Sorry Jetblu I was confused by your use of the term inadmissible, which I take to mean it is prohibited.
G,
It may have been easier for me to ask you what you think inadmissible could be, but let's work this scenario.....You are alleged to have endangered life by screaming out the end of a runway upon landing and ended up on a carriageway having collided with some cars. Would you think Go-Pro footage depicting you driving to the airfield on that day could/would be used as evidence and held admissible?
Alternatively, you may have a Go-Pro in your cockpit depicting that unfortunate event. How in your professional opinion could a jury decide how much breaking pressure you were applying?
In your illustration above, I'm not sure how realistic it is to video your entire drive to the airfield and then transfer the Go-Pro to your aircraft and film that activity also - although it possibly gives an insight into a narcissistic personality!
Regards braking pressure - they couldn't but what viewers might be able to see is the stability of the final approach and its speed.
What about this scenario - you crash and Go-Pro footage captures the entire flight. The camera is forward facing and shows the picture out of the front of the aircraft and some primary flight instruments are also readable.
Forget court at this stage, would you object to the AAIB giving that footage to the Police?
Because I'm not entirely sure how that differs all that much from Mr 190mph+
It seems to me that attempts to class personal video recordings as flight safety media obfuscates the AAIB's concerns over the use of FDR's etc.