The NTSB does have subpoena power to compel a witness to appear. At the formal hearings, the testimony can be required to be sworn. From http://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process.html (emphasis added - PDN) :
The Board may hold an investigative hearing as part of a major transportation accident investigation. The purpose of the hearing is two-fold; first, to gather sworn testimony from subpoenaed witnesses on issues identified by the Board during the course of the investigation, and, second, to allow the public to observe the progress of the investigation. Hearings are usually held within six months of an accident, but may be delayed for complex investigations.
See also the similar 3rd paragraph of this article:
http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2009/03/ntsb-metrolink.html
By the way - since there have been some extensive discussions here regarding the NTSB's determination of "operator (engineer) fatigue" - i.e., - Is it believable ? How is that conclusion supported by any evidence ? Is it the 'cause of last resort", when no other cause seems to be attributable to the event ? etc. - see the "NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD METHODOLOGY FOR INVESTIGATING OPERATOR FATIGUE IN A TRANSPORTATION ACCIDENT" (about 2-1/2 pages) at:
http://www.ntsb.gov/doclib/manuals/fatigue_checklist_V%202_0.pdf
- Paul North.
efftenxrfe The NTSB's reports report and rely upon information received from people who are not sworn, thus not facing perjury penalties, and so to use a report as gospel in a law court where "the whole truth, nothing but...".seems to tweak (maybe twerk) reason? Hail the NTSB!! Their procedures seem most fair, unbiased, just, rational, level headed emotionally, logical, verifyable. That in court the reports dissolve like the Wicked Witch of the West, ( pardon please---TV commercial,) leaves their influence to the transport providers no less valuable information: fewer casualties, fewer disruptions, fewer lawsuits.... NTSB's reports can't be valid if they've got, by some legislative or jurisdictional, edict to be usable as trial evidence. 'Talk in' bout on sight interviews, video evidence, first, second and third responder's audio reactions. More likely to be correct than erroneous, NTSB's reports are valid; simultaneously, in Court, not.
The NTSB's reports report and rely upon information received from people who are not sworn, thus not facing perjury penalties, and so to use a report as gospel in a law court where "the whole truth, nothing but...".seems to tweak (maybe twerk) reason?
Hail the NTSB!!
Their procedures seem most fair, unbiased, just, rational, level headed emotionally, logical, verifyable.
That in court the reports dissolve like the Wicked Witch of the West, ( pardon please---TV commercial,) leaves their influence to the transport providers no less valuable information: fewer casualties, fewer disruptions, fewer lawsuits....
NTSB's reports can't be valid if they've got, by some legislative or jurisdictional, edict to be usable as trial evidence. 'Talk in' bout on sight interviews, video evidence, first, second and third responder's audio reactions.
More likely to be correct than erroneous, NTSB's reports are valid; simultaneously, in Court, not.
I still smell a trial-lawyers rat. No expert testimony has to be definitive in a case; look at how you get dueling expert witnesses at many trials ... psychologists, pathologists, et al. Experts can disagree, given the same evidence. What would be the rationale for excluding the NTSB ... whose testimony can be countered by other experts?
If Congress is allowed to legislate based on NTSB findings -- affecting 300 million people, not just the handful involved in a given case -- why should a jury not be allowed to at least take them into consideration?
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.