Our day with NTSB

Tom-D

Tom-D

Taxi to Parking
Joined
Feb 23, 2005
Messages
34,740
Display Name
Display name:
Tom-D
as most know one of my customers put his C-150 into the trees, Both pilot and his wife were very seriously hurt, but survived and now are at home but still recuperating. thanks for all the prayers and well wishes.

We had our interview with the NTSB and went over all the questions they had about the several hundred photos they had taken. All the questions were about where did this part come from or what manual was used for this or that.
The main question we spent the most time with was the log book entries determining the time since last inspection and how much time was on the engine since major.
I've never seen a little engine so beat up. prop flange on the brand new crank bent near 15 degrees, and pushed to the rear so hard that it could not be turned. The crank gear on the rear of the crank was totally sheared, all 4 bolts failed as did the locating stud, all sheared due to the quick stop. The starter was broken off the mount pad, both mags were torn from the accessory case.

Conclusion by the investigator that all damage to the engine was caused by the accident.

Bottom line, the interview was a non event, my lawyer could not attend, but he wasn't needed anyway. So now we can put this scary event behind us.
 
Tom-D said:
as most know one of my customers put his C-150 into the trees, Both pilot and his wife were very seriously hurt, but survived and now are at home but still recuperating. thanks for all the prayers and well wishes.

We had our interview with the NTSB and went over all the questions they had about the several hundred photos they had taken. All the questions were about where did this part come from or what manual was used for this or that.
The main question we spent the most time with was the log book entries determining the time since last inspection and how much time was on the engine since major.
I've never seen a little engine so beat up. prop flange on the brand new crank bent near 15 degrees, and pushed to the rear so hard that it could not be turned. The crank gear on the rear of the crank was totally sheared, all 4 bolts failed as did the locating stud, all sheared due to the quick stop. The starter was broken off the mount pad, both mags were torn from the accessory case.

Conclusion by the investigator that all damage to the engine was caused by the accident.

Bottom line, the interview was a non event, my lawyer could not attend, but he wasn't needed anyway. So now we can put this scary event behind us.
Click to expand...

Good to know. :yes:
 
You are done with the NTSB. You may have another round of talks with your customers health insurer.
 
Glad to hear you are still able to move on. For all party's benefit.
 
Checkout_my_Six said:
hope it all goes well Tom.
Click to expand...

My gracious, do you need a reading comprehension course?

It's done, over with, finished, they found nothing wrong with the build, the parts, or the paper work.
 
Tom-D said:
My gracious, do you need a reading comprehension course?

It's done, over with, finished, they found nothing wrong with the build, the parts, or the paper work.
Click to expand...
well.....you said nothing bout the fat lady....so I figured it wasn't over yet. :D
 
Tom, good news, and just in time for Christmas! Enjoy the season!

-Skip
 
Tom-D said:
Conclusion by the investigator that all damage to the engine was caused by the accident.
Click to expand...

That might be the NTSB's conclusion (as yet unpublished) but there's always the possibility of a lawsuit. Hopefully you had good documentation to show you did everything to spec.

Tom-D said:
Bottom line, the interview was a non event, my lawyer could not attend, but he wasn't needed anyway. So now we can put this scary event behind us.
Click to expand...

Was it a scheduling conflict, or did the NTSB have an issue with bringing your lawyer? Anyway, I hope your customers fully recover from this incident.
 
Glad the meeting went well...

I guess the 5 million dollar question is..... Why did the engine quit to put the couple into the trees???:dunno::confused:
 
N801BH said:
Glad the meeting went well...

I guess the 5 million dollar question is..... Why did the engine quit to put the couple into the trees???:dunno::confused:
Click to expand...

Yet to be determined.
 
Brad Z said:
That might be the NTSB's conclusion (as yet unpublished) but there's always the possibility of a lawsuit.

If there is a suit filed it will be easy to defeat.

Was it a scheduling conflict, or did the NTSB have an issue with bringing your lawyer? Anyway, I hope your customers fully recover from this incident.
Click to expand...

Lawyer had emergency surgery. I don't know why.
 
Re: the health insurer, it has been my understanding that in cases of a severe motocross injury (where my familiarity lies) they would cover the injured client, but then sue the track owner. An editor of one of the major MX magazines wrote about this years ago in the context that his friend (who would never believe in lawsuits) was suing the track he got hurt at. Turned out it was the insurance co.

Hopefully one of the legal experts on here can chime in.

That said, if you did everything to spec, I think you're right. Shouldn't be anything for them to hang their hat on legally.
 
Glad everything turned out OK
 
weilke said:
You are done with the NTSB. You may have another round of talks with your customers health insurer.
Click to expand...

Tom-D said:
Why ?
Click to expand...
They may have a right of subrogation. So if they believe anyone was negligent or responsible, they could go after that person for the medical bills even if your customer doesn't. If the medical bills are significant, they may want to do some investigating to determine if there's someone they can put on the hook (could be you or someone else).
 
Lindberg said:
They may have a right of subrogation against you. So if they believe you were in some way negligent or responsible, they could come after you for the medical bills even if your customer doesn't.
Click to expand...

And if the result of the NTSB investigation is pilot error?

It is a wait and see situation, if they do try, it will be pretty easy to prove I wasn't at fault.
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
And if the result of the NTSB investigation is pilot error?

It is a wait and see situation, if they do try, it will be pretty easy to prove I wasn't at fault.
Click to expand...

The NTSB's conclusions are not admissible evidence. But they certainly could persuade an insurance investigator. They're not in the business of being plaintiffs for no reason, so there would need to be something to suggest to them that someone was at fault. And they may or may not rely on the NTSB's factual findings for that initial determination. I'm sure it would depend on the specific facts and the extent of the insurance company's exposure. I can only speak in generalities because this isn't my area of expertise, but it's definitely something you should discuss with your attorney.
 
Lindberg said:
The NTSB's conclusions are not admissible evidence. But they certainly could persuade an insurance investigator. They're not in the business of being plaintiffs for no reason, so there would need to be something to suggest to them that someone was at fault. And they may or may not rely on the NTSB's factual findings for that initial determination. I'm sure it would depend on the specific facts and the extent of the insurance company's exposure. I can only speak in generalities because this isn't my area of expertise, but it's definitely something you should discuss with your attorney.
Click to expand...
You assume he was insured.
 
Tom-D said:
And if the result of the NTSB investigation is pilot error?
Click to expand...

That conclusion won't be admissible. One of the federal laws that set up the NTSB establishes that.

It is a wait and see situation, if they do try, it will be pretty easy to prove I wasn't at fault.
Click to expand...
Well, you would probably prevail. But not until you have hired an attorney to defend you and expert witnesses on both the accident itself, the condition of the engine and the quality of your overhaul work.

While your customer may not want to sue you, under his insurance contract he may have to support the insurers subrogation attempts. If they subrogate, it would look like the customer is suing you while in fact it is the insurance company who pays the attorneys and drives the process.

I dont believe medicare subrogates. So if he is older than 65, you should be ok.
 
weilke said:
That conclusion won't be admissible. One of the federal laws that set up the NTSB establishes that.

Well, you would probably prevail. But not until you have hired an attorney to defend you and expert witnesses on both the accident itself, the condition of the engine and the quality of your overhaul work.

While your customer may not want to sue you, under his insurance contract he may have to support the insurers subrogation attempts. If they subrogate, it would look like the customer is suing you while in fact it is the insurance company who pays the attorneys and drives the process.

I dont believe medicare subrogates. So if he is older than 65, you should be ok.
Click to expand...

You must realize, I only contract the labor, they would be required to prove I put the parts together wrong, the parts supplier is the deep pocket, and the owner bought the parts. not me.
 
Now you all know why you are paying out the A$$ for the FBO shop hourly rates. (they have insurance)
 
Tom-D said:
You must realize, I only contract the labor, they would be required to prove I put the parts together wrong, the parts supplier is the deep pocket, and the owner bought the parts. not me.
Click to expand...

Mhh, you did make an entry in the engine log that you performed certain repairs and returned the engine to service, right ? Even if you dont call it an overhaul, you are still the one who said it was good to go.
I dont know how high the risk of subrogation is in this case, I know health insurers go after workmans comp carriers and car insurers all the time, even for smaller amounts.
 
weilke said:
Mhh, you did make an entry in the engine log that you performed certain repairs and returned the engine to service, right ? Even if you dont call it an overhaul, you are still the one who said it was good to go.
I dont know how high the risk of subrogation is in this case, I know health insurers go after workmans comp carriers and car insurers all the time, even for smaller amounts.
Click to expand...
worst case, we get in court. they must prove I did some thing not IAW the manual, they can't do that.
 
Tom-D said:
worst case, we get in court. they must prove I did some thing not IAW the manual, they can't do that.
Click to expand...
not necessarily prove....but taint a jury into believing something....:mad2:

btw....you should be fine Tom. :yes:
 
Last edited:
Tom-D said:
Why ?
Click to expand...

Because that is a completely different subject. NTSB & FAA have nothing to do with the tort system. However I don't see that as a high risk potential either, however you may want to read through your homeowner's insurance in the Liabilities coverages and see what they exclude representation on. Some states are very liberal on that and your homeowner's policy may cover your lawyer bill if you need one.
 
Last edited:
Number of one-man shops that have been successfully sued, following a favorable ntsb finding in the last 30 years is......
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
Number of one-man shops that have been successfully sued, following a favorable ntsb finding in the last 30 years is......
Click to expand...

The number will be insignificant. The real question is how many had to defend themselves. I doubt that is particularly high either.
 
Henning said:
The number will be insignificant. The real question is how many had to defend themselves. I doubt that is particularly high either.
Click to expand...

You are an attorney and have been asked to represent the plaintiff (who has been injured in an a/c accident) and one of the first things they will look at is my question...'how likely are we to be successful' based upon past cases.
 
Let'sgoflying! said:
You are an attorney and have been asked to represent the plaintiff (who has been injured in an a/c accident) and one of the first things they will look at is my question...'how likely are we to be successful' based upon past cases.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Here's the reality, if Tom has no insurance, he is not at any significant risk because a jury will not go against him for the insurance company, and they know it. Even though they have the in-house legal, they aren't going to waste the time. If he has insurance, then they will work something out if the claim goes into excesses. 99.97% chance Tom never hears a word from them.
 
Tom, did you also sign off the annual on this plane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top