Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Appealing an NTSB accident ruling

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
3 things:
1. Call AOPA
2. For Some reason, I recall an accident being (among other things) damage more than 25k. I am not sure about this though, and don't have time to look it up at the moment.
3. Don't go 3-trackin on any more runway EXcursions.
Good Luck
 
OK - I've done this for 22 years. I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, you have wrecked an airplane, you were PIC.

Lownslo is correct that many in the FAA have been using $25K as a standard rule of thumb, but I know of no written guidance that stipulates that anything less than $25K is an "incident." It really does not matter unless your pride is really wrapped up in the semantics of the nomenclature. You should answer any questions posed to you in the future honestly.

More than a few CFI's have bent airplanes. What did you learn from it? Just don't blame the student - there is a reason they have you on the airplane.

If you file an appeal - at least the IIC will get a good laugh. NTSB investigations are not admissible in any subsequent proceeding so it would be hard for you to say that you were "harmed" by an error made by the NTSB.

If you call AOPA, they will try to sell you their legal services plan. However, you are not under an enforcement action, so the plan they sell would not typically provide coverage.

The American Bonanza Society a T-34 owner's group and several Beech / Raytheon engineers have been trying to get an NTSB report changed for about 10 years now. They probably have over $1,000,000.00 in the project with marginal success. I think you need more than luck, you need naked pictures of Norman Mineta, or you just need to get over it and let the NTSB IIC do their job.
 
Crud - I was going to edit that - sorry if it seems harsh. Flightinfo's not letting edits tonight.
 
~~~^~~~ said:
OK - I've done this for 22 years. I'm not sure I understand your point. Yes, you have wrecked an airplane, you were PIC.

Lownslo is correct that many in the FAA have been using $25K as a standard rule of thumb, but I know of no written guidance that stipulates that anything less than $25K is an "incident." It really does not matter unless your pride is really wrapped up in the semantics of the nomenclature. You should answer any questions posed to you in the future honestly.

More than a few CFI's have bent airplanes. What did you learn from it? Just don't blame the student - there is a reason they have you on the airplane.

If you file an appeal - at least the IIC will get a good laugh. NTSB investigations are not admissible in any subsequent proceeding so it would be hard for you to say that you were "harmed" by an error made by the NTSB.

If you call AOPA, they will try to sell you their legal services plan. However, you are not under an enforcement action, so the plan they sell would not typically provide coverage.

The American Bonanza Society a T-34 owner's group and several Beech / Raytheon engineers have been trying to get an NTSB report changed for about 10 years now. They probably have over $1,000,000.00 in the project with marginal success. I think you need more than luck, you need naked pictures of Norman Mineta, or you just need to get over it and let the NTSB IIC do their job.


One the subject of influencing the NTSB: If I recall corretly, Aviation Attorney Arthur Wolk sued the NTSB because thier report was critical of his handling of an emergency in some jet (Grumman Panther?) which ended in an accident.

Also, somone recently posted on another thread a link to the report of the 1900-kingair collision (QUincy?) and there was revision page which detailed the removal of all references to the 1900 door being jammed....Raytheon's attornies at work?
 
Again, that was Art Wolk. I do not agree with his judgement 98% of the time, but he has the resources (as a result of making aviation at least 30% more expensive for the rest of us) to raise hell with the NTSB over a matter of his pride getting hurt.

I had better shut up about Art before he finds, and sues, me. He has gone after web sites like this one in the past. He gets really upset when people identify him as what he is.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top