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