The Impact of Damage

TASA ID: 4642

Most legal cases I am involved with fall into two general categories. The first involves the fairly straightforward appraisal report for divorce cases wherein an aircraft needs to be appraised as part of the settlement or the appraisal is needed for the attorney's client who is purchasing an aircraft and the market value is required for financing. The market value may also be needed as an integral part of the initial Purchase Agreement or in negotiating the price itself. While these appraisal situations are fairly routine projects for me, I am always surprised to hear the attorney hiring me state that I was the only one who physically examined the aircraft and its records when developing my opinion of value. This is a good point to mention that in my case, all signed appraisal reports clearly state that I physically examined the aircraft and records along with statements that I am disconnected from the aircraft, the deal and so forth. Unfortunately, this is not true for all aircraft appraisal reports from other "appraisers."

The second category involves cases related to the diminution of value after an accident or incident - and this category is the focus here as there are generally two very different viewpoints which are presented in these types of cases. One general viewpoint is that there is no diminution of value whatsoever related to the event in question (and this opinion may, in fact, be true) and the other viewpoint is that the aircraft is now unairworthy or the diminution of value is a very high percentage of the overall value as a direct result of this one event (a very rare situation but very possible too). Which opinion/viewpoint is correct and how would any diminution of value be determined? While each situation is unique and involves research, there is no one answer that fits all circumstances even though the evaluation process itself is essentially the same.

When aircraft are involved, damage history is probably the most misunderstood, miscalculated and overlooked item; and the reasons vary. There tends to be a general fear from those not involved with aviation that the "damaged" aircraft may break up in flight or the repairs will result in continued maintenance problems. The reality is that aircraft which have been damaged and properly repaired will have no more problems than any other aircraft of the same make and model - especially if the aircraft has been flown within its performance envelope for any period of time. Unfortunately, feedback from the marketplace tends to place a financial penalty against previously damaged aircraft which is the diminished value in question. The magnitude of that penalty depends on a number of factors that most evaluators do not take the time to research and analyze nor do they really have the data and background to do so. Let's look at one example that involves a very real damage scenario and how evaluation problems or differences of opinion can occur and what the impacts (pardon the pun) of this incident will be if handled properly and improperly.

Imagine for a minute that a pilot/owner is returning to their home base with their aircraft after routine repairs and updates. The activity involved a new paint job, a new interior and a set of avionics equipment (communication and navigational equipment). In this example, the owner/pilot lands the aircraft and has an inadvertent prop strike (the prop hit the runway, a taxiway light or even a parking marker) but; otherwise, the aircraft itself is not damaged. What is the impact of this event to the future value of the aircraft - in other words, its diminished value? The answer to this question depends on the actions the owner/insurance company take along with details of the event itself and field research is a key component here.

To understand diminished value and how damage is calculated, it is important to first understand how aircraft in general are typically evaluated - or misevaluated in damage scenarios. The most common tool used in this industry to evaluate an aircraft is one or more publications/websites. There are a couple that are on the market and available to just about anyone. The problem with these publications is that the publisher is in the business of selling subscriptions and not appraising aircraft meaning that the publisher is not responsible for the quality of the published information itself (how closely the information tracks to actual sales), who uses it and/or how it is used. Furthermore, the publications generally do not address damage in an analytical manner but more importantly, they do not address all of the value points on an aircraft independently which can lead to incorrect conclusions and opinions of value. After all, the published guides are meant to be general guides only (per their disclaimer) and should not be used to appraise a specific aircraft - even though individuals use them routinely for that sole purpose. To be clear, value points are items such as the condition of the paint, the condition of the interior, the condition of the airframe, a complete inventory of avionics, and other components that together make up the total market value of the aircraft in question. For example, in one guide, the airframe and the paint are linked together, so it would be impossible to properly evaluate a bad airframe with a great paint job or vice versa. One method that is commonly used by these guides (or the evaluator) to assess the impact of previous damage is to deduct a certain percentage from the overall value of the aircraft.

There are typically no guidelines regarding the exact percentage to be deduced meaning that the specific percentage used is subjective and based on the evaluator's criteria along with the relationship the evaluator may have to the aircraft or the transaction - if any. In our prop strike example, the use of a flat percentage would mean that a portion of the brand new paint, interior and avionics would be impacted by a flat percentage deduction even though these items were not involved in the incident at all. This percentage deduction and thinking would also extend forward in time to avionics equipment that hasn't even been manufactured at the time of the event, along with any other future modifications or improvements to the aircraft! But let's complicate this example a little further and take the engine out of the aircraft in question, have it overhauled by the factory (zero timed), and place it on another aircraft. Will there be a deduction on the other aircraft (the answer from many evaluators is usually "no") and will we eliminate the deduction on the first aircraft (again the answer is usually "no")? After all, it is the same engine isn't it? What if the owner elected to purchase a brand new engine and prop instead of having the existing ones repaired? Would a flat percentage still be appropriate? One of the better known publications stopped addressing diminished value assessment several years ago because there were too many items to consider in a damage event and quite frankly their straight percentage approach did not pass muster for many of the reasons previously stated. Their recommendation was to have the aircraft professionally appraised. Unfortunately, the aircraft appraisal industry is unregulated so anyone can claim to be a "professional aircraft appraiser" without any background or training making the resolution of the appraisal problem questionable if the objective is to provide a reliable, creditable opinion of value. The other issue of course has to do with obtaining creditable, reliable market data (actual sales data); and there is no public database of aircraft selling prices; meaning that most evaluators have only the websites or publications to fall back on for their analysis.

To solve the questions of diminished value, research is needed, along with an analysis of the related repairs. As I mentioned earlier, it is important to note that diminished value is really a market perception of past damage since most repairs are performed to the manufacture's maintenance standards and generally hold up well over time - mechanically speaking. For example, if it were possible to have two identical aircraft (avionics, time on the airframe, etc.) and one of these aircraft had a history of damage, the aircraft with damage history would not be able to command as high a price as the undamaged aircraft - all other factors being equal. This concept makes sense to many. The exact magnitude of this perception is where research and analysis are needed. The damage history and resulting diminished value is going to be a result of the previous damage incident (in other words, how extensive was the damage and what was repaired or replaced, were the parts new, used or repaired) and this information is then examined in relation to the present condition of the airframe. Remember, the condition of the airframe is not really addressed as a separate item in any publication. For example, an aircraft with minor or superficial damage history will show relatively little financial impact on an airframe that has no corrosion, no dents, dings or deformations, etc. but this same level of damage tends to have a much larger financial impact on an airframe that is extremely corroded, or comprised of multiple dents on the leading edges or generally in "below average" condition. This is why it is so important to use an evaluation method that examines each value point independently of all others - especially the airframe. The evaluation method used should also review the available repair and maintenance records to determine who did the work, what parts were used and what standards were followed. Any other effort is simply "smithing" numbers more than an attempt to properly appraise the aircraft and provide a creditable, reliable opinion of value that can be substantiated.

To complicate matters further, some evaluators will claim that if there is no paperwork on file with the FAA (commonly called a 337 form) then the aircraft incurred no damage. Others will claim that the aircraft was sitting still when something hit it and; therefore, no damage event occurred but both scenarios are an attempt by the evaluator to avoid putting a number to an issue that may be very clearly documented otherwise. While it would be great to have a 337 form on file with the FAA for all repair work, not all shops are required to complete these forms even though there may be a very clear indication of repair efforts or related damage in other records. One example involves FAA Authorized Repair Stations which are not required to file 337s with the FAA for all repairs. Also consider the aircraft which is tied down on the ramp when a wind storm develops and another aircraft or a piece of debris is thrust into it. It is somewhat ridiculous to think that no damage really occurred and the shop repairing the aircraft certainly has a very different opinion.

Now let's examine our prop strike example again. In this case, we have presumed that the airframe is not damaged and the only impact is to the engine and prop, and these have been repaired or replaced. If the aircraft is professionally appraised by someone who has been properly trained and who physically examined the aircraft and its records, the appraisal method should take all value points into consideration. In this specific example, the diminished value should be $0. Why? Let's examine the value points in question. The prop hub has been overhauled and the blades have been replaced - or the prop may have been replaced altogether. The engine has been torn down, examined and reassembled - possibly even overhauled or replaced. Therefore, the prop value will show a fairly recent overhaul/replacement time and the engine will be evaluated as being torn down, examined and reassembled or recently overhauled noting the reason - or new engine logs will be examined (in the event of a new or 0 timed engine) that do not address this event at all. Unless the airframe has been damaged in the past, or receives damage as a result of this incident, or has missing log books, no diminished value should be assessed as a result of this prop strike example alone.

Other situations involve a damage event wherein new components were used and the quality of repairs is professional in nature but one party now claims that the aircraft's diminished value is some large percentage of the aircraft's overall value - and they have a number of "reports" to support their claim. In these types of scenarios I find the reasoning and analysis to be a little "cloudy." As I stated earlier, the aircraft appraisal industry is unregulated and this situation also applies to the appraisal reports in that there are no reporting standards, so any number on a piece of paper is essentially an "appraisal report." The Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice (USPAP) is a great set of guidelines; however, there is no requirement under USPAP wherein the property under consideration must be physically examined as part of the appraisal process. I bring these points up because when reviewing other reports as part of my analysis, I look for a few basic items such as - did the appraiser leave their office to look at the aircraft and its records? Is the report signed? What is the market data source they are using and how did they arrive at their opinion/conclusion? Does this report meet any industry-recognized standard/guideline? Along with a few other questions of course. What I find is that the reports are usually only one to two pages long and have very little detail in their analysis of the subject aircraft or its records. This is due to the evaluator NOT leaving their office to turn one page of the log books or examine one rivet on the airframe. The result is that they tend to miss other key value points (both positive and negative) because the evaluator tends to be focused on a particular outcome more than the whole aircraft and how the incident in question impacts the overall opinion of value.

In one recent case, the operator of a business jet asked me to evaluate the diminished value of the aircraft resulting from a damaged wingtip. The bank leasing the aircraft stated that the operator was on the hook for millions in loses due to this one event and they had several reports to support their position. When I examined the subject aircraft, the airframe showed no obvious sign of repair. However, the log books not only documented repairs to the wingtip in question but also repairs to the other wingtip from a similar incident. According to the log books, all replacement parts were new and all repair efforts were in accordance with the manufacturer's repair manual. It was true; however, that the aircraft did lose millions in value since it was initially leased BUT the losses were NOT due to this single event as the financial impact was only a few thousand dollars in this specific situation. Most of the loss in value was due to the market collapse in 2007 & 2008 (the aircraft's lease was dated prior to 2007 when all aircraft values had generally peaked - including new aircraft) so it was unclear how the bank rationalized their position. The other "reports" the bank submitted never addressed repairs to the other wingtip nor did they address the overall market trends because there was essentially no research on the part of those evaluators, as no one else ever physically examined the aircraft or its records nor did they take a few minutes to analyze any market trends for that specific make and model! Needless to say, the bank did not recover the millions they were seeking.

My point here is that evaluating any aircraft is not as simple as looking up a number in a book or on a website and then applying a few percentage points to arrive at a number. There are many factors that go into the final analysis of the aircraft's market value and additional dynamics can complicate this analysis. Damage history is one of them. Others include missing log books, airframe/engine modifications and the type of overhaul an engine receives just to name a few. In addition, an aircraft cannot be properly appraised without research which includes physically examining the aircraft, inventorying its contents and examining its records. The use of current market data is also critical if the objective is to provide a creditable, reliable opinion of value. Although a damage event is not something that any aircraft owner looks forward to, understanding the impact on the aircraft's market value is important anytime the aircraft's value is in question.

This article discusses issues of general interest and does not give any specific legal or business advice pertaining to any specific circumstances. Before acting upon any of its information, you should obtain appropriate advice from a lawyer or other qualified professional.

This article may not be duplicated, altered, distributed, saved, incorporated into another document or website, or otherwise modified without the permission of TASA.

Previous Pitfalls for Low Speed Injury Defense
Next Forensic Engineering Investigation of a Long Span Wooden Truss Failure During Erection
Tasa ID4642


Let Us Find Your Expert 

Note: This form is to be completed by legal and insurance professionals ONLY. If you are a party in a case that requires an expert witness, please have your attorney contact TASA at 800-523-2319.


Search Experts

TASA provides a variety of quality, independent experts who meet your case criteria. Search our extensive list of experts now.

Search Experts


  • I think it's always good to have access to experts when [TASA] make[s] the process so easy."

    Scott McIntosh, Lewis McIntosh & Teare, Royersford, PA

  • As a busy practitioner, managing a sizeable caseload, I can use all of the help available to me. If I can outsource a task, particularly one as important as securing a qualified expert, I will jump at the opportunity. I use TASA in nearly every case where I need to find an expert witness, be it an engineer, an architect, an economist, etc. They have thousands of qualified experts to refer in virtually any field. Best of all the process is extremely simple. When I need an expert I simply contact TASA, whose knowledgeable representatives ask you targeted questions about your case, your legal theories, and your goals, in order to find the right expert for your case. I usually receive CVs and calls from the potential expert within hours. If you find the originally selected person is not a good fit – for whatever reason – TASA will work with you to find the right person. I would happily recommend this service to any attorney."

    Patrick K. Gibson, Gibson & Perkins PC, Media, PA

  • Ms. Darlie I. McDonald RN was awesome on the witness stand, and we prevailed in our case to the tune of  [a] (highly unusual [amount] for a medical malpractice [case] in our area).  I'd highly recommend her."

    Shane Reed, Shane A. Reed Law Office, Jacksonville, OR

  • I appreciate your inquiries and offers of assistance as well as the consistently high-quality, well-organized, and erudite TASA webinars, which invariably have excellent presenters."

    Maurice S. Kane, Cummings McClorey Davis Acho and Associates PC, Riverside, CA

  • Steven Kursh was an outstanding technical expert on our ecommerce IP lawsuit. He completed a massive amount of work on extremely complicated material, in a very short period of time. His work product was first rate and I think he would have done a terrific job if the case proceeded to trial. He is very articulate and helped us. I only wish we had gotten him involved sooner in the litigation."

    Daniel J. Brown, Reiss Sheppe LLP, New York, NY

  • I thank you all for the response to my request for an expert witness...Both Mr. Scott and Mr. Bianchi appear to be well-qualified for this case, but we have hired another expert. As always, I was impressed by TASA's ability to produce exceptionally well-qualified candidates with great speed."

    John Thomas Dzialo, The Law Offices of John Thomas Dzialo, Santa Ana, CA

  • Thank you for your quick response and the names of the two proposed experts. The situation that gave rise to our search for these experts has resolved and we will not need to retain them. However, we will continue to keep TASA in mind as these needs arise from time to time as your breadth of coverage for experts of all types is unparalleled, in my experience."

    Bart W. Brizzee, County of San Bernadino, San Bernadino, CA

  • I have used TASA for the last five years for locating an expert for many personal injury cases. On each and every occasion, TASA was able to find me more than one qualified expert. With such a variety of experts, I was able to select one who met my client's needs in prosecuting these claims. I found the experts TASA referred not only qualified, but available on a moment's notice. Your fees are reasonable and fair, and I will continue to use TASA for the remainder of my career."

    Robert Oushalem, Esq., The Law Office of Robert Oushalem, San Jose, CA

  • I recently used TASA for the first time to locate an expert to testify in a case requiring rather unusual expertise and where there were no applicable regulations or standards for guidance. TASA referred an expert in California who was everything a lawyer looks for in a forensic expert. He was promptly available for consultation, efficiently prepared for deposition and trial and very persuasive and credible with the jury. TASA's administrative services and assistance in locating this expert were excellent, and we would certainly use both the expert and TASA in the future."

    Theodore Phillips, Miller Hauser Law Group, LLP, Placerville, CA

  • TASA has always given me first-class service, but in a recent matter, TASA found the 'needle-in-the-haystack' expert witness we feared didn't exist. We needed an expert for a very narrow and limited issue in a very narrow and limited industry. Because TASA has an extensive expert witness database, it was able to give us a referral almost on the spot. It's why I always turn to TASA first."

    Kathleen A. Herdell, Law Offices of Kathleen A. Herdell, St. Helena, CA

  • There are numerous companies that provide litigation experts. However, I always choose the TASA Group because of their quick response in finding a qualified expert for my particular case. I have extreme confidence in the TASA Group and will continue to use their services in the future."

    Katie A. Killion, Esq., Chiurazzi & Mengine, LLC, Pittsburgh, PA

  • I spent hours trying to locate an expert in a very technical case involving a defect in a medical device. I could have saved a lot of time by calling TASA first. Within hours, I was supplied with the name of an engineer who had more than 30 years of job training, education and expertise in the precise area involving the device. Bravo TASA!"

    Timothy W. Peach, Partner, Peach & Weathers, San Bernardino, CA

  • We were involved in a case pending for more than five years with seven parties from three states. Three mediations failed before we looked to TASA for an expert. TASA referred an expert who clearly understood the complexity of the project and could effectively support his opinion. If it weren't for his expert advice and deposition testimony, the case would not have settled. Interestingly, the case settled within 90 days from the date this expert began."

    Renee Colbert, Esq., Corporate Counsel, W.G. Tomko, Inc., Finleyville, PA

  • Using TASA to find experts for defending our client in a negligent homicide case ended up being one of the most important decisions we made in trial preparation. The experts they suggested were exactly what we needed for the case. I truly did not expect to find experts that would be such a perfect fit for the nature of case. TASA provided us with highly qualified experts in somewhat narrow fields of expertise. A large percentage of our victory is due to the experts recommended by TASA."

    Marta Farmer, Esq., Carl S. White Law Office, Haver, MT

  • I have used TASA's services since the 1980's and have never been disappointed. TASA is indispensable for locating that hard-to-find expert. TASA representatives have always been courteous and pleasant, with the attitude that they cannot do enough to help. I expect to continue using TASA throughout my career."

    Brad W. Greenberg, Esq., Smyth Law Offices, P.C., Brockton, MA

  • I needed to retain a multitude of scientists from a variety of disciplines for a complex litigation. Initially, I went through a series of interviews with an extremely knowledgeable and professional team of TASA advisors. They were able to find highly qualified experts in the specific fields, all of whom turned out to be superior in qualification and area of expertise to my adversary’s experts. I am a TASA believer!"

    Nooshin Namazi, Partner, Nicoletti Hornig & Sweeney, New York, NY

  • TASA always comes through in the difficult IP cases. Their representatives work with you to refine the search criteria and quickly send you a list of very qualified experts."

    Timothy L. Boller, Principal, Seed Intellectual Property Law Group, PLLC, Seattle, WA

  • Special thanks to our TASA referral advisor for her quick response to our initial request—we were extremely happy with how fast TASA was able to assist us! Your group does excellent work, and it is always my first stop when looking for an expert."

    Susanne K. Sullivan, Senior Attorney, Southwest Airlines Corporation, Dallas, TX

  • When we needed an expert in a patent infringement lawsuit, we turned to TASA. We were looking for a witness qualified in two unrelated technical areas, and TASA worked with us to identify and refine our requirements. TASA performed well, promptly providing us with several excellent candidates to consider, one of whom we retained."

    Joseph T. Miotke, Partner, IP Practice Group, Michael Best & Friedrich LLP, Milwaukee, WI

  • Our team had a very positive experience with TASA. The Expert was professional, efficient, and certainly an expert in his field. His work and testimony contributed to a winning decision for our client! We will recommend the Expert and TASA whenever appropriate."

    Stephanie Sprague, Esq., CT

  • (The Expert) WAS A PERFECT FIT for my case: qualified, competent, easy to work with, attentive to detail, knowledgeable, smart, communicative, enthusiastic, resourceful—have I left anything out? I highly recommend TASA and would be happy to share my experience with anyone else. Thank you!"

    Michael Porrazzo, Esq., The Porrazzo Law Firm, Mission Viejo, CA

  • The expert was very thorough. TASA was quick to respond with an answer to my request. I have used TASA in the past under various other law firms and have been pleased. TASA continues to live up to expectations and then some."

    Anne Desormier-Cartwright, Esq., Jupiter, FL

  • Your organization found us an appropriate expert witness in less than one day. This was excellent service. The expert you found was excellent and a pleasure to work with."

    William A. Ehrlich, Esq., Allentown, PA

  • (The Expert)…accomplished exactly what we wanted. TASA was very prompt and efficient in locating him. All fees were reasonable."

    J. Michael Lehman, Esq., Bruce, Bruce, & Lehman, Wichita, KS

  • We needed an Internet expert right away to meet a deadline. One phone call to TASA, and in less than a day, TASA called back with a list of 8-10 experts who were exactly what I needed. The TASA expert I chose knew the business and mechanics of the Internet so well—he was a PhD and professor who had written a book on the subject—that he put the fear of truth in the defendant that caused him to settle. When I get the kind of service that I did from TASA, I stick with it and use it again and again."

    Philip Green, Attorney at Law, Green and Green, San Rafael and San Francisco, CA

  • Excellent—in a word. I just do not have the time to hunt for experts. (The Expert) was fantastic. Thank you for providing such a quality service."

    Francesca Carinci, Esq., Steubenville, OH

  • TASA stands for Tops At Serving Attorneys. It’s always rewarding working with TASA."

    Marshall A. Bernstein, Esq., Philadelphia, PA.

  • That was, however, one of the best and most interesting webinars I've seen in the last few years.  Thank you for hosting it and introducing me to such a knowledgeable and caring person." - Referencing the Medicolegal Consequences of Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder in Civilian and Military Populations webinar. 

    Lori Bauer Apodaca, The Law Office of Lori Bauer Apodaca, Los Lunas, NM 

  • I needed a dental malpractice expert to assist me in a complex negligence claim. The very able staff at TASA had no difficulty identifying a knowledgeable professional who rendered a reasonable opinion in support of the case, which aided our client in receiving a fair amount of compensation. I am grateful to TASA for its invaluable assistance!"

    John Hermina, Hermina Law Group, New York, Pennsylvania, Maryland & Washington, DC

  • For many years I have relied upon TASAmed to provide excellent medical malpractice experts. As a sole practitioner, I find it reassuring to know that a seasoned expert is just a call away. Usually, TASAmed has found just the right expert in a day or two. The support and guidance I receive from TASAmed is a vital part of my law practice, and I have come to expect both great service and high rewards from my TASA cases."

    Thomas J. Massey, The Thomas J. Massey Law Firm, Fallbrook, CA

  • The caliber of physicians that TASAmed has referred to us is superb. Prior referral groups used the same experts over and over again. With TASAmed I have access to experts all over the United States. I’m not limited to the same experts. The TASAmed staff is easy to work with and very professional, with an established track record. When I call for a medical expert, I’m called back the same day, and I often have an idea of what expert will be contacted before my first call is completed."

    Kari Alexander, Certified Legal Nurse Consultant, Texas

  • We hadn’t been able to find the medical expert we needed, and, frankly, I didn’t think we’d find one in that field. TASAmed was able to find us an expert with the exact expertise and medical experience we needed. Your referral advisor was very helpful and found our expert in one day."

    Kurt Osenbaugh, Partner, Alston & Bird, Los Angeles, CA

  • TASAmed’s service was prompt and efficient in connecting us with the right person. The expert was so cooperative and helpful. With how challenging it is to find a narrow area of medical expertise, it’s extra helpful to have your TASAmed pool to plug into instantaneously."

    Greg Roosevelt, Esq., Law Office of Greg Roosevelt, Edwardsville, IL

  • TASAmed has connected me to credible experts in four medical cases just this year. TASAmed and the referred experts respond quickly, the fees are reasonable, and the referrals are well tuned to the fields I request. Since the experts are already associated with TASAmed, they are comfortable having substantial conversations about the case, both before and after record review."

    Martin A. Cannon, Esq., Cannon Law Offices, Crescent, IA

  • I have used TASAmed a number of times and have always been happy with your give-and-take timeliness. Once I requested a medical expert in a particular field, but, after speaking with your referral advisor, we concluded that an expert in another field would be more effective. That same day, I spoke to two experts the advisor gave me, and I retained one."

    Mark A. Lope, Esq., Lope and Honlihan, Butler, PA

  • Very close to the time of trial, the TASAmed advisor quickly referred me to several experienced ER trauma physicians to review medical records and prepare me for cross-examination. After selecting my expert, I over-nighted records for review, and the doctor found valuable information for my client's defense. Thank you, TASAmed, for this timely, specific, valuable referral."

    Charles Morgan, Esq., Law Office of Charles L. Morgan, Jr., Charlotte, NC