Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 29, 2009 0:29:04 GMT 1
|
|
|
Post by Biggles on Apr 1, 2009 20:39:28 GMT 1
I would hazard a guess that in todays modern and technological era and accepting that most commercial aircraft being fitted with CVR and FDR equipment not to mention TCAS, GPS AND GPWI plus many other pieces of usable evidence after an accident,human confirmatio evidence may be of little use. Also within Air Traffic Control I guess is s service also equiped with all sorts of recording devices both sound and visual to aid any subsequest post accident investigation. The need for a pilot, if one survived, or an ATC officer to actually speak to confirm what is already known from other evidence would hardly be likely to add much sway to a decision as to cause. Keeping quiet at a hearing therefore becoming basically what is known as a Hostile Witness does nobody any good. I would think that in most cases if the accident was a defect not attributable to either pilot error or controller input error, witnesses would only be to eager to speak. Watching the investigation into the US aircraft that ditched in the river recently, the ATC officer basically only spoke to confirm what was already known from recordings of his duty period.
|
|