Manufacturer of Lancair IV-P Engine Not Immune From Suit for Jogger's Death
The NTSB has released its preliminary report of the off-airport landing of Lancair IV-P N9JE at Hilton Head. The accident killed a jogger but left the plane’s two occupants uninjured. According to the preliminary report,
Further examination of the airplane revealed that the propeller assembly separated from the crankshaft flange and was missing.
In other words, the crankshaft failed.
One wouldn’t expect a crankshaft to break absent some sort of defect. If that proves to be the case, could the manufacturer of the crankshaft be held liable to the jogger’s family?
The aircraft was built from a kit and was thus "experimental." The engine, however, was not. Rather, according to FAA records, it appears that the engine was an FAA-certified, turbocharged piston engine manufactured by Teledyne Continental Motors, a company that has had its share of lawsuits related to its engines coming apart in flight. 
The General Aviation Revitalization Act, or GARA, protects aircraft engine manufacturers from liability for defective engine parts older than 18 years.
We don’t know how old the engine was in this case. However, the Lancair builder had reportedly taken the engine from a Piper Malibu. Piper stopped using the Teledyne Continental TSIO-520 engine in its Malibus due to reliability problems. In 1988, it switched and began installing Avco Lycoming engines instead. Thus, if it turns out that the engine was an original equipment Malibu engine, then it had to be at least 20 years old -- 2 years beyond GARA's age limit.
So is Teledyne Continental Motors off the hook, regardless of whether the jogger's family can prove that the engine was defective?
No.
There is one important but little-known exception to GARA. Regardless of the defective part's age, GARA doesn’t protect its manufacturer from lawsuits brought by the families of those killed on the ground.
"The propeller assembly separated from the crankshaft flange and was missing."
I don't read that as a crankshaft failure. All it says is that the propeller came off the flange. A more plausible reading is that whatever held the prop onto the crankshaft failed, not the crankshaft itself. The loss of oil described in the report could have resulted from a failure in the constant speed prop governor rather than an internal engine failure.
It will be interesting to read the followup investigation.
My interpretation of the wording is colored by the comments of one of the parties to the NTSB investigation who apparently actually saw the crankshaft. http://www.islandpacket.com/2010/03/26/1186376/cracked-crankshaft-led-to-kit.html
Mike
I'm having trouble wrapping my head around where on the crankshaft such a failure could occur that would result only in the loss of the prop, but not otherwise rip things to pieces due to unbalanced loads. Maybe the flange itself broke.
Anyway, like I said, it'll be interesting to read the followup investigation.
I must say, I can't help but think of Mrs. Palsgraf given the chain of events here, though in this case things are a little more direct than a jostled passenger dropping a bomb that causes a scale (or was it a clock) to tip over.