Friendly Fire Notebook

Ed Rasimus wrote:

On Sat, 24 Apr 2004 16:39:14 GMT, "Gord Beaman" )
wrote:


The NTSB sure doesn't put much credence in eyewitness accounts at
all. They use them only to add a slight amount of weight to
physical evidence when there's some ambiguity in it. Rightly so
IMO.

As we've been discussing, there are "witnesses" and there are
"Witnesses". The eyewitness recollection of Joe Bagadonutz, the night
shift fry-cook at the local McBurgerWendBell, on the condition of a
crashing tactical fighter might not be very reliable. The eyewitness
observation of a qualified aircrewmember in the type who was in
position might be of considerable value.

Put a student tactical aviator in charge of the debrief after his
first 2-v-1 sortie and you won't get much of value. Put the lead IP at
the whiteboard with his three colored markers, HUD tape and commentary
and you'll get a pretty accurate picture. Add the input of any
supporting IPs in the flight and you'll be almost perfect. Now add the
mission controller (if used) and the ACMI recreation and you've got
exactly what happened.

Evaluating the qualification of the observer is a critical part of the
process.

Sure is, but experience only helps, it doesn't guarantee complete
accuracy. I'm reminded of an account told to me by an IAF pilot, of an
IAF helo accident which a very experienced Canadian military helo pilot
(instructor etc.) witnessed from the ground in the Sinai (IIRR, it was
during the Israeli pullout in 1982). He was the best eyewitness they had,
although they later found someone who had filmed it. When questioned,
among the things he stated was that the a/c had definitely made 4-5
revolutions before ground impact (spins; IIRC, there was a tail rotor
failure of some kind). When they eventually got their hands on the film,
the a/c had clearly made only 1 1/2 revs before impact.

Guy