Originally Posted by
safetypee
The NTSB appears to be biased towards more recording ....
The issue is industrywide; we have to recognise the uncertainty in modern operations and that in some instances we cannot know - but that's not in the investigator's charter (nor lawyers?)
The reply to the question about attorneys is dependent on what role or function the attorneys perform, where do they intersect and interact with the aviation sector?
The litigation practice (at least in the United States - I'm not familiar enough with other jurisdictions and their systems) is almost entirely "fraternal" in nature. Some lawyers sue on behalf of crash victims, others defend, and very rare are individuals or law firms who hop over that dividing fence. Although in the dead of dark night Counsel may acknowledge the existence of uncertainty especially about "the facts of the case" but also about the applicable law, legal practice obligation for "zealous advocacy" keeps such acknowledgement from becoming known.
But other parts of the bar perform other roles and functions. In initiatives to expand and develop my practice (which do not contemplate working in accident litigation) I have been fortunate to meet a number of attorneys who have played important roles in developing and advocating for reforms of U.S. aviation policy, regulatory and legislative development, and relationships with international groups and organizations . . . (including a U.S. Ambassador/ Permanent Representative to ICAO). None of these attorneys would, I think, deny the existence of uncertainty, if asked to consider the point.
Whether overall - "on balance" - inputs from the non-litigation bar are a net positive for advances in aviation safety or for the aviation sector writ large, is probably quite affected by one's opinion of lawyers in general.