Robinson helicopters have a win in Australia
Thread Starter
Robinson helicopters have a win in Australia
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)
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.
Here is the judgment:
Robinson Helicopter Company Incorporated v McDermott [2016] HCA 22 (8 June 2016)
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Far North Queensland
Age: 37
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
Which company is it that has the spare cash to deploy so many lawyers into an engineering function?
PDR
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: eastcoastoz
Age: 76
Posts: 1,699
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Far North Queensland
Age: 37
Posts: 93
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
