Peter B. Field — Aviation Consultant

Why Test Pilots Make Good Aviation Expert Witnesses

The common view of test pilots is like that depicted in the book, “The Right Stuff.”  The image is that of pilots willing to fly and tame any new aircraft regardless of unknown dangers.  Nothing could be further from reality.  Today test pilots are made in the United States in two locations, the United States Navy Test Pilot School at the Naval Air Station, Patuxent River, Maryland and the United States Air Force Test Pilot School at Edwards Air Force Base, California.  Pilots are selected to attend the schools when they are early in their military or civilian careers.  Two overriding criteria are used in the selection of these pilots: their efficiency report ratings and their ability to fly airplanes.  

Schools last for a year, during which over $1 million is invested in each pilot.  They are taught to give quick general evaluations of airplanes over a three-flight exposure, and during detailed, highly scientific development evaluations lasting several years and several hundreds of flights.  They are taught specific test techniques to determine performance, handling qualities, and specification compliance of any new airplane.  

Central to evaluating aircraft is the need to perform tests safely and with a level of well managed risk.  The flight test community has a tremendous history of successes achieved through learning how to manage risk and avoid disasters.  These “lessons learned” are folded into each new program and contribute to present day highly successful test program execution.  The gradual building up of knowledge on a new aircraft is axiomatic for safe aircraft testing.  Additionally, in the training process, new test pilots are exposed to a wide variety of different aircraft.  Thus they form a mental library of good and bad aircraft characteristics.  

Their knowledge is not limited, however, to just the test aircraft itself but also include all aircraft systems such as avionics, environmental control, fuel management, weapons load management, radar performance, and other specific performance characteristics for which the aircraft was designed to meet.  Infused in this training is the obligation of each test pilot to certify the behavior of the aircraft they evaluate for future generations of pilots.  Thus the finding of “goods” and “bads” of the overall design, its enhancing characteristics or deficiencies, and that of any modification to an existing system are all the test pilot’s responsibility.  Ultimately, he must evaluate all corrections to deficiencies each airplane may be found to have.  He must understand how everything works and determine the effects of component failures in the design.  In the end the test pilot will coordinate with the manufacturer and compile the aircraft’s operating handbook. 

Being experienced in finding aircraft-problems translates well into finding the root cause of any aircraft accident.  Pilot error is often at fault with inexperienced pilots, but understanding the effects of systems failures in flight as well as corrective actions taken may change that view when all factors are evaluated.  Being detailed in the evaluation of forensic evidence will greatly assist in arriving at a list of potential causes, which can be thoroughly evaluated in establishing the accident’s cause.  It is essential that the expert witness not only provides his clients with accurate detailed information, but also be able to train and explain all aspects of aviation related information to the jury in easily understood terms. 

Typical Cases

1. This case involved a student pilot on his first solo cross country.  His flight instructor sent him out in weather conditions for which other flight schools in the local area had grounded all flights.  On the flight the student encountered poor weather and inadvertently flew into clouds, lost situational awareness, lost control of the aircraft and crashed on a hillside.  I worked with the attorney to explain the responsibilities of the flight instructor in this situation.  The flight instructor had not given a thorough check of local weather conditions nor had any forecast been looked at for the period the student would be airborne.  The student’s parents sued the flight school for the loss of their son's life.  The case resulted in a substantial out of court insurance settlement with the flight instructor’s insurer and the flight school’s insurance.
2. A Florida avionics repair station suffered considerable damage to their test equipment during a hurricane.  Most of the test equipment had been thoroughly water saturated.  My client in this case was the repair station’s insurer.  The insurance company was unsure that test equipment exposed to water could not be reliably returned to service and used to certify the operation of repaired radio and radio navigation equipment retrofitted into aircraft.  I explained to the insurer that circuit boards in the test equipment although in appearance seemed undamaged were actually suffering a gradual deterioration, which over time, would render them as an unreliable standard against which to test repaired equipment.  I explained that printed circuit boards were composed of many different metals and that when subjected to water or high humidity would suffer exfoliation on the circuits themselves.  I advised my client that he would assume considerable liability if repaired equipment certified by unreliable test equipment were to perform poorly in flight or be the root cause of any future aircraft accidents.  The insurer paid his client the full value of the policy.
3. This case involved the loss of a popular single engine turbo-prop aircraft being operated for a well-known over-night parcel delivery service.  The airplane crashed in icing conditions at night on approach to a northern airport.  The wife of the deceased pilot brought suit against the aircraft manufacturer for her husband’s death.  I explained to my client-attorney that this type airplane should never have been flown in know icing conditions and that the proximate cause of the accident was the pilot’s poor judgment in flying in weather for which the airplane was not certificated.  We were able to successfully defend the aircraft manufacturer.
4. In this case I worked as an aircraft systems expert.  A military helicopter crashed as a result of a known design flaw.  Two pilots and two air crewmen were killed.  I assisted the law firm in uncovering several design deficiencies in the helicopter, as well as errors in the emergency procedures provided to the military by the manufacturer.  The helicopter's engine manufacturer had provided the military erroneous test certification data and was also partially at fault and included in the case.  Both manufacturers bore responsibility for the combination of events leading to the crash.  Families of the lost aircrew brought suit against both manufacturers for the loss of life.  After protracted depositions by experts on both sides, both manufacturers eventually were willing to settle out of court for a large sum.
5. A pilot crashed his foreign military war bird during an air show; the pilot was killed in the ensuing crash in a residential area.  No one on the ground was injured, but the owners of houses destroyed brought suit to recover the value of their property lost in the crash.  In this case, I worked for attorneys unfamiliar with aviation.  I reviewed reports and video of the crash and studied the aircraft flight manual.  I personally had had flight experience in this type aircraft.  My evaluation concluded that the pilot allowed the aircraft to stall at low altitude.  Since the airplane was heavily loaded stall recovery was not possible at low altitude.  The case was favorably settled out of court.
6. The private pilot owner of a light plane was providing local area rides for attendees at a local airshow.  He was being compensated with free fuel through the auspices of the airshow coordinators.  With a mother and daughter on board and after a short local sightseeing tour the pilot attempted a landing in gusty wind conditions well beyond his skill level.  The resultant crash landing injured the passengers.  The mother suffered a broken arm and ribs and some minor internal injuries.  Since she was a secretary she lost several months on the job.  The ensuing lawsuit sought to recover her medical expenses and compensate her for lost wages.  I explained to my attorney-client that the pilot was not certified by the FAA to carry passengers for hire and that his insurance and the airshow's insurance were liable.  This case was settled out of court favorably.
7. The private pilot had owned his light plane for 20 years and he had maintained the airplane in an exemplary manner.  He had a remanufactured engine installed in prior years when his original engine reached its life limit.  He had flown the second engine to approximately half of its life limit in hours.  He had spent the day with a good friend touring the local countryside.  After letting his friend off at a local airport, he intended flying back to his home base.  During the last leg of the flight the engine suffered a power failure and seized.  The pilot coolly selected the best available landing spot in the local area.  Due to heavy forestation in the area only a very small landing site was available.  His approach to landing was under the most difficult conditions: and, although well executed, the engine out landing resulted in a fiery crash.  After disassembly of the engine the reason for the sudden stoppage was discovered.  The pilot’s widow filed a law suit against the engine manufacturer for the economic loss of her husband’s life.  At trial I testified that the pilot had done an exemplary job in getting his airplane down under extremely difficult conditions.  The defense contended that the resultant fatal crash was due to poor pilotage.  The jury returned a favorable verdict for a large sum.
8. A fully loaded light twin engine airplane was lost due to engine failure on take-off.  The airplane crashed into a stand of trees near the airport.  All aboard were fatally injured except the co-pilot who was able to walk away from the crash.  Families of the decedents brought suit against the engine manufacturer.  The defense in this case maintained that the engine emergency was survivable had the pilot properly followed emergency procedures.  We were able to prove that as the bad engine failed, it produced a momentary excess of power leading the pilot to shut down the good engine.  Research showed a prior similar accident had occurred with the same type airplane with the same engines.  That airplane was filled with airline pilots being transported to a major hub for work.  All aboard survived and were able to testify to the unusual nature of the engine failure.  The subject accident case was complicated when the surviving copilot stated during the accident investigation that he thought the pilot had shut down the wrong engine.  Through analysis of the nature of the engine failure and that engine’s history in a long series of crashes we were able to prove our theory as to the cause of the crash.  The case was very favorably settled out of court.