After
the Crash, Who Do You Blame?
In
August of 2007, a doctor along with his fiancée,
were severely injured when their light twin, a
Cessna 337, crashed near Atlanta, Georgia. His legs
were crushed, and both occupants suffered third
degree burns to 40% of their bodies. The woman was
the PIC that evening. She was a commercial pilot
and worked as a co-pilot for American Airlines. The
doctor owned the Skymaster.
AIRCRAFT SIMILAR
TO THE C-337 IN THIS STORY.

The
couple had just departed a regional airport en-route
to Ohio, when after about ten minutes in the air,
the rear engine stopped producing power. The pilot
spent a certain amount of time attempting to resolve
the situation, then decided to return to the airport
for landing. However, they crashed in a field a few
miles short.
Both
occupants survived the impact and the ensuing fire
although their recoveries would never be complete.
They were left with scars and injuries consistent
with severe burns. Predictably, they went to
litigation to obtain some type of compensation from
anyone who could be blamed and held responsible for
the accident. The main target was the aircraft
maintenance organization. When the dust cleared
from the court case five years later in 2011, the
AMO was hit with damages of 11.5 million dollars!
During the trial
the plaintiffs claimed that the maintenance shop
never undertook repairs or overhaul of the rear
engine that were necessary to keep it airworthy.
They sited a misdiagnosis of power loss in the rear
engine, and the failure to have an appropriate
inspector investigate all work that its mechanics
were performing. The plaintiffs also claimed that
the shop knew the front engine was long overdue for
overhaul, but it was never recommended. They argued
that the failure to overhaul the engine caused
diminished power during an in-flight emergency
precisely when full power was needed.
The maintenance
organizations defense focused on the turbocharger
wastegate, and once a new one was installed, the
problem had been resolved. They also pointed to the
pilot’s post-accident statement which confirmed the
resolution of that condition. Further statements by
the pilot confirmed that she had not applied full
power to the front engine or retracted the
rear-engine cowl flaps. There were a number of
issues during the trial that remain in dispute, and
the maintenance organization has appealed
the verdict. At this time, over two years later, I
cannot find any further details of that appeal, so
the focus of this article will remain on the
original proceedings.
The
NTSB investigation revealed facts pertinent to the
crash and attached the probable cause as pilot
error. It found that the pilot rejected the idea of
landing at a smaller airport which was at one point
as close as six miles from their position. Instead,
the pilot elected to shut down the rear engine and
go back to their departure airport, which was
considerably further. The front engine was
maintaining power, although it was kept at the top
of the green arc and not redlined as the emergency
procedures allow.
It
also states, “The examinations of both engines,
including the accessories, revealed extensive
thermal damage. Of those items that could be
examined, including the internal engine parts, there
was no evidence of any anomaly to either engine that
would have precluded normal operation prior to the
accident.”
The "Single-Engine Maximum Rate-of-Climb Data
Chart" found in the owner’s manual indicated that
the airplane, at maximum gross weight and at 5,000
ft msl, should have been able to climb about 290
feet per minute with the ambient temperature
conditions that existed at the time. Notes attached
to the chart stated that the operating engine must
be running at 37 inches of manifold pressure, at
2,800 rpm, and that the inoperative propeller had to
be feathered to obtain the results listed in the
chart. The "Single Engine Service Ceiling Chart" in
the owner’s manual was also predicated on the use of
37 inches of manifold pressure and 2,800 rpm.
The jury in this trial
quite possibly didn’t understand many of the
technical details of operating an aircraft,
responsibilities of the pilot in command, nor the
principals of pilot decision making and basic
airmanship. Their decision was based on the lawyers’
arguments for both sides. The plaintiffs lawyer
obviously prevailed. Furthermore, the NTSB review
and findings are inadmissible in court. The law
regarding this states: “No part of [the board’s
accident report, which contains the board’s
determinations, including the probable cause of an
accident] may be admitted as evidence or used in any
suit or action for damages growing out of any matter
mentioned in such reports.”
So what about the
pilots responsibility? The jury assessed her and
the owner (her fiancé) twenty percent of the blame
for the accident. This case, like countless others
in aviation, is not likely understood nor agreed
with by pilots and mechanics. Without having sat
through this trial, nor seen the actual
transcription, which I’d not have understood anyway,
it’s only second-guessing to discuss the outcome.
But, I’ll do it anyway. Along with the freedom to
own and fly an airplane, comes responsibility to
maintain and service it. There is a lot of basic
common sense required when flying too. In my mind,
it would be total nonsense to over fly a suitable
airport while operating with a crippled engine.
There is a little button on a GPS that says
“closest” to help in a simple decision like that.
The pilot also needs to be totally familiar with the
operators’ manual, enough to know the emergency
procedures for that aircraft. According to the NTSB
finding in this case, the pilot didn’t know or
disregarded what was spelled out in that section of
the POH.
The system we have
to decide responsibility in cases like this is
extremely difficult to understand. One reason is
the fact that in the U.S., and in Canada, the TSB
findings are not admitted in any courtroom or suit
for damages. Although there are good reasons for
this, which I understand and generally agree with,
common sense and personal responsibility are thrown
out like dirty bathwater. A maintenance shop can
advise an owner, and make recommendations on the
upkeep of an aircraft. But the owner is ultimately
responsible. It boils down to leading a horse to
water.
I will continue to
check up on the appeal that is underway, and in some
future article I hope to write more on the case.
Something that involves such a huge award is worth
watching.