NTSB

(John Galban) wrote
I'm not even sure if I trust them on the high profile stuff. The
United 811 (747 that lost a cargo door) investigation was pretty bad.
The NTSB refused to amend their original verdict until cargo doors
started opening themselves on the ramp.

I think (and I admit that I could be wrong) that on the high profile
stuff, a reasonable job is done most of the time. There are just too
many players involved to gloss over stuff, and sufficient resources
are avilable to do it right. There will always be screwups and
political pressure, but I suspect that in the high profile cases there
is enough pressure from all sides and no real cost constraint, so
usually a reasonable job is done. Also, when there is a screwup,
people keep pushing and it is possible to reopen the investigation.

In the low-profile GA stuff, it's the good report that's exceptional.
In my experience (and that's some half-dozen accidents/incidents where
I have first hand knowledge) it has not ever happened.

Like you, I no longer consider NTSB reports particularly educational.
Whenever I read one where the pilot's actions make no sense, I no
longer wonder what the pilot was thinking. I wonder what really
happened, and how the NTSB managed to screw it up.

Michael

C J Campbell wrote:

"EDR" wrote in message
...

This is probably why NTSB reports cannot be used in trials.


NTSB reports are inadmissible in trials by statute. Otherwise lawyers would
continually interfere with the investigation.


However, is the testimony of the investigator admissible? And, how would
the admissibility allow lawyers to interfere? I dont see how it could be
so.. at least not right off the bat..

Dave

Dave S wrote:

However, is the testimony of the investigator admissible?

Sort of. The problem is that the NTSB farms out the actual investigation to experts
in the area. These experts typically are provided by the manufacturers. For example,
if the accident aircraft had a Lycoming engine, a Lycoming rep would check the engine
out and report problems found and whether or not it was putting out power at the time
of the crash.

And, how would
the admissibility allow lawyers to interfere?

Can you imagine what a lawyer would imply about the impartiability and veracity of a
Lycoming rep testifying about the condition of a Lycoming engine?

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.