"Now," Ziegler said. "It starts."

A counter appeared on the screen. The timer ran forward, red numerals flickering fast, counting tenths and hundredths of a second.

The wife jerked her head around. "What-wa-at?"

"Damn," Casey said.

She could hear it now. A low rumble, a definite shuddering bass sound.

"It's been thinned by the bypass," Ziegler said. "Deep, low rumble. Down in the two to five hertz range. Almost a vibration."

No question, Casey thought. With the filters in place, she could hear it. It was there.

The man's voice broke in, a booming laugh: "Ake it- easy-Em."

The baby giggled again, a sharp earsplitting crackle.

The husband said,"-ost-ome-oney."

The low-pitched rumbling ended.

"Stop!" Casey said.

The red numerals froze. The numbers were big on the screen-11:59:32.

Nearly twelve seconds, she thought. And twelve seconds was the time it took for the slats to fully deploy.

The slats had deployed on Flight 545.

By now, the tape was showing the steep descent, the baby sliding on the mother's lap, the mother clutching it, her panicked face. The passengers anxious in the background. With the filters in place, all their shouts produced unusual clipped-off noise, almost like static.

Ziegler stopped the tape.

"There's your data, Singleton. Unequivocal, I'd say."

"The slats deployed."

"Sure sounds like it. It's a fairly unique signature."

"Why?" The aircraft was in cruise flight. Why would they deploy? Was it uncommanded, or had the pilot done it? Casey wished again for the flight data recorder. All these questions could be answered in a few minutes, if they just had the data from the FDR. But it was going very slowly.

"Did you look at the rest of the tape?"

"Well, the next point of interest is the cockpit alarms," Ziegler said. "Once the camera jams in the door, I can listen to the audio, and assemble a sequence of what the aircraft was telling the pilot. But that'll take me another day."

"Stay with it," she said. "I want everything you can give me."

Then her beeper went off. She pulled it off her belt, looked at it.

••• JM ADMIN ASAP BTOYA

John Marder wanted to see her. In his office. Now.

John Marder was in his calm mood-the dangerous one.

"Just a short interview," he said. 'Ten, fifteen minutes at most. You won't have time to go into specifics. But as the head of the IRT, you're in the perfect position to explain the company's commitment to safety. How carefully we review accidents. Our commitment to product support. Then you can explain that our preliminary report shows the accident was caused by a counterfeit thruster cowl, installed at a foreign repair station, so it could not have been a slats event. And blow Barker out of the water. Blow Newsline out of the water."

"John," she said. "I just came from Audio. There's no question-the slats deployed."

"Well, audio's circumstantial at best," Marder said. "Ziegler's a nut. We have to wait for the flight data recorder to know precisely what happened. Meanwhile, the IRT has made a preliminary finding which excludes slats."

As if hearing her own voice from a distance, she said, "John, I'm uncomfortable with this."

"We're talking about the future, Casey."

"I understand, but-"

"The China sale will save the company. Cash flow, stretch development, new aircraft, bright future. That's what we're talking about here, Casey. Thousands of jobs."

"I understand, John, but-"

"Let me ask you something, Casey. Do you think there's anything wrong with the N-22?"

Absolutely not."

"You think it's a deathtrap?"

"No."

"What about the company? Think it's a good company?"

"Of course."

He stared at her, shaking his head. Finally he said, "There's someone I want you to talk to."

Edward Fuller was the head of Norton Legal. He was a thin, ungainly man of forty. He sat uneasily in the chair in Marder's office.

"Edward," Marder said, "we have a problem. Newsline is going to run a story on the N-22 this weekend on prime-time television, and it is going to be highly unfavorable."

"How unfavorable?"

They're calling the N-22 a deathtrap."

"Oh dear," Fuller said. "That's very unfortunate."

"Yes, it is," Marder said. "I brought you in because I want to know what I can do about it."

"Do about it?" Fuller said, frowning.

"Yes," Marder said. "We feel Newsline is being crudely sensationalistic. We regard their story as uninformed, and prejudicial to our product. We believe they are deliberately and recklessly defaming us."

"I see."

"So," Marder said. "What can we do? Can we prevent them from running the story?'

"No."

"Can we get a court injunction barring them?"

"No. That's prior restraint. And from a publicity standpoint, it's ill advised."

"You mean it'd look bad."

"An attempt to muzzle the press? Violate the First Amendment? That would suggest you have something to hide."

"In other words," Marder said, "they can run the story, and we are powerless to stop them."

"Yes."

"Okay. But I think Newsline's information is inaccurate and biased. Can we demand they give equal time to our evidence?"

"No," Fuller said. "The fairness doctrine, which included the equal-time provision, was scrapped under Reagan. Television news programs are under no obligation to present all sides of an issue."

"So they can say anything they want? No matter how unbalanced?"

"That's right."

"That doesn't seem proper."

"It's the law," Fuller said, with a shrug.

"Okay," Marder said. "Now, this program is going to air at a very sensitive moment for our company. Adverse publicity may very well cost us the China sale."

"Yes, it might."

"Suppose we lost business as a result of their show. If we can demonstrate that Newsline presented an erroneous view- and we told them it was erroneous-can we sue them for damages?"

"As a practical matter, no. We would probably have to show they proceeded with 'reckless disregard' for the facts known to them. Historically, that has been extremely difficult to prove."

"So Newsline is not liable for damages?"

"No."

"They can say whatever they want, and if they put us out of business, it's our tough luck?"

"That's correct."

"Is there any restraint at all on what they say?"

"Well." Fuller shifted in the chair. "If they falsely portrayed the company, they might be liable. But in this instance, we have a lawsuit brought by an attorney for a passenger on 545.

So Newsline is able to say they're just reporting the facts: that an attorney has made the following accusations about us."

"I understand," Marder said. "But a claim filed in a court has limited publicity. Newsline is going to present these crazy claims to forty million viewers. And at the same time, they'll automatically validate the claims, simply by repeating them on television. The damage to us comes from their exposure, not from the original claims."

"I take your point," Fuller said. "But the law doesn't see it that way. Newsline has the right to report a lawsuit."

"Newsline has no responsibility to independently assess the legal claims being made, no matter how outrageous? If the lawyer said, for example, that we employed child molesters, Newsline could still report that, with no liability to themselves?"

"Correct."

"Let's say we go to trial and win. It's clear that Newsline presented an erroneous view of our product, based on the attorney's allegations, which have been thrown out of court. Is Newsline obligated to retract the statements they made to forty million viewers?"