The final report from the judge was due today. Haven't heard anything of it yet.

Do note:

1. CO is amongst a number of companies and their representatives asked to be made available for questioning, not the only company. The judge's office would like to know, in particular, why the substitution of the part was made with a different material and whether this was against manufacturer's directions. Apparently, Boeing and the engine manufacturer (GE?) have indicated that it should have been aluminum (could be CYA).

If one was doing a thorough investigation, one should investigate whether using a different metal piece could potentially make it much more likely to separate (for factors such as different thermal expansion, different torque specs needed, etc.). Otherwise, a design that sheds "dangerous" parts on the runway can and should be held partially liable. It is typically the manufacturer's responsibility to show that it was a "safe" replacement and that tests and procedures existed to make it safe and the airline's responsibility to show that it followed the right procedures. But if the manufacturer, disavows this modification, then it is up to CO to explain why they made that change and whether they had tested it sufficiently to ensure that it would not separate. So I can understand why they want to talk to CO.

2. It is only a French newspaper that has reported the above as "one step from filing criminal charges". The judge's office has declined to comment so far.

3. Criminal charges may or may not be filed but if they are, the blame is expected to be spread over multiple parties. The questioning is to figure out who is to be included in this group and for what.

4. The trial will determine whether there is criminal culpability or not for each defendant named.