Metallurgical Engineering Expert’s Testimony on Engine Failure Admitted
Posted on December 30, 2025 by Expert Witness Profiler
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.
Defendants filed a Daubert motion to limit the opinion of Plaintiffs’ metallurgical expert Mark B. Hood.
Metallurgical Engineering Expert Witness
Mark Bruce Hood is a professional engineer in the field of metallurgical engineering. Over his career, Hood has analyzed hundreds of failures, including metallic failures.
Discussion by the Court
Defendant’s motion did not dispute Hood’s qualification to “render opinions on materials issues more generally.” It instead took issue with the reliability of one of Hood’s opinions—that the “collapse” of an “unidentified organic contaminant” caused a “critical loss of clamp-up force” and, ultimately, the helicopter engine’s failure. Specifically, Defendant argued that Hood failed to test this theory or provide peer reviewed literature supporting it.
Hood explained why this is the case here. He opined that that any debris that was between the gear and the crankshaft was “most likely lost during the original disassembly.” And he testified that, due in part to the lack of available evidence, certain testing was not possible, and certain testing techniques might not detect contaminants.
Though Hood’s failure to test his contamination theory is not determinative, this Court is not absolved of its gatekeeping function. While a close call, this Court found that Hood met the Daubert standard. Hood’s report explained why, based on a variety of evidence, he concluded that the helicopter’s engine was not under power when the helicopter crashed. He explained that one possible cause of a loss of torque in service is the failure to remove debris and foreign substances from the crankshaft.
Therefore, the Court is satisfied that Hood has demonstrated that his opinion is reliable.
Held
The Court denied Defendant’s Daubert motion to limit the opinion of Plaintiffs’ metallurgical expert Mark Hood.
Key Takeaway
To the extent an expert relies “solely or primarily on experience, then the witness must explain how that experience leads to the conclusion reached, why that experience is a sufficient basis for the opinion, and how that experience is reliably applied to the facts.”
In other words, “proposed expert testimony must be supported by appropriate validation—i.e., good grounds, based on what is known.” The Court cannot simply “take the expert’s word for it.”
Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case:
Metallurgy Expert Allowed to Opine on Foreign Object Debris
Accident Reconstruction Expert’s Meteorological Opinions Excluded
Avionics Expert Allowed to Opine on Engine Failure
Piloting Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Spatial Disorientation
Case Details:
| Case Caption: | Law V. Avco Corporation |
| Docket Number: | 1:24cv3 |
| Court Name: | United States District Court for the Northern District of Florida |
| Order Date: | November 04, 2025 |
