Robinson helicopters have a win in Australia

[Bull at a Gate]

After 3 court hearings (trial, appeal and then further appeal), Australia's High Court has found in favour of Robinson Helicopters over an allegation that their maintenance manual failed to provide sufficient instruction so as to prevent an R22 flying with a incorrectly assembled bolt. The bolt was not sufficiently tightened which led to the flex plate failing and the helicopter crashing, killing the pilot and injuring the passenger.

Here is the judgment:

Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott [2016] HCA 22 (8 June 2016) (http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/HCA/2016/22.html)

It is a very readable judgment. The decision turned on the correct conclusions to be drawn from the evidence rather than any esoteric legal principles.

[Widewoodenwingswork]

Maintenance manuals are practically written, edited and proof read by lawyers. If Robinson were to be found liable for two seperate engineers and numerous pilots not seeing a loose nut on a flex plate, their lawyers need to think about another career.

[PDR1]

Maintenance manuals are practically written, edited and proof read by lawyers.

That's strange. Having actually worked in an aircraft manufacturer's tech Pubs department, and spent a long time leading a supportability engineering function which implements the LSA process that defines both the maintenance procedures and the way they are to be documented in the manuals (be they paper or IETM) I must have missed something, because we never had any lawyers involved ANYWHERE. We had lots of engineers, maintainers, aircrew and technical authors, but no lawyers.

Which company is it that has the spare cash to deploy so many lawyers into an engineering function?

PDR

[Bull at a Gate]

Please don't give the lawyers the idea that they should draft maintenance manuals. They can barely communicate about things they understand.

[Stanwell]

WWWW,
Where did you get that idea?
Like PDR1, I'd had a bit to do with the tech pubs side of things as well.
The only legal advice we needed was on the standard wording and placement of disclaimers.

[PDR1]

COSHH warning texts, Morntreal protocol texts etc may well have been reveiwed and approved by lawyers, but they certainly don't write the manuals.

PDR

[Widewoodenwingswork]

Sorry about the confusion, I was being (just a little bit) facetious. Having used Tech Pubs for a long time as a maintainer, I feel as though they are written with a lot of ambiguity and are often non-specific and all encompassing, I always assumed that this ambiguity was for lawyers to mount a defence on, as they have expertly done so here.

[Twist & Shout]

I appeared at one of these.
The questions I answered seemed to revolve around whether I, as a pilot, would check the flex plate bolts as part of a "daily". Specifically the PAL nuts. My name appeared on the maintenance release of the subject AC.

[Arm out the window]

whether I, as a pilot, would check the flex plate bolts as part of a "daily".

**** yeah!