NTSB or the lawyers -- who to believe?

Van Johnston

Van Johnston

Pattern Altitude
PoA Supporter
Joined
Oct 31, 2012
Messages
1,801
Location
South Texas
Display Name
Van Johnston
The NTSB assumed pilot error, which they usually do. The lawyer presented an interesting alternative theory -- seat rail lock failure. If a 182 has only climbed to 900 feet after a minute and a half, it doesn't look like the pilot has slipped backward. I would expect that to result in a nose-high attitude. It really sounds as though the mechanic should have gotten competent representation. Also, 13 million sounds like an excessive award.
 
He should have taken the deal ,and surrendered his mechanics certificate. Must not be too bright,as he represented himself at trial. Good luck on the family receiving the money
 
frfly172 said:
He should have taken the deal ,and surrendered his mechanics certificate. Must not be too bright,as he represented himself at trial. Good luck on the family receiving the money[/QUOTE]

There's not much blood in a turnip.
Click to expand...
 
frfly172 said:
He should have taken the deal ,and surrendered his mechanics certificate. Must not be too bright,as he represented himself at trial. Good luck on the family receiving the money
Click to expand...

I can't imagine an ex airline mechanic that was fired and is now working on GA airplanes having $17K much less $17million to pay out! :rolleyes:
Tragedy to be sure, but as a 182 owner/pilot the last thing I do before taking the runway is wiggle the seat back and forth to make sure it's latched!! :nono:
 
I wonder why the NTSB report mentions nothing about the seat issues?
 
I always wondered how they handle these ridiculous damages when the responsible party can't possibly pay it.

Does he just have to work out a periodic payment for the rest of this life and hand over the estate when he dies or something? Does he have to give up everything he owns save for the most essential needs?
 
After that texting while flying report by the NTSB, I lost a bit of faith in them.
 
cowman said:
I always wondered how they handle these ridiculous damages when the responsible party can't possibly pay it.

Does he just have to work out a periodic payment for the rest of this life and hand over the estate when he dies or something? Does he have to give up everything he owns save for the most essential needs?
Click to expand...

I would guess they would get a judgment for his assets, take what the court allows them to have and he'll file bankruptcy. :dunno: Likely enough to cover the attorney's paralegal's time, if his house is paid for! :mad2:
I would have to assume he doesn't have insurance, since the insurance company didn't represent him in the case, so the families will get basically nothing. :rolleyes:
 
A lot of times the NTSB never shows up and they rely on the word of FAA inspectors, who never lie or make a mistake, to give them data. I know of two accidents I was personally a witness to and I disagree to one degree or another with the NTSB report, but I don't think it's entirely their fault as an agency.
 
Surprised the lawyer would take the case (I'm assuming contingency here) if they knew the mechanic was not insured.
 
The attorney's theory is certainly possible. So is the theory that the pilot became distracted when he dropped his ink pen. He subsequently moved the sear full rearward and removed his seat belt trying to find it while allowing the plane to deviate off course.
 
Without commenting on which version is correct (since I don't know), an NTSB investigation will use its available resources to make what it feels is an accurate determination of probably cause in an efficient manner. That does not mean they leave no stone unturned and NTSB's neutrality is used specifically to exclude participation of parties with a point to prove or disprove, specifically, claimants and insurers are excluded. See 831.11 of the NTSB rules. The goal of the investigation is safety, not liability.

OTOH, the participants to a lawsuit are interested in proving a point - fault or lack thereof.

Different goals, different purposes, different results.
 
cowman said:
I always wondered how they handle these ridiculous damages when the responsible party can't possibly pay it.

Does he just have to work out a periodic payment for the rest of this life and hand over the estate when he dies or something? Does he have to give up everything he owns save for the most essential needs?
Click to expand...

It's called bankruptcy and he will never pay a dime.
 
midlifeflyer said:
NTSB's neutrality is used specifically to exclude participation of parties with a point to prove or disprove...
OTOH, the participants to a lawsuit are interested in proving a point - fault or lack thereof.
Click to expand...
This.
Accident investigations are (or are supposed to be) conducted by non-advocates, although it is impossible to exclude advocates from the analysis.
Lawsuits are conducted by advocates, and they work to prevent non-advocates (or opposing advocates) from participating.

Nauga,
and that Zero Boys song
 
nauga said:
This.
Accident investigations are (or are supposed to be) conducted by non-advocates, although it is impossible to exclude advocates from the analysis.
Lawsuits are conducted by advocates, and they work to prevent non-advocates (or opposing advocates) from participating.

Nauga,
and that Zero Boys song
Click to expand...

Yep. :thumbsup:
 
midlifeflyer said:
Without commenting on which version is correct (since I don't know), an NTSB investigation will use its available resources to make what it feels is an accurate determination of probably cause in an efficient manner. That does not mean they leave no stone unturned and NTSB's neutrality is used specifically to exclude participation of parties with a point to prove or disprove, specifically, claimants and insurers are excluded. See 831.11 of the NTSB rules. The goal of the investigation is safety, not liability.

OTOH, the participants to a lawsuit are interested in proving a point - fault or lack thereof.

Different goals, different purposes, different results.
Click to expand...

Manufacturers of airframes, powerplants and avionics are sometimes parties with "a point to prove" who participate in the investigation. As long as it's done under NTSB's auspices and close supervision, I see no problem with it.
 
Last edited:
RotorDude said:
Manufacturers of airframes, powerplants and avionics are sometimes parties with "a point to prove" who participate in the investigation. As long as it's done under NTSB's auspices and close supervision, I see no problem with it.
Click to expand...
I don't disagree.

The "official" role of the manufacturers is to provide "technical assistance" to the NTSB; to assist the NTSB in understanding how things work. Slant and bias are a part of life but the NTSB's goal is to avoid it by limiting the participation"
Only those party employees who have suitable and needed technical qualifications will be permitted to work on the NTSB investigation.
***
...corporate executives who will not be providing needed technical expertise as participants on an NTSB investigative group are not permitted to participate in an NTSB investigation.​

By statute, NTSB reports are generally inadmissible in accident litigation and the NTSB rules further that statutory policy by limiting NTSB investigator testimony in those cases to factual content, and "shall not give any expert or opinion testimony."

Nothing is perfect (and there is often litigation about the extent of the preclusion in specific cases) but the NTSB has historically gone out of its way to protect the neutrality of its investigations.
 
midlifeflyer said:
I don't disagree.

The "official" role of the manufacturers is to provide "technical assistance" to the NTSB; to assist the NTSB in understanding how things work. Slant and bias are a part of life but the NTSB's goal is to avoid it by limiting the participation"
Only those party employees who have suitable and needed technical qualifications will be permitted to work on the NTSB investigation.
***
...corporate executives who will not be providing needed technical expertise as participants on an NTSB investigative group are not permitted to participate in an NTSB investigation.​

By statute, NTSB reports are generally inadmissible in accident litigation and the NTSB rules further that statutory policy by limiting NTSB investigator testimony in those cases to factual content, and "shall not give any expert or opinion testimony."

Nothing is perfect (and there is often litigation about the extent of the preclusion in specific cases) but the NTSB has historically gone out of its way to protect the neutrality of its investigations.
Click to expand...

Yes, I think on the whole NTSB does an excellent job, which is unusual for a government agency.
 
Clip4 said:
The attorney's theory is certainly possible. So is the theory that the pilot became distracted when he dropped his ink pen. He subsequently moved the sear full rearward and removed his seat belt trying to find it while allowing the plane to deviate off course.
Click to expand...


Wow! Hunting for your pen under the seat while climbing out at low level in IMC. Yikes!

Forget about the pen, fly the aircraft.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
 
A lawyer once convinced a jury that a clearly aft-loaded airplane that stalled after rotation and came down with the engine running full power crashed because of a faulty carburetor. This certainly doesn't seem like much of a stretch. The mechanic got off easy, he should be in jail for fraud.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top