So, manufacturer defendants find no solace in the NTSB’s report if it concludes that the accident was pilot error, and the plaintiffs’ lawyers find no barrier to bringing suit from that conclusion. The converse holds true as well. Some courts have gnawed at the edges of the statute and allowed portions of the NTSB investigation into evidence, but others have adopted a more literal interpretation of the statute and prohibited any portion of the Board’s report or investigative file to be entered into evidence.

The practical reality is that if there’s something useful in the report or the investigator’s field notes, more often than not, the party who would be helped by that evidence will seek out the witness who provided the information and obtain testimony directly. Costly, yes, indeed. But at least the information can be obtained.

GARA was supposed to make suits like this a thing of the past. It would be interesting to learn how plaintiff was able to survive what I’m sure was a motion to dismiss or for summary judgment under GARA’s 17-year statute of repose.

So the jury only needed to be convinced that these engines performed flawlessly for 30 years and through a couple of overhauls. Then they performed flawlessly just about all the way from the departure airport to the destination. Then they happened to quit just as the pilot was descending into bad weather and slowing down above his destination airport.