NTSB

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
Going to be interviewed by NTSB, Should I gain counsel?
 
Tough call,but good luck.
 
I'd listen to their questions and provide brief answers. If it feels like a witch hunt excuse yourself and make them subpoena you.

I got deposed by the FAA as part if an enforcement action. I called my attorney and asked what I should do. His answer? "Tell the truth."
 
Last edited:
I would.

You never know what kind of witch hunt is going on. This is the Federal goobernment you're dealing with.
 
Just answer their questions honestly but thoughtfully without incriminating yourself. No need for an attorney but I am sure any attorney would tell you differently.
 
Other than being out some money I don't see what having an attorney could possibly hurt.
 
You're an intelligent guy. I'm sure you will be able to tell if the questions being asked are leading towards you having the finger pointed at you. If you come to that conclusion, terminate the interview and consult an attorney. If its just run of the mill procedural stuff, don't worry about it. Good luck!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
SPAJC said:
You're an intelligent guy. I'm sure you will be able to tell if the questions being asked are leading towards you having the finger pointed at you. If you come to that conclusion, terminate the interview and consult an attorney.
Click to expand...
That is so more easily said than done for human beings, intelligent or otherwise.
 
just tell em you didn't do it.....:D

btw.....I wouldn't fear the NTSB....but, if the FAA is there you might want to have counsel.

It really shouldn't be a big deal. You followed the OH manual, you used approved parts....and had calibrated torque wrenches and gauges....blah, blah....and you didn't keep any records regarding measurements but you know everything met spec. :dunno:

.....like I said Tom....you didn't keep any build notes ....wink, wink (or the next question will be we'd like to see those). :no:
 
Last edited:
Answer the questions honestly, the primary function they are trying to carry out is determination of cause, not blame. I don't know what an attorney would stand to gain you at this point, they will develop the information with or without your testimony. What do you think the attorney will protect you from? I wouldn't worry too much about them witch hunting you, and if they do, not much difference having a lawyer there or not at this point. The fastest way I know of to start a witch hunt though is make the potential hunter's job difficult or unpleasant.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Going to be interviewed by NTSB, Should I gain counsel?
Click to expand...


I would think it sort of depends. Are you the defendant, or are you a witness and/or providing professional evidence?

If you're the defendant ...get a lawyer.

JMHO,
 
Last edited:
MikeELP said:
I would think it sort of depends. Are you the defendant, or are you a witness and/or providing professional evidence?

If you're the defendant ...get a lawyer.

JMHO,
Click to expand...
That's pretty much a good guiding principle. If you are merely a witness, not a big deal. If you are (even potentially) the subject of the investigation, it makes the most sense to consult with an attorney.

The problem is, like knowing when to shut up, being able to tell the difference. That in itself might be a good idea for a consult.

[I am, btw, assuming this is a hypothetical since, since an intelligent guy wouldn't be discussing a real case in a social media forum ;)]
 
SkyDog58 said:
Just answer their questions honestly but thoughtfully without incriminating yourself. No need for an attorney but I am sure any attorney would tell you differently.
Click to expand...
See, you don't need a lawyer, SGOTI said so. Usually, this is one of those, if-you-have-to-ask type questions. But based on the information you've provided, it is possible that you don't, or do, need an attorney. The first question you might want to ask an attorney after describing all of the pertinent facts is, "Do I need an attorney?"
 
midlifeflyer said:
That's pretty much a good guiding principle. If you are merely a witness, not a big deal. If you are (even potentially) the subject of the investigation, it makes the most sense to consult with an attorney.

The problem is, like knowing when to shut up, being able to tell the difference. That in itself might be a good idea for a consult.

[I am, btw, assuming this is a hypothetical since, since an intelligent guy wouldn't be discussing a real case in a social media forum ;)]
Click to expand...

Well,, there is that too....:rolleyes:
 
I think given what was in the other thread, I doubt Tom faces any industry/government consequence, and tort will be what it will be regardless of this. Unless you did something you know you shouldn't have, I'm just not seeing the value in a lawyer here.
 
The NTSB investigator told me the FAA can not be there.

This is an investigation interview, that's all. But I was told that I can have counsel there.

He will not (isn't allowed) to tell me about the cause of the accident.

ye, this is about the 150 accident.

I will bring counsel. can't hurt.
 
Tom - best of luck with the interview. I can only imagine that this must be difficult for many reasons. Did you contact your professional liability insurance provider about a possible claim?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
Tom-D said:
The NTSB investigator told me the FAA can not be there.

This is an investigation interview, that's all. But I was told that I can have counsel there.

He will not (isn't allowed) to tell me about the cause of the accident.

ye, this is about the 150 accident.

I will bring counsel. can't hurt.
Click to expand...
just so ya know....the NTSB has no enforcement authority....that's the FAA's role.

I wouldn't worry much if it's just an NTSB interview.
 
Tom-D said:
The NTSB investigator told me the FAA can not be there.

This is an investigation interview, that's all. But I was told that I can have counsel there.

He will not (isn't allowed) to tell me about the cause of the accident.

ye, this is about the 150 accident.

I will bring counsel. can't hurt.
Click to expand...

Smart decision, especially since they told you you could have counsel. Look at it this way, you are an amateur at this, they are pros, it is good to have a pro on your side watching out for you.
 
In any audit situation the best course is to give short honest answers. Elaborate only if asked for clarification.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
just so ya know....the NTSB has no enforcement authority....that's the FAA's role.

I wouldn't worry much if it's just an NTSB interview.
Click to expand...

That's why the FAA can't be there, if they want evidence they must get it them selves.

No one from the FAA has contacted me, I think they would have by now if they were going to do any thing.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
just so ya know....the NTSB has no enforcement authority....that's the FAA's role.

I wouldn't worry much if it's just an NTSB interview.
Click to expand...

Yeah that. There's a reason the NTSB is an independent agency. Their mission is to find the cause of the accident without people stonewalling them.

Plaintiffs attorney? Different story.
 
Brad Z said:
Yeah that. There's a reason the NTSB is an independent agency. Their mission is to find the cause of the accident without people stonewalling them.

Plaintiffs attorney? Different story.
Click to expand...

Even the plaintiff can't use NTSB findings IIRC.
 
Henning said:
Even the plaintiff can't use NTSB findings IIRC.
Click to expand...

They can't use FINDINGS.....:no:

They CAN use evidence gathered during the NTSB's investigation , ie.. Photos, measurements, lab results, statements ... etc , etc....:yikes:
 
N801BH said:
They can't use FINDINGS.....:no:

They CAN use evidence gathered during the NTSB's investigation , ie.. Photos, measurements, lab results, statements ... etc , etc....:yikes:
Click to expand...

Lawyer can't protect you from any of that, physical evidence is what it is. It's the interpretation of the evidence that affects juries.
 
:rolleyes2:

Yeah, I really think you need an attorney. But if you don't hire my attorney then you're being cheap because only my attorney knows how to properly overhaul...oops...I mean...oversee...a case.

:rolleyes2:

:rofl:

Edit: oops, now that I read what I wrote, it sounds really dumb. I wonder where I got such a notion...
 
Last edited:
I would limit my answers to short one-sentencers where possible, without seeming like I was hiding things or being obstructive.

Lengthy answers can a) lead them places you'd rather not go b) be difficult to reproduce if asked the same questions later. Much like an oral flight exam.

Is it not true that there is a direct conduit of anything from such interviews ie NTSB D-> FAA? (I would assume anything said to NTSB will somehow end in the FAA's lap)


Downsides of an attorney: some cost
Upsides: Useful guidance which may save you from something unpleasant, maybe some emotional comfort during the process.
"Damn, I wish I'd never taken an attorney to that ____(hearing/trial/mediation etc)" are words I have never heard uttered.
 
Seems to me they are looking for a cause to the issue, whatever it is. At this point you don't know what happened. It could be a defect or it could be something was done wrong. It seems to me, you may want to get your insurance company involved also.
 
Tom-D said:
That's why the FAA can't be there, if they want evidence they must get it them selves.

No one from the FAA has contacted me, I think they would have by now if they were going to do any thing.
Click to expand...
Usually.....the FAA is pretty good with teaming up and doing a double hitter with the NTSB to gain a deposition.

It's good they aren't Tom....:yes:
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I would limit my answers to short one-sentencers where possible, without seeming like I was hiding things or being obstructive.

Lengthy answers can a) lead them places you'd rather not go b) be difficult to reproduce if asked the same questions later. Much like an oral flight exam.

Is it not true that there is a direct conduit of anything from such interviews ie NTSB D-> FAA? (I would assume anything said to NTSB will somehow end in the FAA's lap)


Downsides of an attorney: some cost
Upsides: Useful guidance which may save you from something unpleasant, maybe some emotional comfort during the process.
"Damn, I wish I'd never taken an attorney to that ____(hearing/trial/mediation etc)" are words I have never heard uttered.
Click to expand...

FAA never determines probable cause of accidents. Their investigations are to determine if enforcement action is in order.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
I would limit my answers to short one-sentencers where possible, without seeming like I was hiding things or being obstructive.

Lengthy answers can a) lead them places you'd rather not go b) be difficult to reproduce if asked the same questions later. Much like an oral flight exam.

Is it not true that there is a direct conduit of anything from such interviews ie NTSB D-> FAA? (I would assume anything said to NTSB will somehow end in the FAA's lap)


Downsides of an attorney: some cost
Upsides: Useful guidance which may save you from something unpleasant, maybe some emotional comfort during the process.
"Damn, I wish I'd never taken an attorney to that ____(hearing/trial/mediation etc)" are words I have never heard uttered.
Click to expand...
ya but....don't just take any attorney....you'd better have a good aviation attorney that understand part 43 and 91.:yes:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top