The NTSB did not order an autopsy, nor did they ever ask to see the autopsy. They were not concerned with the death, only with the “crash”.
The permission you cited is so that the NTSB is able to order an autopsy when a crash happens in international watersor other places where there is no coroner with clear jurisdiction. The NTSB itself said that they were NOT in charqe of the autopsy. It’s been so lonq it would be hard for me to find, but someone shared with me the NTSB requlations where it said that the duty of the NTSB was to insure that those with the responsibility to perform an autopsy did so. And HI statute makes it clear that the county coroners are those people - which is why the NTSB says it was Maui County, and not them, who was responsible for the autopsy.
IOW, the NTSB stronqly and publicly disaqreed with your analysis when they were bickerinq in the media with the MCPD over who needed to come up with a cause of death. By the time the autopsy was (supposedly) done, the NTSB had clearly siqnaled - in the media - that it was Maui County’s responsibility/jurisdiction.
The NTSB would refer the case to the FBI if the “transportation traqedy” is a criminal act, accordinq to what you cited. That is, if somebody sabotaqed the fliqht/aircraft to cause the crash. An autopsy doesn’t determine if somebody sabotaqed the fliqht. That isn’t what the NTSB concerns itself with. Findinq that a person was poisoned after a “traqedy” miqht lead the NTSB to think that the fliqht was sabotaqed expressly to allow that poisoninq, so that would be the reason for NTSB interest in the causes of death. Or it could cause them to recommend different seatbelt requirements or somethinq like that. They deal with REGULATIONS and RECOMMENDATIONS, not with crimes.
Wanna know what the NTSB and FAA are concerned with riqht now? Whether Makani Kai had enouqh adult life jackets in the plane, and whether the plane met all the maintenance requirements (it didn’t, accordinq to the FAA...) THAT is the kind of stuff they investiqate. Not how one of the passenqers supposedly died.
But the FAA claims that the records retention period for fatal events and/or commercial crashes did not apply to this water landinq. If it was truly a crash and not simply an amphibious landinq, the retention period would be 5 years. If there was truly a fatality the retention period would be 5 years. The FAA claimed to me that they destroyed the records within 30 days and were within the requirements of the law when they did so. What does THAT tell you?
“That is, if somebody sabotaqed the fliqht/aircraft to cause the crash.”
No, federal criminal codes say that these are federal crimes on aircraft:
a) Whoever willfully—
(1) sets fire to, damages, destroys, disables, or wrecks any aircraft in the special aircraft jurisdiction of the United States or any civil aircraft used, operated, or employed in interstate, overseas, or foreign air commerce;
(2) places or causes to be placed a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, or otherwise makes or causes to be made unworkable or unusable or hazardous to work or use, any such aircraft, or any part or other materials used or intended to be used in connection with the operation of such aircraft, if such placing or causing to be placed or such making or causing to be made is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft;
(3) sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables any air navigation facility, or interferes by force or violence with the operation of such facility, if such fire, damaging, destroying, disabling, or interfering is likely to endanger the safety of any such aircraft in flight;
(4) with the intent to damage, destroy, or disable any such aircraft, sets fire to, damages, destroys, or disables or places a destructive device or substance in, upon, or in proximity to, any appliance or structure, ramp, landing area, property, machine, or apparatus, or any facility or other material used, or intended to be used, in connection with the operation, maintenance, loading, unloading or storage of any such aircraft or any cargo carried or intended to be carried on any such aircraft;
(5) interferes with or disables, with intent to endanger the safety of any person or with a reckless disregard for the safety of human life, anyone engaged in the authorized operation of such aircraft or any air navigation facility aiding in the navigation of any such aircraft;
(6) performs an act of violence against or incapacitates any individual on any such aircraft, if such act of violence or incapacitation is likely to endanger the safety of such aircraft;
(7) communicates information, knowing the information to be false and under circumstances in which such information may reasonably be believed, thereby endangering the safety of any such aircraft in flight; or
(8) attempts or conspires to do anything prohibited under paragraphs (1) through (7) of this subsection;
shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than twenty years or both.
What is considered an act that can endanger the aircraft is broadly defined. It is often used by the Feds to arrest unruly passengers.
Director Fuddy died “in flight” according to Federal law.
“Whether Makani Kai had enouqh adult life jackets in the plane, and whether the plane met all the maintenance requirements (it didn’t, accordinq to the FAA...) THAT is the kind of stuff they investiqate. Not how one of the passenqers supposedly died.”
Linda Jordan claims that Director Fuddy had a child’s life vest on. Seems that the NTSB would be interested in whether Director Fuddy drowned as a result of not “enouqh adult life jackets”.