NTSB Party Participant Process Commentary

Originally published: Oct 7, 2022

One of the least understood features of aviation accident investigation is the National Transportation Safety Board’s party-participant process. In product-related cases, that process can place manufacturers under scrutiny inside the investigation itself while excluding victims and their representatives from the same technical work. That reality deserves more candid public attention than it usually receives.

What the Party-Participant Process Actually Means

When the NTSB investigates a crash involving potentially relevant aircraft systems, engines, or components, the agency may permit manufacturers and other technical entities to participate in the investigation. In theory, that participation gives investigators access to subject-matter expertise. In practice, it can also create an obvious tension: the same companies whose products may later be challenged in civil litigation are allowed to help evaluate those products during the government’s safety investigation. Readers seeking a broader doctrinal explanation can review the NTSB party-participant process.

Victims and their representatives do not receive equivalent participation rights. That asymmetry matters. It means that the earliest technical examination of critical evidence may occur in a setting where potential defendants are present and affected families are not.

Why This Matters in Civil Litigation

The practical problem is not merely procedural. It is evidentiary and strategic. In later litigation, defendants sometimes attempt to rely on the appearance of a government investigation to suggest that nothing was wrong with their product. But where the manufacturer participated directly in the technical evaluation of its own product, that appearance can be misleading if presented without context.

In plain terms, the fact that a government investigation reviewed a product is not the same thing as saying an independent civil-litigation process has validated the product. The two inquiries serve different purposes, involve different procedural safeguards, and operate under different evidentiary constraints.

Why Courts and Juries Should Understand the Distinction

Aviation litigation often begins, in a practical sense, at the crash scene and during the early investigative process. Technical framing, component examination, and the development of an initial factual narrative can all shape how later claims are defended. That is one reason courts and juries should understand what the NTSB process is — and what it is not.

The Board’s mission is transportation safety, not adjudication of civil liability. Its probable-cause determinations are treated differently from ordinary civil evidence, and its investigative framework is not designed to substitute for the adversarial testing that occurs in litigation. Readers seeking a general explanation of that process can review the NTSB investigation process.

A Recognized Concern, Not a Novel Complaint

The concern about party participation is not merely rhetorical. It has been recognized in outside analysis of the system, including criticism that party participation can create inherent conflicts where entities are both investigation participants and likely litigation defendants. Whether one agrees with every formulation of that criticism or not, the underlying issue is real: a process designed to gather technical expertise can also create opportunities for interested parties to shape early investigative understanding of a case.

That concern becomes particularly significant in product cases, where the technical condition of a manufacturer’s own component may sit at the center of both the safety investigation and the later civil dispute.

Why This Is an Important Public and Legal Issue

The broader point is not that the NTSB lacks value. It is that litigants, courts, and journalists should understand the structural limits of the process, especially when manufacturers later attempt to invoke investigative outcomes as if they reflected a fully independent adjudication of product responsibility. They do not.

In serious aviation litigation, fairness requires clear recognition of that distinction. Technical expertise is necessary in crash investigation. But so is candor about the institutional tensions built into a process that permits potential defendants to participate in evaluating their own products while excluding those who were harmed.

Aviation Litigation Context

These issues arise most acutely in technically complex product and systems cases, where component history, maintenance records, engineering analysis, and the early handling of physical evidence can shape the entire course of litigation. General background appears in aviation accident litigation, with additional examples in representative aviation matters, selected aviation verdicts and settlements, and aviation crash verdict trends.

Consultation Regarding Aviation Accident Investigations

Families, referring attorneys, and journalists sometimes seek legal consultation or technical insight regarding aviation accidents and investigative issues discussed in these analyses. Inquiries may be directed to Katzman, Lampert & Stoll at the link below.

Contact the Firm

PENNSYLVANIA OFFICE
Katzman Lampert & Stoll
121 N. Wayne Ave. # 205
Wayne, PA 19087

E-mail: Click to use our Contact Form
Toll-Free: (866) 309-6097
Phone: (610) 686-9686
Fax: (610) 686-9687

Copyright 1998-2026 The Law Firm of Katzman Lampert & Stoll | Privacy Notice | Disclaimer | Site by: Lucidpage