB's action.  

          Jurisdiction   is    a question of law  ... no court has directly addressed the issue

                       whether   Title 49 U.S.C. § 1153,   the Independent Safety Board Act,

                                    grants   jurisdiction    over   an NTSB denial   of a petition   ...  

    The NTSB regulations . . .  the NTSB's complete discretion

        to conduct its investigations as it sees fit.

              The denial of Gibson's petition falls within

NTSB's       unreviewable   discretion. 

 

10-b

Note that  NTSB-staff   did   NOT   disclose    the  author  of   that document.

Since    none   of    the   three  Board Members    named as  signatories
                                ever   qualified    on   the Boeing-727, 
                
                                         the   authorship
          (for purposes  of  ascribing   Scientific Misconduct)    remains   unclear:


          an  engineer  at Boeing??           a
staff-manager   at NTSB? 
             
     ? WHO  was  \ is  NTSB's  "accountable executive"?

In  this  4May95    NTSB   response       to   the legal challenge, 
    in  the court-case    of  
 Gibson v NTSB,
       the  actual   evidence,   Heading data,   was NOT  specifically  shown
            --   NTSB-staff   flatly   mischaracterized    detailed data    as    "no yaw".
        Similarly,   NTSB-staff   erroneously    stated  

                                   the  location-source   of   the main   hydraulic rupture  
                       (in   disagreement  with   the original    Systems Group Factual Report).


                       January  1995    court  proceedings:  

                 

NTSB    created   a   response

 

Forced into action, by these legal proceedings   against USA's NTSB, 

         on  May 4, 1995  the    NTSB   did  finally react to the court-proceedings:  

NTSB  issued their mysterious letter --  that  denied Gibson's  Petition to Reconsider 

                                                                        (in the interim of the court proceedings). 


Rather than an engineering-side response to a  technical Petition, 

     the  NTSB-letter of May 4th '95 appears instead to be

             a veiled effort  by NTSB's legal-side, 

                   Office of the General Counsel,    to evade  any court-action.     


That court found   his second request, the first appeal,  to be moot, 

      because the NTSB had  acted -- had finally created  

                their long-delayed  May 4th "denial"  decision   in the interim.  ​

Fabricated Fact

Contradicts

the Systems Grp Rpt

   

   ---   Fabricated   "facts"   cited in

                             the  NTSB's  forced response --   

 

   The  "alpa" Petition of October 9th, 1990  [the first to explain  Yorke's analysis]  had cited numerous  errs   in the NTSB AAR-81-8  (damaged aircraft components mislabeled or misidentified),  errs  which might have contributed to the inability  of NTSB-staff  investigators to correlate the direct evidence;   errs which further confused the documentation in such a way that the pilot-investigators had been provided with wrong wreckage-damage, wrong information about items in the Trail of Debris.

 

Closer examination of that NTSB-denial  letter dated May 4th'95, quickly  revealed "errs" that were beyond the  technical "errata"  found in AAR-81-8:    The foundation  for the NTSB's  May 4th '95 denial-letter,    denying  "reconsideration" for the  Captain Gibson Petition (dated 2May91),    was their newly fabricated  "facts"  about the direct evidence: That  direct evidence  was first examined  during  on-scene  documentation of  "wreckage"  (the damaged aircraft parked on taxiway at DTW).    The Systems Group had documented a main  leakage of hydraulic fluid, from the torn hydraulic- lines near the damaged RHS- Main Landing Gear.  


  Similarly,  the May 4th '95 denial-letter    cited  newly fabricated "facts"   about  the yawing  motion recorded by FDR-Hdg trace.    Shown below are the newly fabricated facts cited in the NTSB's May 4th '95 denial letter,   fabrications that clearly were NOT documented by the original investigators in April 1979.


False statement

   from  NTSB to Court  

On-scene investigators,  in April'79,

documented  that HYDRAULIC  FLUID  from

the  MAIN hydraulic rupture

 nearest   the RHS-MLG:

see photos excluded from

NTSB's  Public Docket.


   Captain's  testimony describing the INITIAL upset

         ". . . it did go off to the right . . .   maybe 10-degrees

                 off to the right . . . before it rolled."

 

Correcting the Science Record -->next pg
Bernard Loeb, former NTSB staff-manager

  Dated     May 4th, 1995     an  NTSB   response,  

 (acknowledged   only   by

                                                                      US   9th Circuit   Court of Appeals)

This  mysterious document,  from NTSB 

       (appears only on a website unaffiliated with NTSB),

        this  letter   exists   ONLY  in  html- format   on that website;

          NTSB-staff   defined  their  1995- letter   as

                             "Response   to    Petition for Reconsideration".


    In their letter   to the court,

           NTSB  finally disclosed    the history   of

             various  petitions   filed against  AAR-81-8,   and

     NTSB acknowledged 

            the date   each  Petition   was received   by NTSB.

  Furthermore  NTSB    erroneously    told the court  that

NTSB  would   handle  EACH  petition,  separately.


 

Passengers  sensed  a  YAW- motion

during the INITIAL  upset.  

  excerpts from the Human Factors Report   

 

NTSB's   May 4th '95  denial-letter  

                       cited newly fabricated "facts"

-- the basis   for  NTSB's   denial

     was  ntsb's  own  fraudulent  "Facts"

created   by  NTSB  in    1995 .

FDR- Heading

    Yet NTSB's denial-letter  of May 4th '95  stated 

       "NO YAWING moments  identifiable  on the FDR."



         1990  -->   1991   -->   1992  -->   1993   -->   1994  -->  1995

                    --  Multiple   Petitions       against     NTSB's   AAR-81-8  

                           Ignored    by   NTSB's  staff-managers, 


  Mid-1990's  

       NTSB's     Cover-Up    Phase


     -- then  in  January 1995   forced by the legal proceedings

                         the   Attorneys'  petition of Mandamus,    January 13th, 1995

                          NTSB    countered  with

                                  an  unpublished   NTSB-response    to  the Appeals Court,


           --   "response"  by   USA's    NTSB  reveals     Scientific Misconduct ;


                   -- Ninth  Circuit Court of Appeals decision: 

                                       NTSB has a privilege of  "unreviewable Discretion"


                          -- Investigative  "safeguards"  

                                     vs  NTSB's  unworkable  §845.41   Petitions for reconsideration .

      --  Correcting  the    Scientific Record:

 standards  for    Retractions,  after   investigator-err,    scientific misconduct

               

Evolution  of   USA's   new born   "independent"    Safety  Board :

         built-in  organizational weaknesses  & protections  =  NO  investigative Safeguards,

??  Err-recognition ??       Err-correction ??

Hidden Mistakes 

             --    underlying  bias ,     concealed err,     hidden deception; 

                                                 --       hidden   cover-ups.

 

NTSB's  Fabricated "facts"

 Yawing motion was recorded on FDR,  and  observed by the pilot,  and felt by the passengers.


  Systems Group

    Factual Rpt

   Loss of hydraulic fluid,

              location.

...

Inside   the USA's    "independent"     NTSB

             (freed from  outside intervention   and    freed from   investigative   "safeguards") :

Who  will call-out  that   Scientific Misconduct   violation?

 The  NTSB's own  Staff-Managers?      

Fabricated "fact"

Contradicts

the FDR-data


                         After   NTSB   delays, 

without  any  corrections  to   NTSB-AAR-81-8,               


after   NTSB's  refusal    to  respond   to any of the   §845.41-Petitions   against   AAR-81-8,  

and  NTSB's   refusal  to comply with their own   rules  regarding Petitions :



    Legal proceedings in court:

                                against   NTSB

-- Petition in the Nature of Mandamus   filed   January 13, 1995:

Gibson's  attorneys    sought judicial relief in this matter.    He petitioned the the  Court  to compel the NTSB to act on his   Petition to Reconsider  (the Petition dated 2May'91).    That court denied Gibson's  first request.    Then his attorneys  filed a  timely appeal with Court of Appeals  for the District of Columbia. 


mid-'90's NTSB Chief of Major Investigations

      The  mysterious   4May95-  NTSB   "letter"

                - -   NTSB's   forced   response     offered to  Courts


That  document,   the NTSB's  denial-response,   had remained  unknown to other investigators.

    The engineer-investigators  were unaware that

             the legal-side of the NTSB had responded  (on May 4th '95)  to one  of the Petitions against  AAR-81-8:

  none of the   investigators   from  the various parties                         

               had ever heard about  any NTSB response   to the various Petitions.    


The earliest   NTSB website  had  listed   NTSB responses   to    Petitions of Reconsideration --

       but  NTSB  never   disclosed  

                any   NTSB response

                       to any of     the 1990's petitions      against AAR-81-8.  


Similarly, during the mid-'90's,   NTSB employees had copies of 

       an  NTSB  LIST of   those  petitions   that required further attention,  and a future response.

       The  petitions against   AAR-81-8  were then  listed as still open,  pending future actions by NTSB-staff.

 

Currently,  NTSB does not disclose  any  compilation (listing) of  its  responses   to  petitions,

                                                                                              nor   any list   of still-open  petitions

NTSB has so far   refused to openly verify   that anyMay 4th '95- response  was actually created by NTSB;

                                       the NTSB's 2014  FOIA response  disclosed

                                                  staff's open neglect of  §845.41  (now revised to §845.32).

      The only acknowledgement of  that  May 4th '95 NTSB- response- letter 

              was   that item    cited in a court decision

                   --  nothing   from NTSB   to acknowledge   that any  May 4th'95 response  existed.

   

There is   no   review-oversight   of the  USA's "independent" Safety Board:

          no IG  review of  NTSB-AAR-81-8,  nor  any  review of the main Petition,

            to insure that NTSB rule 845.41  (Petitions)  operates as intended.  

That undisclosed    NTSB   response    began

 the   NTSB   staff-managers'   final  "cover-up".        

      xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

  Scientific  Misconduct

Outright scientific- FRAUD


Failure - Interactions

next-page button

Inside  USA's  "independent"   Safety Board,

    ??  who  is  accountable  ??

        - -   for creating   those   false  "facts",

                offered  to the  court,     in    Gibson v NTSB,

                  as  NTSB's  response    dated  4May95  ???


Three Board Members    endorsed  that  mysterious document:

                   "...  Chairman   HALL,    Vice Chairman   FRANCIS,     and Member  HAMMERSCHMIDT

                                                                        concurred in   the disposition   of this petition ..."