Aircraft Maintenance Negligence: Who Is Liable When Repair Work Causes a Crash?
Engine failures, fuel problems, and control malfunctions are among the most common causes of general aviation accidents, and many of them trace back to the hangar rather than the cockpit. A skipped inspection, an improperly installed part, or a logbook entry for work that was never done can turn a routine flight into a tragedy. When that happens, the people and businesses responsible for maintaining the aircraft may be legally responsible for the harm.
This article explains who is responsible for keeping a private aircraft airworthy, who may be liable for a maintenance error, and what families should do to protect a potential claim.
Who Is Responsible for Keeping an Aircraft Airworthy?
Federal Aviation Regulations divide maintenance responsibility among several people. Under 14 C.F.R. § 91.403(a), the owner or operator of an aircraft is primarily responsible for maintaining it in an airworthy condition, including compliance with airworthiness directives. Under 14 C.F.R. § 91.409, most aircraft may not be operated unless they have had an annual inspection within the preceding 12 calendar months, and aircraft used for hire or flight instruction generally also need 100-hour inspections.
The actual work is governed by 14 C.F.R. Part 43, which sets rules for who may perform maintenance, how it must be done, and how it must be recorded. Repair stations that hold FAA certificates must also follow 14 C.F.R. Part 145. The pilot in command, in turn, is responsible for confirming before each flight that the aircraft is in a condition for safe flight.
These regulations do not by themselves create a lawsuit, but they help define what a reasonably careful owner, mechanic, or repair station should have done.
Who May Be Liable for a Maintenance Error?
Depending on the facts, a maintenance-related claim may involve one or more of the following:
- The individual mechanic who performed the work or signed off an inspection.
- The maintenance shop or repair station that employed the mechanic, supervised the work, or approved the aircraft for return to service.
- The aircraft owner or operator, for allowing overdue inspections, ignoring known problems, or deferring required repairs.
- A flight school, flying club, or charter operator that controlled the aircraft’s maintenance program.
- An engine or component overhaul facility that rebuilt or overhauled a part that later failed.
- Parts suppliers, if an unapproved, counterfeit, or defective part was installed.
Responsibility is often shared. Massachusetts follows a modified comparative fault approach, so the conduct of each party, including the pilot, can affect how damages are allocated.
Common Maintenance Failures Behind Crashes
- Improperly torqued, safety-wired, or reassembled engine and flight control parts
- Fuel system contamination, leaks, or mis-rigged fuel selectors
- Missed or incomplete compliance with airworthiness directives or service bulletins
- Annual or 100-hour inspections that overlooked corrosion, cracks, or worn components
- Installation of unapproved or incorrect parts
- Returning an aircraft to service with known, unrepaired discrepancies
How Maintenance Negligence Is Proven
Like most injury cases, a maintenance claim generally requires showing that a party owed a duty of care, failed to meet it, and that the failure caused the crash and the resulting harm. In aviation cases, proof usually comes from a combination of sources:
- Logbooks and work orders. Part 43 requires maintenance to be documented, and 14 C.F.R. § 43.12 prohibits fraudulent or intentionally false entries. Comparing what the records say with what the wreckage shows can be revealing.
- Manufacturer manuals and instructions. Maintenance generally must follow the manufacturer’s current maintenance manual or other methods acceptable to the FAA.
- Physical evidence. Engine teardowns, metallurgical testing of failed parts, and fuel samples.
- Testimony from qualified mechanics and engineers about what proper maintenance required.
Why Maintenance Claims Matter More for Older Aircraft
Much of the general aviation fleet is decades old. A federal law, the General Aviation Revitalization Act, generally bars claims against manufacturers of aircraft and parts more than 18 years old, subject to exceptions. GARA protects manufacturers in their capacity as manufacturers, but it does not protect mechanics, repair stations, owners, or operators. For an older aircraft, the maintenance history may therefore be the central question. Our companion article, Can You Sue an Aircraft Manufacturer After a Small Plane Crash? GARA’s 18-Year Rule, explains that law in more detail.
Steps Families Should Take After a Crash
- Request preservation of records. Ask that the owner, operator, and any maintenance providers preserve logbooks, work orders, invoices, and parts records.
- Understand the NTSB process. The NTSB investigates for safety purposes and does not decide legal fault. Our guide to NTSB aviation accident investigations explains what to expect.
- Track the wreckage. Once federal investigators release it, wreckage typically goes to the owner or insurer and can be moved, sold, or scrapped.
- Be careful with insurer contacts. Aviation insurers often begin investigating immediately. Consider getting legal advice before giving recorded statements.
- Watch the deadlines. In Massachusetts, wrongful death claims generally must be filed within three years of the date of death, or in some cases within three years of when the estate’s representative knew or should have known the basis for the claim (G.L. c. 229, § 2). Other states have their own rules.
Our aircraft accident investigation checklist lists the records and evidence to secure.
Frequently Asked Questions
Can a mechanic be sued if the aircraft passed its annual inspection?
Possibly. A signed-off inspection does not end the question. If the inspection missed a defect that a reasonably careful mechanic would have found, or if the work recorded was not actually performed, the mechanic or shop may still be responsible.
Is the aircraft owner responsible for a mechanic’s mistake?
It depends on the facts. Owners carry primary regulatory responsibility for airworthiness, and an owner who knew of a problem or allowed inspections to lapse may share fault. Whether an owner is legally responsible for a hired mechanic’s error depends on the relationship and the applicable state law.
Will the NTSB report tell us who was negligent?
No. The NTSB determines a probable cause to improve safety. It does not assign legal liability, and its probable-cause findings generally cannot be used as evidence in a civil damages case. An independent investigation is usually needed.
Talk With Our Aviation Practice
Muggeo & Associates handles general aviation accident matters for injured people and families across Massachusetts and New England. Learn more about our New England general aviation accident practice. Call Muggeo & Associates at 978-741-1177 or contact us online.
This article provides general information only and is not legal advice. Laws change and outcomes depend on the facts of each case.