Piloting Expert Was Allowed to Opine on Spatial Disorientation
Posted on December 16, 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.
Plaintiffs filed a Daubert motion to exclude and/or limit the testimony of Defendant’s piloting expert Timothy Tucker.
Piloting Expert Witness
Timothy C. Tucker has 55 years’ experience as a military and civilian helicopter pilot, instructor and evaluator in both visual and instrument flight
techniques.
Discussion by the Court
Qualification
Plaintiffs argud that Tucker opined regarding “meteorology, engine failure, accident reconstruction, and human factors issues” despite being unqualified to do so.
The Court has reviewed Tucker’s expert report and found that he is qualified as a “piloting” expert and may opine from the piloting perspective. However, Tucker was not qualified as a metallurgist or accident reconstructionist, and his report did not indicate that he relied upon Defendant’s metallurgy or accident reconstruction experts when forming his conclusions.
While Tucker may offer his “piloting” opinions, he may neither (1) repeat the conclusions of Defendant’s metallurgy and accident reconstruction experts, nor (2) say they are consistent with his opinions. Moreover, Tucker is strictly limited to offering only the “piloting” opinions outlined in his report. Defendant represented that Tucker will testify to two main opinions, that Hicks “experienced spatial disorientation and lost control” of the helicopter, and that the evidence in this case is inconsistent with an attempted autorotation.
Methodology
Second, Plaintiffs argued that Tucker’s methodology was unreliable. Plaintiffs took issue with Tucker’s reliance on flight path ADS-B data for his analysis and the fact that his opinion purportedly conflicts with other witness testimony regarding the crash.
While Plaintiffs are free to cross-examine Tucker regarding perceived deficiencies in his data or conclusions, they have not demonstrated exclusion is warranted.
Third, Plaintiffs argued that Tucker’s opinion will be cumulative. As explained above, the Court found that Tucker is a qualified “piloting” expert and may opine from that unique perspective. To the extent Tucker is offering the “piloting” opinions in his report, his testimony is not cumulative. However, the Court reiterates that it will not tolerate Tucker offering other experts’ testimony or saying it comports with his own. This will be strictly enforced.
Finally, Plaintiffs requested that Tucker be bound to the opinions contained within his expert report. The Court absolutely agreed that no expert may offer opinions not within their expert report.
Held
The Court denied the Plaintiffs’ Daubert motion to exclude and/or limit the testimony of Defendant’s expert Timothy Tucker.
Key Takeaway
Whether an expert selected the best data set to use is a question for the jury, not the judge. 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.
Please refer to the blogs previously published about this case:
Accident Reconstruction Expert’s Meteorological Opinions Excluded
Avionics Expert Allowed to Opine on Engine Failure
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 05, 2025 |
