> It's frustrating to see that car companies see themselves as "partners" to the NTSB or other investigators.
That is how the NTSB "party" system is ran[0]. Contrary to what is shown in various movies eg. Flight(2012), Sully (2016), an NTSB investigation is not an adversarial process, and is not a criminal investigation. Additionally, NTSB determined cause (an opinion by the board) cannot be used as evidence in civil litigation.
Asiana 214 [2] is a good example of the NTSB being somewhat divided in the opinion of the 777 autopilot having a design flaw vs "pilot human performance" as the cause of the crash.
IMHO both the autopilot design and the pilot performance were causal factors in the crash. It is probable the NTSB will determine both the Tesla driver and the autopilot were causal factors in this crash.
That is how the NTSB "party" system is ran[0]. Contrary to what is shown in various movies eg. Flight(2012), Sully (2016), an NTSB investigation is not an adversarial process, and is not a criminal investigation. Additionally, NTSB determined cause (an opinion by the board) cannot be used as evidence in civil litigation.
Asiana 214 [2] is a good example of the NTSB being somewhat divided in the opinion of the 777 autopilot having a design flaw vs "pilot human performance" as the cause of the crash.
IMHO both the autopilot design and the pilot performance were causal factors in the crash. It is probable the NTSB will determine both the Tesla driver and the autopilot were causal factors in this crash.
[0] https://www.ntsb.gov/investigations/process/Pages/default.as...
[1] https://www.ntsb.gov/legal/Documents/NTSB_Investigation_Part...
[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asiana_Airlines_Flight_214