Originally Posted by
Clinton McKenzie
…
This was a public hearing of the NTSB’s “Office Of Administrative Law Judges”.
Yes, it was – a somewhat grandiose title for a standard feature of the US accident investigation process for significant accidents.
Originally Posted by
Clinton McKenzie
…
Capt S was in front of a Board of Inquiry and was required to answer questions asked by an NSTB safety investigator, a bloke who I think was from the French equivalent of the NTSB, Ms Kolander from the Association of Flight Attendants (as you’ve noted), a representative of the FAA, a representative of the US Airline Pilots Association, and three members of the Board of Inquiry.
Yes, he was. In exactly the same fashion as the other 23 witnesses appearing before the Board. The other witnesses included a passenger, together with representatives of the FAA, EASA, Airbus, CFM, the US Department of Agriculture, NASA, and US Airways.
Originally Posted by
Clinton McKenzie
…
You and I might disagree as to the proper metaphor for the process, but it certainly did not comprise Capt S merely explaining, in a quiet chat with an NTSB investigator, what he deemed necessary to be done in the emergency, with no further comment, and the NTSB accepting that and moving on.
Your contention was that Captain Sullenberger was “put through the ringer”. I doubt very much whether any fair minded person who has watched his testimony would agree with that characterisation.
Originally Posted by
Clinton McKenzie
…
Capt S was, in effect, cross-examined publicly about his actions – sometimes gently in his interests and sometimes more aggressively – by a number of people outside the NTSB as well as NTSB itself
The Captain was most assuredly not “cross-examined” under any normal meaning of the phrase.
Of the roughly 65 questions that were put to him in the hour that he offered testimony, only about half a dozen related to his actions on the day. And there was only one occasion where one of his actions was queried in a challenging manner (that of his cabin PA announcement just prior to the ditching).
Notably, as soon as a question put to Captain Sullenberger became somewhat interrogative, the Board Chairman, Sumwalt, shut it down.
Originally Posted by
Clinton McKenzie
…
Sure: Capt S lives happily ever after. But that’s only after he was put under intense public, NTSB-mandated scrutiny involving non-NTSB people asking him questions.
Again, there is not a scintilla of evidence – apart from a fictionalisation of public hearing portrayed in a movie - to support that contention. What is notable is that there was essentially no commentary on the NTSB’s handling of the matter until the movie was released.
Originally Posted by
43Inches
... And yes, I have no idea how somebody would think that 3+ days of public inquiry is a pleasant experience, regardless of the tone of the investigation.
3+ days?? The public hearing ran over three days, 9 – 11 June 2009 inclusive, and was concluded by 10.30am on the third day. Captain Sullenberger gave testimony for less than an hour.
Board Chairman Sumwalt opened the hearing noting,
‘.
.. in preparation for this hearing, I flew through the accident scenario in a flight simulator. I've listened to the Cockpit Voice Recorder in real time and as an experienced pilot, I can tell you this flight crew had a lot going on. They had a lot going on in a very short period of time. And, in considering what could have been done differently, there is certainly no intention by the Safety Board to diminish the crew’s and the first responder’s extraordinary success in saving the lives of all passengers and crew that day.’
Sumwalt's questions to the Captain were essentially Dorothy Dixer's, either entirely complimentary or offering the Captain the opportunity to speak about safety standards and pilot training.
And Sumwalt concluded the Captain’s testimony by saying,
‘Thank you. Captain Sullenberger, I have no further questions. I want to thank you very much for your testimony, for being here this morning, and for representing the piloting profession as you do. You are excused from the witness stand. Thank you very much.’
And, of course, had the NTSB not run any simulations, we would have had to have endured some galah banging on incessantly about a return to La Guardia being a valid option, and US Airways being given preferential treatment.
Originally Posted by
43Inches
…
I've never heard of it happening here in Australia.
To the surprise of I am sure nobody other than yourself, the use of public hearings, while common in the US, is not a feature of the investigative process here.