Originally Posted by
nomorehelosforme
Lets see how competent and thorough the FAA and the NTSB think this eyewitness is during the course of their investigations, I think they may concur on the former of your potential conclusions of the (layman)eyewitness. Normally only information from an “expert witness” would be considered.
Rules about expert witnesses are set by state and federal rules of evidence, depending on whether your case is in state or federal court...
Under federal rules, experts must base their testimony on sufficient facts or data of the type reasonably relied upon by experts in their field, in order to help the jury understand issues that typically require specialized knowledge. While non-expert witnesses can only testify about what they've seen or heard, expert witnesses are generally allowed to give their specialized or professional opinion.
States have similar rules, though there are notable differences among states when it comes to the admissibility of expert testimony.
Indeed he may be full of it, but he sounds so smooth doing it. : ) I wasn't suggesting the guy be qualified as an expert witness. As you point out, the standards are high in a court of law. The rule you're referring to is known as the Daubert Rule and it has tightened up the standards for expert, opinion-based evidence a good bit in the last generation. It's the law of the land.
I have no earthly clue what standards the FAA and NTSB apply in their investigations, though. Way outside my area of expertise. I'm just saying if that dude with the ball cap had some testimony that I thought favored my position in a subsequent civil trial if I were representing a surviving family member suing Sikorsky or the heli service or what have you, I'd love to have him up on the stand. Smoooth. But that's all pie in the sky because I'm not practicing anymore, just teaching university students for relative beans. Those who can't do, teach, as they say.