NTSB

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...

Of course, verbal Diarrhea is never good.

the FAA is only privy to the results of the investigation. If the NTSB finds that the accident was caused by a violation of a FAR then the FAA can act on that info. not what was discovered in a interview.
 
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...
No....they could be there with the NTSB if they wanted and many times FAA investigators want to be there to gain perishable info while the NTSB is asking.:yes:

now....often times the NTSB doesn't want an FAA presence.....but, there is that too. :D...turf battles....:mad2:
 
Last edited:
Checkout_my_Six said:
No....they could be there with the NTSB if they wanted and many times FAA investigators want to be there to gain perishable info while the NTSB is asking.:yes:

now....often times the NTSB doesn't want an FAA presence.....but, there is that too. :D...turf battles....:mad2:
Click to expand...

FAA is required to inspect the wreckage and the maintenance records, but can't be at the NTSB interview. they must conduct their own interviews. They can have the NTSB ask certain questions, but only receive those answers.
I am to get the list of questions that will be asked.
When ?? is the question.
 
Tom-D said:
Not a clue? Not even funny.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I'm sorry.

I know how it sucks when you come here and ask a question looking for support, help and guidance but get some smart a**'s boot stuck up your butt instead.
 
You have insurance, don't you? If you should be sued, they would provide your defense. Are they aware of the incident? Maybe you should talk to them before you do or say anything to anyone that may come back to bite you.
 
Tom-D said:
FAA is required to inspect the wreckage and the maintenance records, but can't be at the NTSB interview. they must conduct their own interviews. They can have the NTSB ask certain questions, but only receive those answers.
I am to get the list of questions that will be asked.
When ?? is the question.
Click to expand...
well.....I don't believe this to be true. Just be glad it ain't happening. :yes:

however....they are separate investigations.
 
Last edited:
If you're an AOPA member maybe they can give you some advice on what to do. Of course maybe you have to be enrolled in their legal program, not sure on that.
 
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. If its just run of the mill procedural stuff, don't worry about it. Good luck!
Click to expand...

The prisons are full of people who were 'intelligent' and thought it was to their benefit to 'explain things'.



I have read many transcripts of NTSB interviews where they start out going around the table introducing the participants. Often there is a FAA representative at the table. Also, they ask for the interviewees consent to record and transcribe the interview.

Question for the lawyers with FAA experience:
Can you object to the participation of the FAA rep ?
Can you object to the recording and transcription of the interview ?
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
No....they could be there with the NTSB if they wanted and many times FAA investigators want to be there to gain perishable info while the NTSB is asking.:yes:

now....often times the NTSB doesn't want an FAA presence.....but, there is that too. :D...turf battles....:mad2:
Click to expand...

Yeah, I talked to the FAA and NTSB simultaneously, wasn't an issue, each had questions, each took notes, each was fine. If you didn't buy the parts off the dock from some Chinese vendor, I don't see much here to worry about.
 
weilke said:
The prisons are full of people who were 'intelligent' and thought it was to their benefit to 'explain things'.



I have read many transcripts of NTSB interviews where they start out going around the table introducing the participants. Often there is a FAA representative at the table. Also, they ask for the interviewees consent to record and transcribe the interview.

Question for the lawyers with FAA experience:
Can you object to the participation of the FAA rep ?
Can you object to the recording and transcription of the interview ?
Click to expand...

Unless you know you are guilty of a criminal violation, why would you want to? It's not like the FAA isn't going to call you into their own interview, and it better match the NTSB one. Just what do you think the difference in consequences can possibly be? IIRC you were one of the doom and gloomers about the straight forward way I handled my gear up and interaction with the FAA and NTSB, and the reality is, it couldn't have really gone better. Taking on an adversarial position is not one that is seen as working out very well even when you do make mistakes.
 
I've maintained this A/C for several years, most repairs are owner done under my supervision. The only discrepancy the FAA might find is an issue with an annual or an incomplete log entry.

If that were the case my PMI would have said some thing by now.
 
Henning said:
Unless you know you are guilty of a criminal violation,
Click to expand...

I hope that "you" was not aimed at me. I suspect you are simply babbling on and on as usual.
 
Tom-D said:
I hope that "you" was not aimed at me. I suspect you are simply babbling on and on as usual.
Click to expand...

It was not an accusation directed at you, no, just exemplifying the behavior that would require concern at this meeting.
 
With regard to the recording, yes objection should be allowed as WA is a two-party consent state with only a few exceptions:

-recording law enforcement in their official capacity
-recording people who are threatening a false report against you
-there may be one or two others

That said, I would rather have it recorded and ask to be supplied with a copy of the tape. That way the questions and answers are available to you after the fact. Six months later if you find yourself in a deposition, and the attorney says "the NTSB asked this and you said this" and it's wrong, you would be able to say "actually they asked this and I said this."
 
I've maintained this A/C for several years, most repairs are owner done under my supervision.
Click to expand...

It's not unheard of for owners to do things without the A+P's knowledge, not sure if this owner is the type but if they found something done that you don't remember or have in the logs...

To me the whole process sucks as:
a) it makes one feel guilty before anything is proven, and it can be a lengthy process during which you have roiling emotions.
b) you can perform miracles and save lives on a regular basis without hearing a peep from them, the owner, anyone....but if you do misstep even once, they are on you like flies on s__t.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
It's not unheard of for owners to do things without the A+P's knowledge, not sure if this owner is the type but if they found something done that you don't remember or have in the logs...

To me the whole process sucks as:
a) it makes one feel guilty before anything is proven, and it can be a lengthy process during which you have roiling emotions.
b) you can perform miracles and save lives on a regular basis without hearing a peep from them, the owner, anyone....but if you do misstep even once, they are on you like flies on s__t.
Click to expand...

What bothers me most is the NTSB will not share the info they have with the parties involved.
 
They can't until they've closed the case. Once closed they'll tell you all kinds of stuff. I've talked to the NTSB a few times, not as a person of interest, though. Nice guys. Tough job.
 
Stewartb said:
They can't until they've closed the case. Once closed they'll tell you all kinds of stuff. I've talked to the NTSB a few times, not as a person of interest, though. Nice guys. Tough job.
Click to expand...

Telling us what they know does not change the results of the investigation.
 
Tom-D said:
Telling us what they know does not change the results of the investigation.
Click to expand...
Telling you what they know might change your answer. This is pretty standard for any investigation.
 
Tom-D said:
What bothers me most is the NTSB will not share the info they have with the parties involved.
Click to expand...
Their is nothing you can do, the NTSB takes it's own time and no information will get out till they are done with their investigation. Once they publish their findings that's it no going back, their findings are final. On the bright side I believe they are good at what they do.
 
They advised you you can have counsel present. This tells me two things; likely they will have one there; and this is as close to a Miranda warning as it gets. They may indeed be fishing, but they are the sharks, and you are the bait. Get a shark of your own.

Long ago, there was a well defined line between liability and criminal behaviors. Since you are a credentialed pro at this stuff both your liability and your criminal exposure are higher.
 
Omalley1537 said:
That said, I would rather have it recorded and ask to be supplied with a copy of the tape. That way the questions and answers are available to you after the fact. Six months later if you find yourself in a deposition, and the attorney says "the NTSB asked this and you said this" and it's wrong, you would be able to say "actually they asked this and I said this."
Click to expand...

If there is no verified transcript of the interview, nothing in the 'memorandum of conversation' recorded by the NTSB investigator is more than hearsay. The plaintiffs attorney can't depose the investigator.

There are three prongs to Toms problem:

- The NTSB investigation. That's the easy one. I believe that most NTSB investigators genuinely want to find out what happened and draw conclusions for publication and to avoid accidents in the future. Tom is required to cooperate with their investigation and they can't harm him if he does. No downside to talking to them. It's supposed to work that way.

- The FAA enforcement process. Even though Tom enjoys a good relationship with his PMI, anyone further up the chain can decide to put someone else on the case and shut down his engine overhaul and repair facility based on this accident. As this is an adversarial process, Tom has some rights, including that not to answer questions that could incriminate him. They may still pull his ticket for not cooperating with their administrative investigation, but he doesnt have to give them the rope to hang him.

- The civil process. While his customer may not be interested in suing him, his health or aircraft insurer could decide that they want to get some of the hundreds of thousands this cost them back. Again, that is an adversarial process and he may have an interest in stonewalling them.

Why would YOU want to create written record in step 1 that can be held against you in step 2 or 3 ? For the purpose of the NTSB investigation, it should be entirely sufficient if they get the information verbally. If they have additional questions, they can (and will) call you back. Even if they get something wrong, the report is not admissible in step 2 and 3 so no harm done if someone gets a part number or time wrong.



Tom needs a good aviation attorney. His liability insurance should pay for that. The first thing that attorney would tell him is not to post a word about the incident on the internet :wink2:
 
Just to squelch the thoughts, we have a very good aviation lawyer willing to help.
 
I've had experience dealing with federal agencies on both sides of the table. As well-meaning as they may be, there's always the opportunity for mistakes or statements to be taken the wrong way. And that opens the door for other questions by other parties.

A good attorney that deals with the NTSB and aviation issues all the time would be your best friend. You don't talk to the NTSB and agency enforcement folks regularly.

Given that they offered the opportunity for you to have an attorney there, I'd take them up on it. If for no reason other than peace of mind.
 
wsuffa said:
I've had experience dealing with federal agencies on both sides of the table. As well-meaning as they may be, there's always the opportunity for mistakes or statements to be taken the wrong way. And that opens the door for other questions by other parties.

A good attorney that deals with the NTSB and aviation issues all the time would be your best friend. You don't talk to the NTSB and agency enforcement folks regularly.

Given that they offered the opportunity for you to have an attorney there, I'd take them up on it. If for no reason other than peace of mind.
Click to expand...

It's done. we just don't know when yet.
 
docmirror said:
They advised you you can have counsel present. This tells me two things; likely they will have one there; and this is as close to a Miranda warning as it gets. They may indeed be fishing, but they are the sharks, and you are the bait. Get a shark of your own.

Long ago, there was a well defined line between liability and criminal behaviors. Since you are a credentialed pro at this stuff both your liability and your criminal exposure are higher.
Click to expand...

Why do you believe they are sharks, and why do you consider Tom the prey?:dunno:
 
Having an aviation attorney present is the prudent thing to do,especially since they mentioned it as an option. It's not lawyering up or stonewalling, its prudence. Sounds like the NTSB understands that.
 
Henning said:
Why do you believe they are sharks, and why do you consider Tom the prey?:dunno:
Click to expand...

IMHO, it's not the FAA or NTSB looking for prey, but whoever the insurors are who are paying the medical bills. They are going to be the ones poring over every little bit of evidence looking to recover. This claim isn't cheap. Read the fine print in just about every policy in the land. There is language requiring the injured policy holder to assist in any case to recover costs. I understand he role of he Feds, but there may likely be a civil case, even if the plaintiff isn't Tom's customer.

This isn't like your case, Henning, where there were no injuries, only property damage, and very little of it at that.
 
iflyvfr said:
Having an aviation attorney present is the prudent thing to do,especially since they mentioned it as an option. It's not lawyering up or stonewalling, its prudence. Sounds like the NTSB understands that.
Click to expand...
Don't you know it's not nice to interfere with the belief that the only reason for an attorney is to stonewall and clam up?
 
Henning said:
Unless you know you are guilty of a criminal violation, why would you want to? It's not like the FAA isn't going to call you into their own interview, and it better match the NTSB one. Just what do you think the difference in consequences can possibly be? IIRC you were one of the doom and gloomers about the straight forward way I handled my gear up and interaction with the FAA and NTSB, and the reality is, it couldn't have really gone better. Taking on an adversarial position is not one that is seen as working out very well even when you do make mistakes.
Click to expand...
Your gear up didn't involve injury to someone else.
 
midlifeflyer said:
Don't you know it's not nice to interfere with the belief that the only reason for an attorney is to stonewall and clam up?
Click to expand...

Dont you know. Anyone who insists on having an attorney present has something to hide and is probably guilty anyway.

Just go and talk to the nice man from the government and tell him everything. You'll be fine.
 
Tom-D said:
Telling us what they know does not change the results of the investigation.
Click to expand...

I think you said you will get a list of questions ahead of the interview. It sounds to me like you will be able to deduce what they think the cause is from the questions they ask.
 
PaulS said:
I think you said you will get a list of questions ahead of the interview. It sounds to me like you will be able to deduce what they think the cause is from the questions they ask.
Click to expand...

Does the NTSB really have an opinion about the cause BEFORE they do the investigation? :eek:
 
Chip Sylverne said:
IMHO, it's not the FAA or NTSB looking for prey, but whoever the insurors are who are paying the medical bills. They are going to be the ones poring over every little bit of evidence looking to recover. This claim isn't cheap. Read the fine print in just about every policy in the land. There is language requiring the injured policy holder to assist in any case to recover costs. I understand he role of he Feds, but there may likely be a civil case, even if the plaintiff isn't Tom's customer.

This isn't like your case, Henning, where there were no injuries, only property damage, and very little of it at that.
Click to expand...

But that is a different process, not this one. Like I said, that will be what it will be regardless, stress over that when the time comes, it hasn't happened yet. Tom is an honest guy, conscienscous about doing things properly, and this is solo with the NTSB. The evidence will be what it is as to what failed, and this meeting will have little effect on his liability exposure since that jury will find it's own conclusions without the NTSB's conclusions and opinions attached. From the sounds of everything else I've read on this, Tom did everything completely above board, and there was a part failure of a properly procured part, at least as procured by Tom. All I see here is the NTSB following standard and stated case procedure in a follow up, without the interest of the FAA. I see a bunch of worry over nothing.

My guess is that they want direct testimony as to the torquing of the rod bolts to use as evidence with regards to the manufacture's claim that torque spec was exceeded.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
I hope that "you" was not aimed at me. I suspect you are simply babbling on and on as usual.
Click to expand...
Not only that, Tom, but I don't pay much attention to someone who shares "authoritative" advice contained in bad spelling and improper use of words.

HR
 
Henning said:
But that is a different process, not this one. Like I said, that will be what it will be regardless, stress over that when the time comes, it hasn't happened yet. Tom is an honest guy, conscienscous about doing things properly, and this is solo with the NTSB. The evidence will be what it is as to what failed, and this meeting will have little effect on his liability exposure since that jury will find it's own conclusions without the NTSB's conclusions and opinions attached. From the sounds of everything else I've read on this, Tom did everything completely above board, and there was a part failure of a properly procured part, at least as procured by Tom. All I see here is the NTSB following standard and stated case procedure in a follow up, without the interest of the FAA. I see a bunch of worry over nothing.

My guess is that they want direct testimony as to the torquing of the rod bolts to use as evidence with regards to the manufacture's claim that torque spec was exceeded.[/QUOTE

I don't doubt anything you've said above. And as I said before, I don't think the Feds are going to be out to hang him. There's no incentive for them to do that.

Prudence would dictate that if I were Tom's claims rep, I would be darn sure he had legal representation at any deposition for my benefit if not his, just to keep him from saying anything that might be used against my interests. It's my understanding that the conclusions of the ntsb can't be used at trial, but testimony can.

You were a claims rep. The first rule is don't let the insured talk to anybody or admit to anything without counsel.

I bet at the end of the day the medicals in this case will be in excess of a $ million if they are a dime.

BWTHDIK.
Click to expand...
 
That's a good point if Tom has insurance, they should be the ones both determining and supplying the representation. While we all know where assumptions get us, I was assuming that since this question even existed, that there is no insurance in place, that may be an incorrect assumption.

The bills will be high, the question is where is the liability?:dunno: But the NTSB investigation has nothing to do with that. One of the key focuses of the NTSB and FAA initiatives is ferreting out counterfeit parts, they have been pretty hot on it for a few decades, and that is what they are angling towards developing evidence against. They do fairly well at it too though it doesn't get a bunch of coverage.
 
Last edited:
Plenty of innocent guys in the slammer. The state of Texas kacked one. Martha Stewart didn't go to the hoosgoh for stock fraud, she went for lying to the authorities.

I don't think I have to paste up the "don't talk to the police" YouTube video again. Tom's doing the right thing. Have a mouthpiece and do whatever he says. Don't give anyone rope to hang you. You never know what's coming down the pike.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top