Does air crash investigation require being on site?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does air crash investigation require being on site?
Three months after MH17 was shot down still an official onsite investigation has not been done. The investigation into the cause of the crash is done using photos and intel the public does not know.
The investigators cannot get access to MH17 crash site because of security. That is what Dutch PM Rutte says
Yesterday he said it is not required to have investigators on the site.
I think this is hard to believe. Can a proper investigation be done on an aviation crash without having access to the crash site? Maybe only when other evidence is available proving it was a missile or a figherjet?
The investigators cannot get access to MH17 crash site because of security. That is what Dutch PM Rutte says
Yesterday he said it is not required to have investigators on the site.
I think this is hard to believe. Can a proper investigation be done on an aviation crash without having access to the crash site? Maybe only when other evidence is available proving it was a missile or a figherjet?
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Use What You Have
Heck yes!! On-site examination and collection is always best. That said, this is NOT the first example of a major hull loss accident in which an on-site examination was not possible. Will the lack of a detailed, site examination change the investigation's eventual conclusions? In theory, of course it is possible. In the case of the 
'attack' on MH17, it appears that their is more than ample photographic and secondary evidence to support the preliminary conclusions reported by the Dutch investigative body. The Dutch investigators are as sharp as the type gets and while I'm sure they would prefer safe & secure access to the HUGE crash site, having such access is not likely to change their conclusions or eventual report in any way. They have the evidence required to reach legitimate conclusions. In more simple terms, of course site access is best! Would early access have changed or influenced the Dutch investigator's (in-process) report or its conclusions? Not likely. If anything, site access would only add to the support for what they will eventually report. Very short answer: No! Am I worried about the factual accuracy of their eventual report, simply because they did not have complete site access? NO!
'attack' on MH17, it appears that their is more than ample photographic and secondary evidence to support the preliminary conclusions reported by the Dutch investigative body. The Dutch investigators are as sharp as the type gets and while I'm sure they would prefer safe & secure access to the HUGE crash site, having such access is not likely to change their conclusions or eventual report in any way. They have the evidence required to reach legitimate conclusions. In more simple terms, of course site access is best! Would early access have changed or influenced the Dutch investigator's (in-process) report or its conclusions? Not likely. If anything, site access would only add to the support for what they will eventually report. Very short answer: No! Am I worried about the factual accuracy of their eventual report, simply because they did not have complete site access? NO!
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: U.S.A.
Age: 65
Posts: 33
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aircraft accident investigation is a whole procces involving a team of specialists.
The ones that do CVR $ FDAR reading are sitting in a lab, the analyst of the reading do their jobs in offices. If they are able to bring home the remains, the structuctural analysts make arrive to it's part of true in a lab (AF447)
Conclusion is made by professionals who collect all the information and make analysys, must probably w/o traveling to crash site.
Rgds
The ones that do CVR $ FDAR reading are sitting in a lab, the analyst of the reading do their jobs in offices. If they are able to bring home the remains, the structuctural analysts make arrive to it's part of true in a lab (AF447)
Conclusion is made by professionals who collect all the information and make analysys, must probably w/o traveling to crash site.
Rgds
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Germany
Age: 67
Posts: 1,777
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That is what Dutch PM Rutte says
Yesterday he said it is not required to have investigators on the site.
Yesterday he said it is not required to have investigators on the site.
I suppose that the lead of the Dutch investigation team will (they must) comment about the Rutte declaration to rectify this......
This accident is very special (context)
When this is a special case the best is to collect the most of evidences (materials included)
Nice exemple is the TWA 800 ... (was special circumstances)
Less the material .. never they had find the conclusion
MD11 Swiss Air .. same .. the conclusions and finds were based on material analyse ....
Anyways the more they have.. the more the investigators will be happy
The evidences are there .. (not in unknow place under sea) and waiting to be collected ...
Last edited by jcjeant; 19th Oct 2014 at 11:23.
