When aircraft crash, the National Transportation Safety Board conducts independent investigations to determine what happened and why. These investigations produce detailed reports containing factual findings, analysis, and probable cause determinations. For aviation accident victims, NTSB reports provide invaluable evidence that can support civil claims—but using this evidence effectively requires understanding both its power and its limitations.
The NTSB investigates accidents to improve safety, not to assign legal blame. This distinction matters because it affects how reports can be used in litigation. Courts allow NTSB factual findings as evidence while excluding probable cause determinations. Understanding this framework helps accident victims and their attorneys extract maximum value from these comprehensive investigations.
What NTSB Investigations Include
NTSB investigations are remarkably thorough, often more comprehensive than any private investigation could be. The agency has authority to secure accident sites, examine wreckage, interview witnesses, and compel production of documents and records. Their investigators include specialists in aircraft systems, powerplants, structures, human factors, meteorology, and air traffic control. This expertise produces analyses that private investigators would struggle to replicate.
Major accident investigations can take a year or more to complete. During this time, the NTSB issues factual reports, holds public hearings, and releases preliminary findings. The final report contains detailed factual findings about the accident sequence, analysis of contributing factors, and a probable cause determination. Supporting materials—including transcripts, technical reports, and documentary evidence—become part of the public docket.
The scope of investigation depends on accident severity. Major airline crashes receive the most intensive investigation, with go-teams deploying within hours and investigations continuing for months. General aviation accidents receive less attention but still produce factual reports valuable for litigation. Even investigations that don't result in formal hearings generate documentation useful for understanding what happened.
Factual Findings as Evidence
NTSB factual findings are generally admissible in civil litigation. These findings include documented facts about the aircraft, its maintenance history, pilot qualifications, weather conditions, air traffic communications, and the physical evidence recovered from the crash site. Courts treat these as reliable factual determinations that juries can consider when evaluating claims.
The factual record often establishes critical elements of negligence claims. Maintenance records showing deferred repairs, pilot records showing inadequate training, weather data showing conditions the flight should have avoided—all of this documented in NTSB materials can prove what plaintiffs would otherwise need to establish through costly independent investigation. The NTSB effectively does much of the factual legwork that civil litigation requires.
Witness statements collected by NTSB investigators capture accounts while memories are fresh. These statements, though given for safety purposes, often contain admissions and observations valuable for civil claims. The NTSB's authority to compel testimony produces statements that private attorneys might not obtain, including from witnesses who might later become uncooperative.
Probable Cause Limitations
While factual findings are admissible, NTSB probable cause determinations face significant restrictions. Federal law specifically prohibits using the Board's probable cause findings in civil litigation. This exclusion recognizes that probable cause serves safety rather than liability purposes and that allowing its use would compromise the NTSB's investigative mission.
The prohibition makes practical sense. Probable cause determinations often involve policy judgments and safety recommendations beyond what courts need for liability analysis. They may address systemic issues rather than individual fault. And their exclusion encourages candid participation in safety investigations without fear that statements will become weapons in subsequent litigation.
Skilled attorneys work around this limitation by focusing on the factual findings that support probable cause without citing the determination itself. If the facts show that a pilot flew into known severe weather, that the maintenance was inadequate, or that the manufacturer concealed defects, those facts speak for themselves regardless of whether the NTSB formally blamed anyone.
Timing Considerations
NTSB investigation timelines rarely align with litigation needs. Major investigations may take 18 to 24 months to complete—potentially longer than statutes of limitations in some cases. Preliminary reports provide earlier access to some information, but the most valuable analysis comes only with the final report.
Litigation often cannot wait for NTSB completion. Attorneys must decide whether to file suit based on available information, seek discovery that parallels ongoing NTSB work, or negotiate tolling agreements that preserve claims while investigations continue. Each approach has tradeoffs depending on case specifics and applicable limitations periods.
The NTSB docket provides incremental access to investigation materials. Factual reports, hearing transcripts, and documentary evidence often become available before the final report. Monitoring the docket ensures prompt access to materials as they become public, allowing litigation to proceed with the best available information even before investigations conclude.
Supplementing NTSB Work
NTSB investigations focus on safety improvement rather than legal liability. This different purpose means investigations may not address all questions relevant to civil claims. The NTSB might determine that maintenance contributed to an accident without exploring whether the maintenance provider or the operator was more culpable—a question central to civil allocation of damages.
Independent investigation supplements NTSB work by addressing liability-specific questions. Private experts can examine the same evidence with different analytical frameworks. They can pursue lines of inquiry the NTSB didn't prioritize. And they can provide testimony focused on proving negligence rather than improving safety. The NTSB provides a foundation that private investigation builds upon rather than replaces.
Coordination with NTSB investigations requires careful handling. The Board allows parties to participate in investigations, and manufacturers, operators, and unions typically do. Victims' representatives can sometimes gain party status for major investigations, providing access to ongoing investigative work. Even without party status, monitoring public docket materials keeps litigation aligned with developing factual findings.
Using Reports Effectively
Presenting NTSB evidence to juries requires translation from technical investigation materials to accessible narrative. Reports contain engineering analysis, regulatory references, and aviation jargon that lay audiences won't understand without help. Expert witnesses play crucial roles in explaining what NTSB findings mean and why they support negligence conclusions.
Documentary evidence from the NTSB docket—photographs, diagrams, maintenance records, communications transcripts—often proves more persuasive than written findings. These materials show juries what happened rather than telling them. Visual and documentary evidence from NTSB investigations can be the most compelling proof available.
Strategic use of NTSB materials considers what defendants will argue. If the NTSB found multiple contributing factors, defendants will emphasize factors pointing away from their clients. If the investigation identified systemic issues rather than individual failures, defendants will argue that no one was specifically negligent. Anticipating these arguments allows effective use of NTSB materials while preparing for defense counterattacks.
Accessing NTSB Materials
Most NTSB investigation materials are publicly available through the agency's website and docket management system. Final reports, factual reports, hearing transcripts, and documentary exhibits can typically be accessed without formal requests. The public docket provides comprehensive access to investigation files once they're released.
Some materials require FOIA requests or other formal processes to obtain. Draft materials, internal communications, and working documents may not be in the public docket. Depending on litigation needs, pursuing these additional materials through appropriate channels may be worthwhile.
Aviation attorneys familiar with NTSB procedures know how to access and use these materials efficiently. They understand which materials become available when, how to interpret technical findings, and how to present NTSB evidence effectively in litigation. This expertise translates powerful investigative work into successful civil claims for accident victims.