Only modifications that carry a Supplemental Type Certificate may be legally installed on an aircraft. The Supplemental Type Certificate guarantees that the FAA has thoroughly tested and reviewed the modification. And it’s the Supplemental Type CertificCessna Floatplane(Photo by TailspinT)ate that insures that the modification is safe and compatible with the particular model aircraft on which it’s being installed. Right?

Maybe not. Owners really shouldn’t place too much stock in an STC. Or so says one former NTSB accident investigator. The investigator, now retired, explained to me that most owners might be surprised by how little work the FAA does before issuing an STC. Sure, the STC process is a huge paperwork shuffle for the modification’s manufacturer. But it’s little more than that. The process seldom entails any real independent engineering cross-check on the FAA’s part.

"Give me an example", I asked. "OK,’ he said. "Let’s talk tip tanks."

A popular modification for many models of Cessna single-engine aircraft are wingtip extensions that

Continue Reading The Trouble With Tip Tanks

Most general aviation aircraft manufactured today come with "glass cockpits."  Instead of being equipped with mechanical gauges and indicators, they are equipped with computer screens.  The screens integrate and display all sorts of useful flight information.  The information displayed may include satellite weather, synthetic vision, infrared vision, terrain awareness information, traffic

Continue Reading NTSB: Glass Cockpits Associated With Higher Rate of Fatal Accidents

Other countries severely limit compensation that may be awarded in wrongful death lawsuits arising from airline accidents.  For example, many other countries do not allow families to be compensated for loss of a loved one’s "care, comfort, or society."  As a result, in almost all situations, the best venue for a family’s lawsuit against an airline is the United States.International Flags

If the airline passenger’s trip included an international stop, then the proper venue for any lawsuit against the airline is controlled entirely by international treaties known as the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions.  The Warsaw Convention permits the passenger (or the passenger’s family) to sue the airline in the United States, even though the accident happened on foreign soil, if and only if:

  1. The passenger’s ticket was issued in the United States;
  2. The passenger’s journey was a round trip that started in the United States or was a one-way trip that ended in the United States; 
  3. The airline is incorporated in the United States; or
  4. The airline’s principal place of business is in the United States.

The Montreal Convention has replaced the Warsaw Convention in most situations. The Montreal Convention adds to the list what has been called a "fifth jurisdiction." Regardless of where the accident occurred, or where the passenger began or ended his trip, the international traveler or his family may sue the foreign airline in the United States if the United States was the passenger’s "principal and permanent residence."  For this fifth option to be available, however, the airline must maintain some sort of presence in the United States.     

The NTSB released its preliminary report on the Pine Mountain Lake crash.  As usual, the preliminary report contains no conclusions concerning the cause of the crash. For that, we’ll have to wait up to 4 years.  The preliminary report does, however, hint that the NTSB’s investigation will focus on whether the pilot pressed on into weather beyond what the regulations allowed.

The full text of the report is here.  Some excerpts:

Instrument night meteorological conditions prevailed at the accident site, and no flight plan had been filed.

Instrument weather conditions are those that require a pilot to fly by reference to his instruments rather than by looking out the window. To fly in instrument conditions, a pilot must be instrument-rated, his plane must be properly equipped, and he must have a clearance from air traffic control.  He is not necessarily required to file a flight plan.  For example, instead of filing a flight plan, the

Continue Reading NTSB Preliminary Report on Saratoga Crash at Pine Mountain Lake in Groveland, California

Lisa Krieger of the San Jose Mercury News writes on a variety of issues related to this crash: 

Related posts:  Tesla Crash: NTSB Probable Cause Investigation

                       Tesla Crash: The Paradox of the Twin

The runway at Pine Mountain Lake is oriented east-west, and is surrounded by rugged terrain.  In poor weather, pilots are permitted to execute instrument approaches to the airport.  The approach procedures guide pilots as they descend through the clouds to the runway.  The procedures, flown properly, will place the pilot in a position to land straight ahead without having to maneuver.  When the pilot pops out of the clouds after flying the instrument approach to Pine Mountain Lake, his view out of the windshield should be something like this:  

 Final Approach Runway 27 Pine Mountain Lake - Photo by austinpilot  

The procedure the pilot must follow when approaching from the east is set forth below.  A pilot may descend in the clouds no lower than 770 feet above the runway.  To descend further, the pilot must

Continue Reading Piper Saratoga Crash at Pine Mountain Lake Airport in Groveland, California

The initial investigation was conducted by local law enforcement in conjunction with the FAA. Now the National Transportation Safety Board will take over.

The NTSB’s job will be to examine the wreckage and attempt to determine if the crash was caused by a defective aircraft part, negligent maintenance, or pilot error. The NTSB concedes, however, that it lacks the manpower, the technical expertise, and the funding to do that job properly on its own. Therefore, as a matter of long-standing policy, it will seek engineering assistance from the companies that manufactured the aircraft components in question. In this case, the NTSB will recruit the help of Cessna Aircraft, which manufactured the aircraft involved in the accident, Cessna N5225J, and Teledyne Continental Motors, which manufactured each of the aircraft’s two 260 horsepower C-310 File Photo by Kensavition.comengines. The NTSB will exclude members of the victims’ families and their technical representatives from the investigation, feeling that they have nothing to offer. (Sad but true.)

Of course, the NTSB’s practice of asking the manufacturers for help – a practice it calls “the party system” — presents a conflict of interest.  After all, the manufacturers themselves might be the ones responsible for the accident. Some say that the NTSB’s party system is akin to asking the suspects for help in solving a crime. Nonetheless, the conflict – discussed further here – is ingrained in all NTSB investigations.

It’s no surprise that most NTSB final reports often favor the manufacturers who have “assisted” the NTSB investigators in their work. But perhaps it doesn’t make any difference because, by federal regulation, the NTSB’s probable cause findings are not binding on anyone. The families are free to conduct their own investigation, and in the event of a lawsuit, the NTSB’s conclusions are given no deference whatever. In fact, in the event of litigation, the NTSB conclusions are not even admissible. Aviation attorneys who conduct their own independent investigations find that the NTSB’s conclusions are wrong about 50% of the time.

In one recent example, a Teledyne Continental engine similar to those installed on N5225J quit

Continue Reading Cessna 310 (Tesla) Crash at East Palo Alto: NTSB Probable Cause Investigation

One might think that a twin-engine aircraft is safer than a single-engine aircraft.  After all, if one engine fails, you still have the other to bring you home safely.  That’s the whole point of the second engine, right?

If one of the twin engines fails in cruise flight, maybe that’s true.  But if it quits right after takeoff, the twin can be extremely difficult to handle.  When the aircraft’s landing gear is down, its flaps set, and its airspeed just above the minimum flying speed, the asymetric thrust generated by the operating engine can flip the aircraft onto its back and out of control.  A "Vmc roll", as it is called, is

Continue Reading Tesla Cessna 310 Crash at East Palo Alto: The Paradox of the Twin

How quickly must I act and get a lawyer?

It is usually best to consult with an attorney within 90 days of an accident.  You need to ensure that the aircraft wreckage is properly preserved and that the applicable statutes of limitation do not run on your claim.

Read more here. 

What should I look for in an aviation lawyer?

Find an attorney with an excellent record of jury verdicts in aviation lawsuits.  Unless the lawyer has proven that he or she can successfully take an aviation accident case all the way through trial and to a verdict, it is unlikely the responsible insurance company will take the lawyer seriously when it comes time to discuss settlement. 

Should the lawyer I select be a pilot?

Experience as a helicopter or fixed-wing pilot is an invaluable asset for the aviation accident attorney.  But more important than piloting credentials is the attorney’s trial record in aviation accident cases. 

More here.

What does an aviation attorney cost?

An aviation lawyer will cost you nothing unless and until there is a monetary recovery.  The lawyer will work on a contingency fee contract, and will advance all costs and expenses of the lawsuit. 

Shouldn’t I wait for the NTSB to finish its work before deciding whether Ie should start a lawsuit? 

Sometimes that makes sense.  But usually it’s not in the client’s best interest to wait.  The offices of the NTSB are understaffed, underfunded and overwhelmed by workload.  It takes the NTSB from one to four years to complete its report.  The NTSB’s "party system" creates a conflict of interest that results in reports that favor the manufactures and other industry players.  Therefore, the NTSB report is seldom worth waiting for.  

More here.

Can I settle my case without retaining a lawyer?  

Yes, sometimes, especially if the injuries are not significant, or if the insurance is limited.  Before doing so, however, be sure to consult with an aviation lawyer.  Most will talk things over without charge and advise you whether it makes to settle on your own. 

How long will it take to resolve my aviation case? 

It varies but in our experience most cases resolve 1 1/2 and 3 years after we file them. (Yes, we frequently resolve aviation lawsuits before the NTSB even issues its probable cause report.)

How can we make sure that this accident doesn’t happen again to someone else? 

A decision to cut costs can be found in the chain of events leading to most aviation accidents.  By taking the profit out of unsafe business practices, a lawsuit can sometimes be the most effective way to bring about change in the industry. 

Many clients are surprised to learn that the NTSB has no power to punish sloppy operators or take away their licenses, regardless of what it concludes caused the crash.  For most operators, unless there’s a lawsuit, it’s "business as usual." 

How can I find out about your background and qualifications?

Look here and here. 

Cirrus aircraft are now available with "flight into known icing" (FIKI) capability.  That’s a great feature. I’ve written before, however, that Cirrus is asking for trouble with its marketing.  Cirrus sells the feature as one that both enhances safety and increases the aircraft’s utility.  But Cirrus can’t have it both ways.  If a pilot uses the FIKI capability by, for example, flying in conditions that would otherwise keep him on the ground, he necessarily undermines that feature’s safety benefits.  I discuss why Cirrus’ marketing is a problem here.

Steve Wilson, who is an air safety investigator (among other things), now slams Cirrus’ marketing even harder.  According to Wilson, some aspects of Cirrus’ marketing encourage pilots to use the FIKI capability to take risks that are simply foolish.

Some say that Wilson’s criticisms should be discounted because he sells Cessna aircraft and Cessna competes with Cirrus.  But Wilson isn’t criticizing Cirrus’ product, just its marketing.  It seems hard to argue with him.