Appealing an NTSB accident ruling

[bigulua]

I'm wondering if anyone can help me out with some legal advice here...I am a CFI and was involved in a runway excursion with a student about a month ago. There were no injuries, but the wingtip of the aircraft was damaged enough for the NTSB to rule the occurrence an accident. I was required to complete NTSB Form 6120.1 (Aircraft Accident/Incident Report), and while doing so read that I can appeal the ruling to the NTSB. It states on the form, "An aircraft accident, as

defined in 49CFR 830.2, is determined as an occurrence that involves a fatality, serious injury, or substantial damage. For occurrences that do notinvolve a fatality, the determination that the occurrence is an accident can be appealed by writing to the Director, Office of Aviation Safety, National Transportation Safety Board, 490 L’Enfant Plaza, S.W., Washington, D.C. 20594." I fully intend to appeal, but I am uncertain as to whether or not this is something I can do on my own. Do I just write a letter to the Director myself and send it to the afforementioned address, or must I enlist the help of a lawyer and have an official legal document drafted? I would prefer to do this on my own, but if I need a lawyer, so be it. If anyone could help educate me as to how I should go about doing this, I would be very appreciative. Thank you.
​

 

[2Inverted]

If you're a member of AOPA, contact them for legal advise.
Don't try it on your own. You're going to go up against the NTSB and/or FAA lawyers, so you have to get yourself a good lawyer and be prepared to spend some cash. Good Luck.

 

[Say Again Over]

If your going to try this on your own you at least need to have a consult. Good luck.

 

[avbug]

This isn't a legal action or enforcement action. Consulting an attorney is reasonable and prudent (as your incident may end up a civil matter with insurance, owners, student, or others involved)...but with regard to the NTSB, if you can show that your accident did not cause substantial damage or meet the requirements of the defintion of an "accident" as you stipulated above, then you can appeal directly to the Director.

Did the amount of damage fall outside the definition of "substantial damage?"

Substantial Damage
Damage or structural failure that negatively affects an aircraft’s structural strength, performance, or flying characteristics, and which would require significant repair or replacement of the affected component or system. Substantial damage excludes damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, and flaps. It also excludes bent aerodynamic fairings, dents in the aircraft skin, small punctures in the aircraft skin, ground damage to propeller blades, or damage to only a single engine.

Did the damage require repair to the wingtip, aileron, spar, wing skins, or other structure in the area? If so, you may well be a candidate for meeting the definition of substantial damage, which means that you experienced an accident, by definition.

Unless you merely scratched the paint on a fiberglass or plastic wingtip, then chances are the wing sustained some stresses, and this most definitely affects the structural strength of a major component of the aircraft. If the aileron was in any way damaged, the flight control system has been compromised (remember that many aircraft can't be flown until the controls have been rebalanced if paint gets on an aileron, to say nothing of damage)...that would be substantial damage.

What is the extent of the damage? Did the propeller strike the ground? Engien sudden stoppage or overspeed? Gear issues?

What I'm getting at here is if you are going to appeal, be sure you can show clearly that no substantial damage exists. The definition is purposely left vague in living document fashion, to be adaptable to various situations. It also leaves some room for discussion and flexibility...but you will need to be able to clearly show that your evoloution falls well outside the boundaries of the definition. If you feel your case is strong enough, and you can gather together pictures of the damage, mechanics statements, bills for repair, statements from the student, the NTSB prelim, whitness statements, insurance paperwork, and anything else available to give you a solid leg to stand upon...then have at it. With investigators having already glanced at the matter and made a preliminary wave at "accident" classification, the ball is now in your court to make a case and prove that it's not an accident...that's best done with too much evidence than not enough and that's going to require leg work on your part.

Good luck.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It's kind of an interesting question. Can the damage to a part that is listed as not being "substantial damage" be extensive enough that is becomes "substantial damage" because it "adversely affects the structural strength, performance, or flight characteristics of the aircraft, and ... would normally require major repair or replacement of the affected component."

 

[avbug]

I don't believe the poster cited damage that's specifically excluded. He or she was very vague. The damage cited is to a wingtip, and we are told there are no fatalities. We know nothing about serious injuries, or the true nature of the damage to the aircraft. If the aircraft is landing or taking off and a wingtip suffers damage, it's rare that more of the aircraft isn't damaged. If the wingtip struck the ground, then chances are high that the propeller or gear suffered damage. While the gear is excluded from the definition, the spar box, trunions, or other structure to which the gear is attached is not excluded.

Striking a wingtip can require anything from a major repair reskinning surfaces or underlying structural repair, to damage and inspection of all the supporting and attaching structure. If you hit one end of the wing against something, you also hit the other end of the wing, just as when you pick up one end of a stick, you also pick up the other. Vibration and stresses can cause damage on wing attach fittings, spars and spar caps, strut risers, Jesus bolts and associated hardware, etc.

Generally the wingtip is directly adjacent to the aileron, which most definitely affects both the structural strength of the aircraft, it's airworthiness, and its' flying characteristics. Certainly if the wing is tweaked, even assuming it's structurally sound, a very high probability that the flying characteristics have been imacted will exist.

The poster didn't cite anything that's excluded, the poster was merely very vague...more information is required.

 

[midlifeflyer]

I don't believe the poster cited damage that's specifically excluded. He or she was very vague. The damage cited is to a wingtip,

I believe the poster is referring to NTSB 830.2's definition of "substantial damage" which says in part,

==============================
Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered "substantial damage" for the purpose of this part.
==============================

 

[A Squared]

I believe the poster is referring to NTSB 830.2's definition of "substantial damage" which says in part,

==============================
Engine failure or damage limited to an engine if only one engine fails or is damaged, bent fairings or cowling, dented skin, small punctured holes in the skin or fabric, ground damage to rotor or propeller blades, and damage to landing gear, wheels, tires, flaps, engine accessories, brakes, or wingtips are not considered "substantial damage" for the purpose of this part.
==============================

It depends on what the poster meant by "the wingtip of the aircraft was damaged". If that means that there was only a crack in a plastic wingtip fairing, it may not meet the criteria for an accident. If that means the last 2 feet of the wing was bent up at a 20 degree angle, it would probably be hard to argue that wasn't substantial damage. We really have no idea which scenario is closer to the truth.

 

[midlifeflyer]

It depends on what the poster meant by "the wingtip of the aircraft was damaged". If that means that there was only a crack in a plastic wingtip fairing, it may not meet the criteria for an accident. If that means the last 2 feet of the wing was bent up at a 20 degree angle, it would probably be hard to argue that wasn't substantial damage. We really have no idea which scenario is closer to the truth.

Agreed. We obviously don't know how serious the damage or whether it goes beyond just the wing tips. My guess has been that bigulua is thinking that since the damage is wingtip and there is a written exclusion for wingtip damage, that he has a basis for the appeal. Hence my comment about the "interesting" issue. They may exist, but I'm not aware (never had a reason to look) of any NTSB case law or opinions that indicate, for example, that whether "ground damage to propeller blades" is "substantial damage" or not depends on how much they were bent.

 

[avbug]

The propeller is another example. I saw a prop a few days ago that was struck by a ground vehicle, and a chunk was carved out of the prop. Most likely, no damage was done to the engine based on what occured. However, a prop that's turning may result in damage to the engine, as well as the engine mounts; damage to the mounts may result in damage to the firewall, longerons, and in some cases, gear assemblies, too.

Often the damage that's apparent is only the tip of the iceberg.

Merely because an item is cited as being excluded, doesn't mean that it is...because it may only be representative of damage which is still hidden.