Loading
When an aircraft experiences an engine malfunction, structural failure, flight-control problem, landing-gear issue, or other mechanical event, identifying the failed component is only part of the investigation. Litigation may also require determining why the failure occurred, whether maintenance or inspection contributed to it, and whether another technical or operational factor better explains the evidence.
A qualified aviation expert may evaluate aircraft maintenance records, inspection histories, physical components, manufacturer instructions, Federal Aviation Administration requirements, Airworthiness Directives, and accident-investigation materials. This analysis can help attorneys distinguish a maintenance-related problem from design, manufacturing, operational, environmental, or accident-related causes.
This guide explains how aircraft maintenance and mechanical failure issues may be analyzed in litigation, including relevant FAA requirements, maintenance records, physical evidence, competing causes, National Transportation Safety Board materials, and aviation expert testimony.
An aircraft mechanical failure does not, by itself, establish deficient maintenance. The observed damage may have several possible causes, and a careful analysis may compare those explanations with the available physical evidence and aircraft history.
Potential issues may include:
Wear or fatigue.
Improper installation, adjustment, or maintenance procedures.
Inadequate inspection or an unresolved prior discrepancy.
Corrosion or environmental deterioration.
Contamination or lubrication problems.
Material, manufacturing, or design-related conditions.
Operation outside applicable limits.
Failure to complete a required inspection or corrective action.
Damage created during the accident sequence itself.
An aviation expert may examine what failed, how the failure developed, and whether the maintenance history supports the proposed failure mechanism.
This distinction can be important in negligence, product liability, wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, subrogation, and insurance disputes.
Aviation expert witnesses analyze aircraft maintenance and mechanical failures involving engines, structures, flight controls, landing gear, and other systems. This article explains maintenance records, physical evidence, FAA requirements, Airworthiness Directives, competing causes, NTSB materials, evidence preservation, expert selection, and Rule 702 testimony.
Accident Investigation and Reconstruction
Causation Analysis
Fracture Analysis
Metallurgical Failure Analysis
Corrosion Engineering
Laboratory Testing
Preservation
Regulatory Issues
When an aircraft experiences an engine malfunction, structural failure, flight-control problem, landing-gear issue, or other mechanical event, identifying the failed component is only part of the investigation. Litigation may also require determining why the failure occurred, whether maintenance or inspection contributed to it, and whether another technical or operational factor better explains the evidence.
A qualified aviation expert may evaluate aircraft maintenance records, inspection histories, physical components, manufacturer instructions, Federal Aviation Administration requirements, Airworthiness Directives, and accident-investigation materials. This analysis can help attorneys distinguish a maintenance-related problem from design, manufacturing, operational, environmental, or accident-related causes.
This guide explains how aircraft maintenance and mechanical failure issues may be analyzed in litigation, including relevant FAA requirements, maintenance records, physical evidence, competing causes, National Transportation Safety Board materials, and aviation expert testimony.
An aircraft mechanical failure does not, by itself, establish deficient maintenance. The observed damage may have several possible causes, and a careful analysis may compare those explanations with the available physical evidence and aircraft history.
Potential issues may include:
Wear or fatigue.
Improper installation, adjustment, or maintenance procedures.
Inadequate inspection or an unresolved prior discrepancy.
Corrosion or environmental deterioration.
Contamination or lubrication problems.
Material, manufacturing, or design-related conditions.
Operation outside applicable limits.
Failure to complete a required inspection or corrective action.
Damage created during the accident sequence itself.
An aviation expert may examine what failed, how the failure developed, and whether the maintenance history supports the proposed failure mechanism.
This distinction can be important in negligence, product liability, wrongful death, personal injury, property damage, subrogation, and insurance disputes.
Aircraft mechanical disputes may involve several technical theories, and those theories can overlap.
Maintenance issues may involve inspection, installation, adjustment, repair, servicing, component replacement, or compliance with required procedures.
Design issues generally concern how the aircraft, system, or component was engineered.
Manufacturing issues may concern whether a particular component departed from its intended specifications or contained a production-related condition.
Operational issues may involve system use, aircraft handling, operating limitations, environmental conditions, or the sequence of events during flight.
Complex cases may require more than one expert discipline. An aviation maintenance expert, aerospace engineer, accident reconstruction specialist, materials engineer, or other technical professional may analyze different aspects of the same failure sequence.
The materials an expert reviews depend on the aircraft, system, component, and disputed issue. Relevant records and evidence may include:
Aircraft, engine, propeller, and component logbooks.
Inspection records, discrepancy lists, work orders, and repair records.
Component replacement, repair, and overhaul histories.
Serial numbers, time-in-service, and cycle information.
Airworthiness Directive compliance records.
Manufacturer maintenance manuals and Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
Applicable service bulletins and other manufacturer technical information.
Major repair and alteration records.
Photographs, videos, preserved components, and wreckage.
Pilot reports concerning prior discrepancies.
Flight data or recorded system information when available.
NTSB docket materials, deposition testimony, and other case-specific evidence.
The National Transportation Safety Board's investigative process includes on-scene fact gathering and may also involve obtaining flight logs, maintenance records, interviews, and other information from outside the accident scene.
The goal is to evaluate the complete technical history rather than draw conclusions from one maintenance entry or damaged component.
Aviation experts generally use the available evidence to analyze how a failure developed and what may have caused it. The appropriate methodology depends on the system and failure mechanism involved.
Physical evidence may help determine how a component fractured, developed wear, overheated, corroded, loosened, leaked, or otherwise deteriorated.
Depending on the issue, the investigation may involve:
Visual and dimensional examination.
Borescope inspection.
Component teardown.
Nondestructive examination.
Microscopy or metallurgical analysis.
Electrical or other specialized laboratory testing.
FAA aviation maintenance materials address aircraft engines, fuel and metering, induction and exhaust, ignition and electrical systems, lubrication and cooling, propellers, and engine maintenance.
The technical analysis should match the disputed issue and the evidence involved.
An expert may compare physical findings with:
Maintenance procedures in effect when work was performed.
Inspection requirements.
Manufacturer specifications.
Measurements and tolerances.
Previous discrepancies.
Component replacement or overhaul history.
Applicable Airworthiness Directives.
Time-in-service or cycle information.
A maintenance record showing that work occurred does not necessarily answer whether the work caused, contributed to, or had no relationship to the later failure. Answering that question often involves comparing the documentation with available physical evidence and other case-specific information.
Aircraft failure analysis should also consider plausible explanations that do not depend on deficient maintenance.
For example, a fractured component may require analysis of whether the damage resulted from progressive fatigue, corrosion, a material condition, improper installation, accident-related overload, or another mechanism. An engine power-loss event may require examining the fuel, ignition, induction, lubrication, mechanical, and operational evidence.
Considering competing causes helps distinguish the component failure from the mechanism that produced the failure.
Federal Aviation Administration regulations are an important part of evaluating aircraft maintenance and inspection issues. The requirements that apply depend on the aircraft, type of operation, maintenance program, work performed, and other case-specific circumstances.
Under 14 C.F.R. § 43.13, a person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance generally must follow the methods, techniques, and practices in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Subject to applicable requirements, including § 43.16, other methods, techniques, and practices may be used if they are acceptable to the FAA.
Section 43.16 separately requires a person performing an inspection or other maintenance specified in an Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to perform that work in accordance with that section, or in accordance with an applicable program or operations specification approved under the regulation.
Section 43.13 also addresses the tools, equipment, and test apparatus used to perform the work and requires the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on to be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition with respect to qualities affecting airworthiness.
In litigation, an aviation maintenance expert may compare the work performed with the procedures, equipment, measurements, tolerances, and inspection criteria in effect at the time.
Maintenance records can help reconstruct an aircraft's technical history before a mechanical event. Under 14 C.F.R. § 43.9, they generally document the work performed, completion date, and person approving the work for return to service. Section 43.11 separately addresses specified inspection entries, including the type and extent of the inspection and return-to-service status.
For registered owners or operators subject to 14 C.F.R. § 91.417, required records also address maintenance, inspections, total time in service, life-limited parts, overhaul and inspection status, major alterations, and applicable Airworthiness Directives. Certain records must be retained and transferred with the aircraft when it is sold.
These records may help an expert assess whether a condition developed over time, whether earlier discrepancies involved the same system, and whether required maintenance or inspections were documented.
Airworthiness Directives can become especially important when the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance at issue is covered by one, including when it addresses a particular component or condition.
Under 14 C.F.R. Part 39, Airworthiness Directives are legally enforceable rules. The FAA issues them when it finds that an unsafe condition exists in a product and is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. An AD may require inspections, corrective actions, operating limitations, or other measures.
An aviation expert reviewing AD compliance may consider:
Whether the product falls within the AD's applicability provisions and whether required actions were completed on time.
Whether recurring inspections or corrective actions applied.
How compliance was documented and whether an FAA-approved alternative method of compliance applied.
Whether the post-event condition relates to the unsafe condition addressed by the AD.
The existence of an AD does not, by itself, establish accident causation or liability. If it applies, its requirements can be compared with the aircraft's configuration, maintenance records, component condition, and failure evidence.
Early evidence preservation can be important when an aircraft component may later undergo teardown, laboratory examination, or destructive testing.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 830.10(a), the operator of an aircraft involved in an accident or an incident for which notification must be given is responsible, to the extent possible, for preserving aircraft wreckage, cargo, mail, and specified records until the NTSB takes custody or a release is granted under 49 C.F.R. § 831.12(b). Section 830.10(d) separately requires the operator to retain all records, reports, internal documents, and memoranda dealing with the accident or incident until the NTSB authorizes otherwise.
Before the NTSB or its authorized representative takes custody, aircraft wreckage, mail, or cargo generally may not be disturbed or moved except as necessary to remove injured or trapped persons, protect the wreckage from further damage, or protect the public from injury. If wreckage, mail, or cargo must be moved, § 830.10(c) requires, if possible, sketches, descriptive notes, and photographs of the original positions and condition of the wreckage and any significant impact marks.
Early evidence planning may include determining:
Who has custody of the aircraft or components and whether the NTSB has released them.
What inspection, testing, or disassembly has already occurred or could alter the evidence.
What photographs, measurements, or imaging should be completed before testing.
Whether other parties should receive notice before potentially destructive examination.
Early expert involvement may help identify evidence that should be documented and preserved before its condition changes.
National Transportation Safety Board investigation materials can provide important factual information, but attorneys should distinguish factual investigative materials from the Board's accident report.
NTSB investigations are fact-finding proceedings. Under 49 C.F.R. § 831.4, they are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights or liabilities of any person.
Under 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b), no part of a report of the Board concerning an accident or accident investigation may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.
NTSB regulations provide additional clarification. Under 49 C.F.R. § 835.2, a Board accident report contains the Board's determinations, including probable cause, and cannot be admitted or used in a damages action. A factual accident report contains the investigator's factual investigation results. The regulation states that the Board does not object to its admission and that no statutory bar prevents its admission. Other evidentiary objections may still apply in a particular case.
An aviation expert may review available docket materials, photographs, laboratory information, maintenance records, and factual investigative materials as part of a broader technical analysis. Counsel should separately evaluate the admissibility and permissible use of specific materials under the governing law and evidentiary rules.
The appropriate expert depends on the disputed technical question, not simply on the fact that an aircraft is involved.
Potential disciplines include:
Aircraft maintenance experts for inspections, repairs, procedures, logbooks, and return-to-service issues.
Aerospace or mechanical engineers for structures, loads, and mechanical systems.
Powerplant specialists for piston or turbine engines and related systems.
Materials or metallurgical experts for fracture, fatigue, corrosion, wear, and material conditions.
Electrical or avionics experts for electrical and electronic systems.
Accident reconstruction experts when mechanical evidence must be considered within the accident sequence.
Aviation regulatory experts when FAA requirements or compliance issues are central.
Relevant qualifications may include education, professional experience, FAA certificates, aircraft-specific knowledge, maintenance experience, engineering credentials, and familiarity with the system or failure mechanism.
In federal proceedings governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, aviation expert testimony is subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
The Rule provides that a qualified expert may testify if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the Rule's requirements are satisfied. Among other requirements, the testimony must help the trier of fact, be based on sufficient facts or data, result from reliable principles and methods, and reflect a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts.
For an aircraft mechanical-failure opinion, the expert should be able to explain the evidence reviewed, the methodology used, how that evidence supports the opinion, and any relevant competing explanations considered.
State expert-admissibility standards vary, so counsel should evaluate the requirements of the governing jurisdiction separately.
Aircraft maintenance and mechanical failure litigation often turns on more than the existence of a damaged component. The central technical questions are how the failure developed, whether maintenance or inspection played a role, which requirements applied, and whether alternative explanations are more consistent with the evidence.
A qualified aviation expert can assist by evaluating aircraft records, physical evidence, regulatory requirements, technical procedures, and competing failure mechanisms without assuming that a mechanical event necessarily resulted from deficient maintenance.
Attorneys and legal teams handling aircraft maintenance, mechanical failure, accident investigation, engineering, and regulatory disputes may need aviation professionals with experience relevant to the technical issues involved. The appropriate expert depends on the aircraft, component, disputed issue, and type of technical analysis required in the case.
When should an aviation expert be retained in an aircraft mechanical failure case?
An aviation expert may be useful early when maintenance records, physical evidence, or aircraft components need to be identified and preserved. Early involvement can also help counsel determine which technical discipline is appropriate before teardown or testing changes the condition of the evidence.
Can maintenance records determine why an aircraft component failed?
Maintenance records can provide important evidence, but they do not necessarily answer the causation question by themselves. An expert may need to compare the records with the physical component, manufacturer requirements, inspection history, service information, and other evidence.
Does an aircraft mechanical failure necessarily indicate an FAA violation?
No. Mechanical failures can result from many causes that may or may not involve regulatory noncompliance. Whether an FAA requirement was violated depends on the applicable regulation and the facts surrounding the aircraft, operation, maintenance, and failure.
What is the difference between an aviation maintenance expert and an aerospace engineer?
Their expertise often addresses different questions. A maintenance expert may focus on inspections, repairs, maintenance practices, and documentation, while an aerospace or mechanical engineer may evaluate structures, systems, loads, or failure mechanisms. Some cases may call for both types of expertise.
Can an aviation expert rely on NTSB investigation materials?
An expert may review factual NTSB materials, including factual accident reports and other factual materials contained in an investigation docket. Whether a particular item may be relied on or disclosed to the factfinder depends on the applicable evidence rules and the type of material involved. In a civil action for damages, 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b) prohibits any part of a Board accident report from being admitted into evidence or used in the action. Under 49 C.F.R. § 835.2, factual accident reports are treated differently: the NTSB does not object to their admission, and the regulation states that no statutory bar prevents their admission. Other evidentiary objections may still apply.
Aircraft mechanical disputes may involve several technical theories, and those theories can overlap.
Maintenance issues may involve inspection, installation, adjustment, repair, servicing, component replacement, or compliance with required procedures.
Design issues generally concern how the aircraft, system, or component was engineered.
Manufacturing issues may concern whether a particular component departed from its intended specifications or contained a production-related condition.
Operational issues may involve system use, aircraft handling, operating limitations, environmental conditions, or the sequence of events during flight.
Complex cases may require more than one expert discipline. An aviation maintenance expert, aerospace engineer, accident reconstruction specialist, materials engineer, or other technical professional may analyze different aspects of the same failure sequence.
The materials an expert reviews depend on the aircraft, system, component, and disputed issue. Relevant records and evidence may include:
Aircraft, engine, propeller, and component logbooks.
Inspection records, discrepancy lists, work orders, and repair records.
Component replacement, repair, and overhaul histories.
Serial numbers, time-in-service, and cycle information.
Airworthiness Directive compliance records.
Manufacturer maintenance manuals and Instructions for Continued Airworthiness.
Applicable service bulletins and other manufacturer technical information.
Major repair and alteration records.
Photographs, videos, preserved components, and wreckage.
Pilot reports concerning prior discrepancies.
Flight data or recorded system information when available.
NTSB docket materials, deposition testimony, and other case-specific evidence.
The National Transportation Safety Board's investigative process includes on-scene fact gathering and may also involve obtaining flight logs, maintenance records, interviews, and other information from outside the accident scene.
The goal is to evaluate the complete technical history rather than draw conclusions from one maintenance entry or damaged component.
Aviation experts generally use the available evidence to analyze how a failure developed and what may have caused it. The appropriate methodology depends on the system and failure mechanism involved.
Physical evidence may help determine how a component fractured, developed wear, overheated, corroded, loosened, leaked, or otherwise deteriorated.
Depending on the issue, the investigation may involve:
Visual and dimensional examination.
Borescope inspection.
Component teardown.
Nondestructive examination.
Microscopy or metallurgical analysis.
Electrical or other specialized laboratory testing.
FAA aviation maintenance materials address aircraft engines, fuel and metering, induction and exhaust, ignition and electrical systems, lubrication and cooling, propellers, and engine maintenance.
The technical analysis should match the disputed issue and the evidence involved.
An expert may compare physical findings with:
Maintenance procedures in effect when work was performed.
Inspection requirements.
Manufacturer specifications.
Measurements and tolerances.
Previous discrepancies.
Component replacement or overhaul history.
Applicable Airworthiness Directives.
Time-in-service or cycle information.
A maintenance record showing that work occurred does not necessarily answer whether the work caused, contributed to, or had no relationship to the later failure. Answering that question often involves comparing the documentation with available physical evidence and other case-specific information.
Aircraft failure analysis should also consider plausible explanations that do not depend on deficient maintenance.
For example, a fractured component may require analysis of whether the damage resulted from progressive fatigue, corrosion, a material condition, improper installation, accident-related overload, or another mechanism. An engine power-loss event may require examining the fuel, ignition, induction, lubrication, mechanical, and operational evidence.
Considering competing causes helps distinguish the component failure from the mechanism that produced the failure.
Federal Aviation Administration regulations are an important part of evaluating aircraft maintenance and inspection issues. The requirements that apply depend on the aircraft, type of operation, maintenance program, work performed, and other case-specific circumstances.
Under 14 C.F.R. § 43.13, a person performing maintenance, alteration, or preventive maintenance generally must follow the methods, techniques, and practices in the current manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness. Subject to applicable requirements, including § 43.16, other methods, techniques, and practices may be used if they are acceptable to the FAA.
Section 43.16 separately requires a person performing an inspection or other maintenance specified in an Airworthiness Limitations section of a manufacturer's maintenance manual or Instructions for Continued Airworthiness to perform that work in accordance with that section, or in accordance with an applicable program or operations specification approved under the regulation.
Section 43.13 also addresses the tools, equipment, and test apparatus used to perform the work and requires the aircraft, airframe, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance worked on to be at least equal to its original or properly altered condition with respect to qualities affecting airworthiness.
In litigation, an aviation maintenance expert may compare the work performed with the procedures, equipment, measurements, tolerances, and inspection criteria in effect at the time.
Maintenance records can help reconstruct an aircraft's technical history before a mechanical event. Under 14 C.F.R. § 43.9, they generally document the work performed, completion date, and person approving the work for return to service. Section 43.11 separately addresses specified inspection entries, including the type and extent of the inspection and return-to-service status.
For registered owners or operators subject to 14 C.F.R. § 91.417, required records also address maintenance, inspections, total time in service, life-limited parts, overhaul and inspection status, major alterations, and applicable Airworthiness Directives. Certain records must be retained and transferred with the aircraft when it is sold.
These records may help an expert assess whether a condition developed over time, whether earlier discrepancies involved the same system, and whether required maintenance or inspections were documented.
Airworthiness Directives can become especially important when the aircraft, aircraft engine, propeller, or appliance at issue is covered by one, including when it addresses a particular component or condition.
Under 14 C.F.R. Part 39, Airworthiness Directives are legally enforceable rules. The FAA issues them when it finds that an unsafe condition exists in a product and is likely to exist or develop in other products of the same type design. An AD may require inspections, corrective actions, operating limitations, or other measures.
An aviation expert reviewing AD compliance may consider:
Whether the product falls within the AD's applicability provisions and whether required actions were completed on time.
Whether recurring inspections or corrective actions applied.
How compliance was documented and whether an FAA-approved alternative method of compliance applied.
Whether the post-event condition relates to the unsafe condition addressed by the AD.
The existence of an AD does not, by itself, establish accident causation or liability. If it applies, its requirements can be compared with the aircraft's configuration, maintenance records, component condition, and failure evidence.
Early evidence preservation can be important when an aircraft component may later undergo teardown, laboratory examination, or destructive testing.
Under 49 C.F.R. § 830.10(a), the operator of an aircraft involved in an accident or an incident for which notification must be given is responsible, to the extent possible, for preserving aircraft wreckage, cargo, mail, and specified records until the NTSB takes custody or a release is granted under 49 C.F.R. § 831.12(b). Section 830.10(d) separately requires the operator to retain all records, reports, internal documents, and memoranda dealing with the accident or incident until the NTSB authorizes otherwise.
Before the NTSB or its authorized representative takes custody, aircraft wreckage, mail, or cargo generally may not be disturbed or moved except as necessary to remove injured or trapped persons, protect the wreckage from further damage, or protect the public from injury. If wreckage, mail, or cargo must be moved, § 830.10(c) requires, if possible, sketches, descriptive notes, and photographs of the original positions and condition of the wreckage and any significant impact marks.
Early evidence planning may include determining:
Who has custody of the aircraft or components and whether the NTSB has released them.
What inspection, testing, or disassembly has already occurred or could alter the evidence.
What photographs, measurements, or imaging should be completed before testing.
Whether other parties should receive notice before potentially destructive examination.
Early expert involvement may help identify evidence that should be documented and preserved before its condition changes.
National Transportation Safety Board investigation materials can provide important factual information, but attorneys should distinguish factual investigative materials from the Board's accident report.
NTSB investigations are fact-finding proceedings. Under 49 C.F.R. § 831.4, they are not conducted for the purpose of determining the rights or liabilities of any person.
Under 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b), no part of a report of the Board concerning an accident or accident investigation may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.
NTSB regulations provide additional clarification. Under 49 C.F.R. § 835.2, a Board accident report contains the Board's determinations, including probable cause, and cannot be admitted or used in a damages action. A factual accident report contains the investigator's factual investigation results. The regulation states that the Board does not object to its admission and that no statutory bar prevents its admission. Other evidentiary objections may still apply in a particular case.
An aviation expert may review available docket materials, photographs, laboratory information, maintenance records, and factual investigative materials as part of a broader technical analysis. Counsel should separately evaluate the admissibility and permissible use of specific materials under the governing law and evidentiary rules.
The appropriate expert depends on the disputed technical question, not simply on the fact that an aircraft is involved.
Potential disciplines include:
Aircraft maintenance experts for inspections, repairs, procedures, logbooks, and return-to-service issues.
Aerospace or mechanical engineers for structures, loads, and mechanical systems.
Powerplant specialists for piston or turbine engines and related systems.
Materials or metallurgical experts for fracture, fatigue, corrosion, wear, and material conditions.
Electrical or avionics experts for electrical and electronic systems.
Accident reconstruction experts when mechanical evidence must be considered within the accident sequence.
Aviation regulatory experts when FAA requirements or compliance issues are central.
Relevant qualifications may include education, professional experience, FAA certificates, aircraft-specific knowledge, maintenance experience, engineering credentials, and familiarity with the system or failure mechanism.
In federal proceedings governed by the Federal Rules of Evidence, aviation expert testimony is subject to Federal Rule of Evidence 702.
The Rule provides that a qualified expert may testify if the proponent demonstrates to the court that it is more likely than not that the Rule's requirements are satisfied. Among other requirements, the testimony must help the trier of fact, be based on sufficient facts or data, result from reliable principles and methods, and reflect a reliable application of those principles and methods to the facts.
For an aircraft mechanical-failure opinion, the expert should be able to explain the evidence reviewed, the methodology used, how that evidence supports the opinion, and any relevant competing explanations considered.
State expert-admissibility standards vary, so counsel should evaluate the requirements of the governing jurisdiction separately.
Aircraft maintenance and mechanical failure litigation often turns on more than the existence of a damaged component. The central technical questions are how the failure developed, whether maintenance or inspection played a role, which requirements applied, and whether alternative explanations are more consistent with the evidence.
A qualified aviation expert can assist by evaluating aircraft records, physical evidence, regulatory requirements, technical procedures, and competing failure mechanisms without assuming that a mechanical event necessarily resulted from deficient maintenance.
Attorneys and legal teams handling aircraft maintenance, mechanical failure, accident investigation, engineering, and regulatory disputes may need aviation professionals with experience relevant to the technical issues involved. The appropriate expert depends on the aircraft, component, disputed issue, and type of technical analysis required in the case.
When should an aviation expert be retained in an aircraft mechanical failure case?
An aviation expert may be useful early when maintenance records, physical evidence, or aircraft components need to be identified and preserved. Early involvement can also help counsel determine which technical discipline is appropriate before teardown or testing changes the condition of the evidence.
Can maintenance records determine why an aircraft component failed?
Maintenance records can provide important evidence, but they do not necessarily answer the causation question by themselves. An expert may need to compare the records with the physical component, manufacturer requirements, inspection history, service information, and other evidence.
Does an aircraft mechanical failure necessarily indicate an FAA violation?
No. Mechanical failures can result from many causes that may or may not involve regulatory noncompliance. Whether an FAA requirement was violated depends on the applicable regulation and the facts surrounding the aircraft, operation, maintenance, and failure.
What is the difference between an aviation maintenance expert and an aerospace engineer?
Their expertise often addresses different questions. A maintenance expert may focus on inspections, repairs, maintenance practices, and documentation, while an aerospace or mechanical engineer may evaluate structures, systems, loads, or failure mechanisms. Some cases may call for both types of expertise.
Can an aviation expert rely on NTSB investigation materials?
An expert may review factual NTSB materials, including factual accident reports and other factual materials contained in an investigation docket. Whether a particular item may be relied on or disclosed to the factfinder depends on the applicable evidence rules and the type of material involved. In a civil action for damages, 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b) prohibits any part of a Board accident report from being admitted into evidence or used in the action. Under 49 C.F.R. § 835.2, factual accident reports are treated differently: the NTSB does not object to their admission, and the regulation states that no statutory bar prevents their admission. Other evidentiary objections may still apply.
Accident Investigation and Reconstruction
Causation Analysis
Fracture Analysis
Metallurgical Failure Analysis
Corrosion Engineering
Laboratory Testing
Preservation
Regulatory Issues
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
Expert Witness Insights by Area of Expertise
