An FBO is not supposed to rent an aircraft to a pilot who the FBO knows isn’t competent to complete the planned flight safely. If it does, and a passenger is hurt or killed by the pilot’s mistake, the victim or his family can hold the FBO responsible. That’s the law of "negligent 
entrustment."
A
When Cory Lidle’s widow sued Cirrus Design, it caused a bit of an uproar in the aviation community. Her suit alleges that it was a defect in the aircraft’s flight controls that caused the Cirrus SR-20 to slam into a Manhattan hi-rise. That claim led many to call the suit frivolous. After all, the NTSB determined the accident was caused by pilot error, plain and simple. Right?
Cirrus asked the federal judge who is hearing the case to toss it out as being based on "junk science." Cirrus argued that under legal precedent known as Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, the judge must act as a "gatekeeper." That means she must review the expertContinue Reading Lidle v. Cirrus: Claim Not “Junk Science”
Many airports in the western United States are located at altitude. In the thin air, a departing aircraft’s propeller and wings are less aerodynamically efficient. And without a turbocharger, the aircraft’s engine won’t be able to produce full power. All of that hurts the aircraft’s ability to climb. Unless the aircraft is handled properly, after lifting off the runway it may travel for a distanceContinue Reading Summer Means High Density Altitude Airplane Accidents
A passenger injured in an aircraft accident can’t sue the aircraft manufacturer if the part that caused the crash is older than 18 years. Any such suit would be barred by the General Aviation Revitalization Act, or GARA.
What if the accident was caused by a mistake in one of the aircraft’s manuals rather than a
The General Aviation Revitalization Act immunizes aircraft manufacturers from liability for defects in their products once those products turn 18 years old. GARA was en
acted in 1994. Back then, more than half the general aviation fleet was older than 18 years.
In other words, in 1994, the manufacturers were allowed to "walk away" from the majority of the fleet they had produced, as well as any defects that they had built into them. But once relieved of that financial responsibility, the manufacturers were supposed to spring into action and start cranking out new aircraft at more affordable prices.
True, anyone injured by a defect in an older aircraft would be left without a legal remedy against the manufacturer that caused the injury. But GARA proponents argued that the flood of new piston aircraft would lead to the older aircraft being removed from service. In short order, GARA proponents argued, the average age of the aircraft in the fleet would drop and manufacturers would Continue Reading GARA Covers an Increasing Percentage of the General Aviation Fleet
A Philadelphia jury has determined that a defective carburetor caused the 1999 crash of single-engine aircraft that killed four and injured one. The aircraft, a Piper Cherokee Six, was manufactured in 1968. The jury’s verdict included $25 million for compensatory damages and $64
million as punitive damages against the engine manufacturer Avco Lycoming, a division of Textron.
Since the Aircraft was Older than 18 Years, Why Didn’t the General Aviation Revitalization Act Protect Lycoming from Liability?
There are a number of exceptions to the General Aviation Revitalization Act (known as GARA). In particular, GARA doesn’t apply when the manufacturer, in obtaining FAA certification of its part, conceals from the FAA information about defects in the part’s design. The jury in this case determined that Lycoming did just that. Thus, GARA was no defense.
The NTSB Determined the Cause of the Crash was Pilot Error. Its Report Didn’t Say Anything About a Defective Carburetor. Why Wasn’t the Jury Bound by the NTSB’s Findings?
The NTSB’s accident reports almost always favor the manufacturers. That’s because the NTSB relies on the manufacturer for help in determining the cause of the crash it is investigating. The NTSB calls this method of investigation the “party system.”
Of course, asking the manufacturer for help in figuring out if th
ere was a defect in its engine is much like asking the fox for help in determining what happened to the chickens. There’s a built-in conflict of interest. The NTSB is aware of the conflict, but continues using the party system anyway.
Here, after consulting with Lycoming’s experts, the NTSB decided not even to examine the carburetor. Since the NTSB never tore down this critical component, it’s no surprise that the NTSB did not discover any problems with it.
Fortunately for the victims’ families, the NTSB’s conclusions are by regulation inadmissible in court.
Why Did the Jury Award Punitive Damages?
A jury cannot award punitive damages simply because the defendant was negligent, or justContinue Reading Defective Carburetor Results in Jury Verdict Against Avco Lycoming
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
That’s the number one question I’ve been asked about this accident. Not "why did the accident happen," but "why didn’t the pilot use the parachute?"
As I note here, most Cirrus pilots would say that the parachute should be deployed in the event of engine failure, unless there is a long, paved runway beneath the aircraft such that a safe on-airport landing is assured. But that doesn’t mean that, if there is no airport within range, a pilot who opts to glide to a field rather than pull the chute is negligent.
Pulling the parachute has serious risks. The aircraft’s rate of descent under the parachute is high. Ground impact forces are severe. Cirrus warns that the decision to deploy the parachute shouldContinue Reading Morton, Washington Cirrus Crash: Should the Pilot Have Deployed the Parachute?
A Cirrus SR-22, N224GS, crashed yesterday in Washington state. The pilot was killed. The passenger was critically injured. The aircraft departed Concord, California (CCR) in good weather, bound for home. It crashed in Morton, 60 miles from its destination, which was presumably Renton (RNT).
The accident appears to have been the result of engine failure:
Facts suggesting that the engine failed because it ran out of gas:
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 Certific
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 thatContinue Reading The Trouble With Tip Tanks