Expert Witness Profiler

Tag: Aircraft

  • Aviation Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Wing Repairs

    Aviation Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Wing Repairs

    The claims in this action for negligence, gross negligence, and vicarious liability arise out of damage caused to The Jones Company’s (“TJC”) 2024 Embraer Phenom 300E aircraft (“the aircraft”). On December 30, 2024, the aircraft was flown to New Orleans Lakefront Airport, where Signature Flight Support, LLC was providing fixed-base operator services, including ground handling operations.

    According to TJC, on that same day, while Defendant Phillip Everett was towing the unpowered aircraft, the leading edge of the aircraft’s left wing struck a fire hydrant, damaging the underside of the wing.

    TJC retained Keith M. Bransky as an aircraft appraisal expert to provide an opinion with respect to the aircraft’s “pre-damage market value and post-repair diminution in value.”

    Signature sought to exclude Bransky as an expert witness on three grounds: (1) that Bransky is not qualified as an expert to opine on the aircraft’s diminution in value, (2) that his opinions are “neither reliable nor relevant,” and (3) that his “testimony will not aid the trier of fact.

    Aviation Expert Witness

    Keith M. Bransky has thirty-four years of aircraft appraisal experience, including experience “working as a licensed aircraft mechanic, professional pilot, and aircraft broker.”

    Bransky is certified as an “Accredited Senior Appraiser with the American Society of Appraisers” (“ASA”), has authored and published articles and textbook chapters on the topic of diminution of value for damaged aircraft, and is currently authorized as a Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) inspector.

    He obtained a bachelor’s degree in aviation management from Southern Illinois University in 1980 and an associate of applied science degree, also from Southern Illinois University in 1980.

    Get the full story on challenges to Keith Bransky ’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study.

    Discussion by the Court

    A. Bransky is Qualified

    Signature contended that Bransky is not qualified to testify as an expert in this matter because he “lacks ‘specialized knowledge’ of the type of aircraft at issue.”

    With more than three decades of experience in aircraft maintenance
    and appraisals, the Court found that Bransky is suitably qualified to advance an expert opinion on the aircraft’s pre-damage market value and post-repair diminution in value.

    B. Bransky’s Opinion is Reliable

    Signature challenged the reliability of Bransky’s opinion on two grounds: his general methodology, and his consideration of information concerning the potential impact of corrosion on the aircraft’s value.

    First, Signature argued that Bransky’s opinions are unreliable because they
    are subjective and lack a validated methodology. As TJC correctly noted, Signature’s own expert utilized a nearly identical test for assessing diminution in value.

    The Daubert inquiry is “flexible,” particularly where the expert relies on
    professional experience rather than strictly scientific analysis. Considering the near identical methodologies that the Signature and TJC experts advance, the Court can hardly conclude that Bransky’s methodology is wholly unreliable.

    Moreover, Signature’s only challenge to the factual information upon which Bransky relies concerned the impact of corrosion in his diminution of value analysis.

    Signature’s core complaint with Bransky’s opinion is the uncertainty surrounding whether there is an increased risk of corrosion that will negatively impact a buyer’s perception of the aircraft’s value. Whether future damage to property is certain to result is not determinative of an expert opinion’s admissibility.

    To the extent Signature disagreed with Bransky’s methodology or consideration of potential corrosion in rending his opinion, such issues go to the weight of his testimony.

    C. Bransky’s Testimony is Relevant and Will Assist the Trier of Fact

    Signature asserted that Bransky’s testimony is irrelevant or “its probative value is substantially outweighed by risks of prejudice, confusion of the issues, or waste of time,” on two specific grounds. To begin with, Signature challenged Bransky’s classification of the damage to the aircraft as “moderate” because FAA regulations only define “major” and “minor” repairs and thus his “subjective” use of “moderate” is confusing. Also, Signature argued that any testimony from Bransky with respect to whether the wing repairs were “permanent” or “temporary” are outside his expertise and risk “confusing the trier of fact.”

    The Court found that there is a low, and easily remedied, risk of confusion should Bransky describe the damage as “moderate” in the context of his appraisal. Regardless, describing the damage history of an aircraft is obviously relevant for appraising its value and Bransky’s testimony will “provide insight on a topic which the jury could not itself assess with common knowledge and experience.”

    Second, Bransky’s report indicated that he was not offering his own opinion
    that the repair was permanent, rather that the repair itself would impact the value of the aircraft.

    Signature has not specifically identified in what respect it would object to the relevance of Bransky’s testimony regarding the permanence of repairs—i.e., whether it takes issue with a particular use of the words “temporary” and “permanent” or with respect to his analysis of the potential future need for additional repairs. The Court has already concluded that Bransky may testify to the market perception that the repaired wing is more susceptible to future damage and that his testimony must be limited to the analysis in his report.

    Held

    The Court denied Signature’s motion to exclude testimony from TJC’s expert witness, Keith M. Bransky.

    Key Takeaway

    Perceived flaws in an expert’s valuation methodology are matters properly to be tested in the crucible of adversarial proceedings; they are not the basis for truncating that process.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Jones Company V. Signature Flight Support, LLC
    Docket Number: 2:25cv1645
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern
    Order Date: June 15, 2026
  • Avionics Expert Allowed to Opine on Engine Failure

    Avionics Expert Allowed to Opine on Engine Failure

    This case arises from an accident involving a Robinson R44 II helicopter, registration N442VB (“Helicopter”), that occurred on the evening of December 30, 2021, in Levy County, Florida. The Helicopter was being flown at night by the owner-pilot, Ronald Hicks (“Pilot Hicks”), from a local friend’s residence to his private property. At the time of the accident, Pilot Hicks had less than ten hours of night flight experience in helicopters and was not certified under Instrument Flight Rules (“IFR”). Mr. Hicks, Shelly Kate Hicks, and their two children sustained fatal injuries.

    Defendant filed a Daubert motion to limit the testimony of Plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert John Bloomfield.

    Avionics Expert Witness

    John W. Bloomfield is the President and owner of Bloomfield Research and Development and am the holder of twelve United States patents in the disciplines of electronics, robotics, avionics, medical electronics, ultrasonics, precision spread spectrum radio ranging, battlefield communications, cellular digital software, and electronic toys.

    He holds an engineering degree in systems engineering and has 35 years of experience in aircraft electrical and avionics system. He has also been involved in the investigation of hundreds of aircraft accidents.

    Want to know more about the challenges John Bloomfield has faced? Get the full details with our Challenge Study report.

    Discussion by the Court

    Qualification

    First, the Defendant argued that Bloomfield opined regarding “metallurgical issues,” namely, that steel debris caused engine failure, despite being unqualified to do so. However, the Court has reviewed Bloomfield’s qualifications and is satisfied that, based on his extensive experience, which includes investigating numerous aircraft accidents and examining component parts, he is qualified to opine that steel debris caused the engine failure.

    Reliability

    Second, the Defendant argued that Bloomfield’s opinion that steel debris caused a loss of torque is untested and entirely speculative and therefore unreliable. Plaintiffs responded that Bloomfield explained he could not test the debris because it was not preserved, and testing could not be performed under substantially similar circumstances. He instead based his opinion regarding the presence and size of steel debris on the gouges left on the crankshaft.

    Bloomfield explained that any debris that was between the gear and the crankshaft was lost when the engine was taken apart and wiped during the inspection. And he testified that it was not possible to replicate his theory of the crash in a testing environment.

    Though Bloomfield’s failure to test his contamination theory is not determinative, this Court is not absolved of its gatekeeping function.

    The Court found that Bloomfield met the Daubert standard. Bloomfield explained why, based on a variety of evidence including key indicators used by other accident investigators, he concluded that the helicopter’s engine was not under power when the helicopter crashed.

    He then explained, using other case studies for reference, why he believed the dowel pin in the engine fractured not upon impact but during flight, causing a cessation of engine power.

    Finally, he discussed how the fractured dowel pin was caused by the loose gear bolt found in the engine, which could in turn be caused by a loss of torque from debris on the crankshaft, and how the presence of such debris was evinced by score marks on the gear face and crankshaft face.

    Helpfulness

    Defendant argued that Bloomfield’s criticism of the National Transportation and Safety Board’s investigation, particularly his discussion of the NTSB’s failure to preserve alleged contaminants, is neither reliable nor helpful.

    Defendant is concerned that Plaintiffs are trying to backdoor in a spoliation claim at trial. The Court previously denied Plaintiffs’ motion for a finding of spoliation and sanctions based upon Defendant’s alleged failure to preserve contaminants on the engine. The Court is prepared to sustain objections to any attempts to circumvent this Court’s ruling, including any argument that Defendant intentionally destroyed evidence. However, Plaintiffs’ experts may, of course, discuss the lack of physical evidence of contamination and their inability to perform certain tests on the engine because it was cleaned during the investigation.

    To that end, this Court is satisfied that Bloomfield can also reliably opine as to the way the engine was handled after the crash. Bloomfield either personally observed the instances he described, or he explained how, based on his training and experience, these parts are typically handled during the inspection process.

    Held

    The Court denied the Defendant’s Daubert motion to limit the testimony of Plaintiffs’ accident reconstruction expert John Bloomfield.

    Key Takeaway

    The Court is satisfied that Bloomfield has demonstrated his opinion is reliable. To the extent Defendant wishes to challenge Bloomfield’s conclusions and their bases, vigorous cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof are the traditional and appropriate means of attacking shaky but admissible evidence.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Law V. Avco Corporation
    Docket Number: 1:24cv3
    Court Name: United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida, Gainesville Division
    Order Date: November 04, 2025
  • Aviation Safety Expert’s Opinion on Organizational Culture Excluded

    Aviation Safety Expert’s Opinion on Organizational Culture Excluded

    This case stemmed from an incident that occurred at Oslo Gardermoen Airport on August 23, 2019. Plaintiff Susan Hardy had flown with United Airlines from New Orleans to New Jersey. From there, she boarded a connecting flight to Oslo, Norway, operated by Defendant Scandinavian Airlines System. According to her claims, she fell while disembarking in Oslo due to a five-to-six-inch gap between the aircraft door and the passenger boarding bridge (PBB), which caused her to suffer injuries.

    Plaintiff engaged expert Matthew G. Robinson, as an “aviation safety expert, accident investigator and reconstructionist.”

    Robinson was asked “to determine the causes of injury to” Plaintiff. He reached four conclusions: (1) The Defendant “violated requirements to ensure” the vertical gap between the aircraft’s floor and the PBB was equal to the lower lip of the aircraft doorsill, providing a level boarding surface; (2) The Defendant “violated International requirements to report” and investigate Plaintiff’s injury; (3) The Defendant’s “failure to warn passengers of the” gap between the aircraft floor and the PBB “led to” Plaintiff’s injury; and (4) The Defendant’s failure to conduct a safety investigation is clear evidence of “a pathological and/or bureaucratic organizational culture.

    Scandinavian Airlines System filed a motion in limine to limit or exclude the testimony of Robinson.

    Aviation Safety Expert Witness

    Matthew G. Robinson, ATP, CFI-I has been the President of the Southern California Safety Institute (“SCSI”) since 2013. Robinson teaches courses in Witness Interviews, Photo-documentation, ICAO requirements, and Evidence Collection and Preservation among others. His work at SCSI also includes instruction on Safety Management Systems and Human Factors.

    Since 2008, Robinson has also conducted technical investigations and provided analysis, reports and testimony in the litigation arena for Robson Forensic, Inc. and now for his own company, Flight Forensics.

    Robinson is a Certified Human Factors Analysis and Classification Professional. He also has a master’s degree in aviation systems safety from Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University.

    Get the full story on challenges to Matthew Robinson’s expert opinions and testimony with an in-depth Challenge Study. 

    Discussion by the Court

    Defendant did not contest Robinson’s qualifications as an aviation safety expert; he clearly is an expert and will be allowed to testify in this area. Instead, Defendant filed a motion to exclude his first and third opinions because they are based on unreliable methodologies. Defendant also argued that Robinson’s fourth opinion should be excluded because (1) the opinion did not follow a reliable methodology, (2) there was an analytical gap between the opinion and its basis, and (3) the opinion was unduly prejudicial.

    Robinson May Not Offer his First Opinion that Defendant Violated a “Requirement” that a Level Boarding Surface be Provided

    Defendant moved to exclude Robinson’s opinion that Defendant “violated requirements to ensure the vertical gap between the aircraft cabin floor and [PBB] was equal to the lower lip of the aircraft doorsill.”

    Defendant argued that “too great an analytical gap exists between Robinson’s opinions and the underlying facts” because Robinson based his opinion on the Federal Aviation Administration’s (“FAA”) Advisory Circular No. 150/5220-21C (the “FAA Advisory Circular”). Defendant challenged Plaintiff’s reliance on this document, emphasizing that it held no legal authority in Oslo.

    In response, Plaintiff acknowledged that “the FAA Advisory Circular is not binding on [Defendant] under European law.” Nevertheless, Plaintiff maintained that the FAA Advisory Circular “is an internationally recognized best practice and technical benchmark.” In a supplement to his expert report, Robinson himself conceded that the FAA Advisory Circular is “advisory,” “informational,” and “not regulatory.”

    Given that the FAA Advisory Circular is not binding under European law and is expressly “advisory/informational” and “not regulatory,” the Court ruled that Robinson could not testify that Defendant violated a “requirement” prohibiting a vertical gap between the aircraft door and the PBB. However, the Court also held that Robinson’s opinion on the matter was not entirely unreliable. He was permitted to testify, based on his expertise, about the types and functioning of PBBs, the best practices concerning the height of a PBB relative to aircraft doors, whether Defendant’s actions aligned with those best practices, and the measured distance of the vertical gap on the flight in question.

    In short, the Court concluded that Robinson’s opinion regarding the gap should be challenged through cross-examination, the introduction of opposing evidence, and clear jury instructions on the burden of proof—not through a Daubert motion.

    Robinson May Offer his Third Opinion on the Cause of Plaintiff’s Injuries

    The Defendant moved to exclude Robinson’s opinion that Plaintiff’s fall resulted from (1) the height difference between the aircraft door and the PBB, and (2) Defendant’s failure to warn Plaintiff of this height difference.

    The Defendant sought to exclude Robinson’s causation opinions, arguing that he improperly relied on an unsworn interview with the Plaintiff rather than her later, contradictory sworn deposition testimony. During the March 10, 2025 interview, the Plaintiff told Robinson that the flight crew failed to warn passengers about the gap between the aircraft door and the passenger boarding bridge (PBB), and she also described how the accident occurred. Robinson’s expert report, dated March 13, 2025, reflected this account.

    However, during her deposition on April 17, 2025—about a month later—the Plaintiff testified that she could not recall whether the crew issued any warning or how she had fallen.

    The Defendant contended that Robinson’s decision to credit unsworn testimony over sworn testimony “improperly infringes on the role of the trier of fact.” Despite this, the Court ruled that Robinson’s opinion was not rendered unreliable merely because it partially relied on his interview with the Plaintiff.

    Whether Robinson relied upon adequate information goes to the weight to be assigned to his testimony, as it involved the bases and sources upon which he relied in reaching his conclusions in this case. The difference between Plaintiff’s recall during Robinson’s interview and during her deposition “may be attacked on cross-examination, but the Court cannot say that the [reliance on Plaintiff’s interview] reached the level of ‘altered facts and speculation’ designed to bolster Plaintiff’s position.”

    Robinson May Not Offer his Fourth Opinion on Defendant’s Organizational Culture

    The Defendant moved to exclude Robinson’s fourth opinion that “Defendant’s failure to conduct a safety Investigation and provide safety recommendations is clear evidence of a pathological and/or bureaucratic organizational culture.”

    Quoting the Handbook of Aviation Human Factors (the “Handbook”), Robinson included in his report the statement that pathological organizations handle anomalies or problems through suppression, which “does not make the problem go away.”

    Despite Robinson’s education, work experience, and certification as an HFACS Professional, the Court found his qualifications insufficient to support an expert opinion on the Defendant’s organizational safety culture. His formal training in this area amounted to, at most, twenty-four hours over three days.

    The Court noted that Robinson relied solely on three points to support his opinion: the Defendant’s failure to investigate the Plaintiff’s incident, its failure to address the gap between the aircraft door and the PBB, and the Handbook in support of his organizational safety culture opinion. As a result, the Court concluded that even if Robinson were qualified to testify on organizational safety culture, his opinion in this case lacked reliability.

    During his deposition, Robinson failed to identify specific evidence backing his conclusions. He did not refer to any materials reflecting the Defendant’s actual operations, corporate culture, or established patterns and practices. Ultimately, his opinion appeared to rest entirely on his interpretation of the Handbook and the absence of a post-incident investigation.

    To add to that, the Court held that the probative value of Robinson’s opinion that Defendant’s corporate culture caused the Plaintiff’s injuries is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice against Defendant, confusing the issues, misleading the jury, and wasting time.

    Held

    The Court granted in part and denied in part the Defendant Scandinavian Airlines System’s motion in limine to limit or exclude the testimony of Matthew G. Robinson.

    Key Takeaways:

    • The number of sources on which an expert may reasonably rely is virtually infinite and such sources include interviews and general knowledge or experience.
    • Cross-examination, presentation of contrary evidence, and careful instruction on the burden of proof is the proper means of attacking Robinson’s opinion regarding the gap between the aircraft floor and the PBB, not a Daubert motion.

    Case Details:

    Case Caption: Hardy V. Scandinavian Airlines System
    Docket Number: 2:21cv1591
    Court Name: United States District Court, Louisiana Eastern
    Order Date: June 23, 2025