Having attended a Coroners court and seen at first hand the crazy conclusions drawn by the coroner purely based upon his complete lack of knowledge of flying operations, then what a cunning lawyer could do with a CVR read-out in court is frightening.
The coroner in this particular case, stated that because the accident aircraft was old in years, then many defects must be accepted as normal. (Tell that to the Feds!) He made an analogy about old cars being rarely devoid of defects of some kind or other.
Also (he said) because the pilot had not logged the alleged defects in the maintenance release (which was devoid of entries at the time of the fatal accident)-then the defects (actually written on a piece of scrap paper and kept at home by the pilot), could not have been important, as the pilot would have surely reported them in the MR, because that is the Regs. It was evident that the pilot was reluctant to write up defects because of his perceived fear of risking job security.
And finally the word of the LAME who, tongue in cheek, swore that he was unaware of any snags because none were in the MR - was taken as gospel by the coroner over the word of another witness who had recently flown in the RH seat of the aircraft the day before the crash - but who was not in the coroners words - an "aviation person". The coroner said that as the LAME was an "expert" witness, his evidence was what counted. Sitting at the back of the court room, I was gobsmacked at the lies and duck-shoving that took place.
No point in going to more details here, sufficient to warn that listening to a CVR tape in a coroners court is courting amateur interpretation, with all that implies.
[This message has been edited by Centaurus (edited 08 April 2001).]
[This message has been edited by Centaurus (edited 08 April 2001).]