PDA

View Full Version : Injured pilot's claim against MD settled


Heliport
16th Oct 2003, 06:14
http://www.bonitanews.com/graphics/parts/bonita/bonitahed-sm.GIF
Naples News.com report
A former Lee County Sheriff's Office pilot injured almost four years ago in a helicopter crash has settled his 2-year-old lawsuit with the helicopter manufacturer.

Lonnie Carson, a former Lee County Sheriff's Office chief pilot, filed a lawsuit in December 2001 in federal court against helicopter maintenance company Heli-Tech Inc., MD Helicopters Inc., and helicopter manufacturer McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. He and his wife accused the companies of negligence.

Carson was piloting the helicopter on Dec. 20, 1999, when it plunged through the roof of the Lee County Animal Services building south of Fort Myers as he was attempting to land at the nearby Sheriff's Office. Carson broke 30 bones and developed two blood clots. He suffers from brain damage as a result of his injuries.

Attorneys for Lonnie and Teresa Carson and McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. declined to reveal terms of the settlement — reached Thursday and not released until Tuesday — and how much money the couple may receive as a result of settling. However, they had sought approximately $12.6 million in damages, according to the lawsuit.

"There are just right things to do at certain times," Jeannete Lewis Bologna, an attorney for Lonnie and Teresa Carson, said Tuesday. "The settlement was amicable."

A meeting had been scheduled for 2:30 p.m. on Oct. 23 so attorneys for Carson and McDonnell Douglas Helicopter Co. could discuss mediation, but they settled.

Steven Bell, an attorney for McDonnell Douglas, declined to comment Tuesday. "I can never comment on pending litigation," he said.

Both sides have until Nov. 17 to ask that a federal judge dismiss the case, or to file other documents to close the case, according to an order filed by U.S. District Court Judge Timothy J. Corrigan.

Lonnie Carson, 57, is retired from the Lee County Sheriff's Office, Bologna said. He was unable to continue working as a result of his injuries, she said.

In a July 21 joint pretrial statement filed in federal court, the Carsons listed $8 million as the sum they seek for Lonnie Carson's past and future pain and suffering, disability, mental anguish and inconvenience.

In the same document, they peg his past and future medical expenses as slightly more than $1.8 million.

A 2001 report issued by the National Transportation Safety Board, a federal agency that investigates airplane and helicopter crashes, found that a helicopter part was improperly maintained, resulting in the crash.

The NTSB report did not blame any one company for the damaged rod. The Lee County Sheriff's Office purchased the used helicopter from the U.S. Army in 1996. It was refurbished by Panama City-based Heli-Tech.

Bologna said both sides were not completely satisfied with the settlement terms, but they decided to reach an agreement.
"Sooner or later someone needs closure," she said. "You need to get compensated and get your life whole. As whole as it's going to be."

B Sousa
16th Oct 2003, 22:01
Based on his condition as listed above, Im sure he will need every penny for Medical.....
What would be interesting though is some of the facts that are not mentioned. It appears this aircraft was one of many surplused through the military. Factors I have seen in the past had to do with Pilot Quals in Law Enforcement and Maintenance of the Aircraft.
MIlitary Surplus Aircraft I was involved with were in better shape and lower Time than I ever see in the civilian world. Maybe someone could post the NTSB site as to the accident...

Lu Zuckerman
16th Oct 2003, 23:17
MIA00GA057
HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On December 20, 1999, about 0800 eastern standard time, a Hughes OH-6A helicopter, N72LC, registered to and operated by the Lee County Sheriff's Office (LCSO), as a Title 14 CFR Part 91 public-use flight, crashed into the roof of a building. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed. The helicopter incurred substantial damage, and the commercial-rated pilot, the sole occupant, received serious injuries. The flight originated from Page Field, the same day, about 0745.

Witnesses indicated that the helicopter had initially flown over the helicopter-landing pad, and was on the downwind leg, returning for a landing, when they observed the helicopter suddenly turn to the right, and descend at a high rate, in an extreme nose low attitude, impacting the flat roof of a building. One witness also stated that he heard a pop or snapping sound just before the helicopter turned and descended.

Another witness, an EMS helicopter pilot, stated that he was in flight, at an altitude of about 450 feet, on a heading of 355 degrees, and was monitoring the Fort Myers Tower frequency when he heard a radio transmission from the pilot of the accident helicopter. The EMS pilot said that the sheriff's helicopter was about a mile north of his location, along his intended flight path, and he heard the pilot of the sheriff's helicopter say that he would be landing at the sheriff's office. The EMS pilot further stated that he saw the sheriff's helicopter below his altitude and on an apparent normal approach to the LCSO helipad. The EMS pilot said that the sheriff's helicopter was on a heading of about 060 degrees, and he watched as the sheriff's helicopter flew past the helipad on about the same heading, and an altitude of about 80 to 100 feet above ground level. The EMS pilot estimated the LCSO helicopter speed to be about 35 to 50 knots, and said that after traveling about 300 to 400 feet, it turned hard right, and descended, impacting the roof of a building, in a nose down attitude. PERSONNEL INFORMATION

Records obtained from the FAA Airman's Certification Branch reveal that the pilot holds a commercial pilot certificate with helicopter, airplane multiengine land and instrument airplane ratings. The pilot also possesses a private pilot certificate with an airplane single engine land rating. Logbook pages provided by the pilot and his attorney showed that the pilot had about 9,200 total flight hours, and about 4,000 hours in the OH-6.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

The helicopter, a Hughes OH-6A, serial number 1144A (68-17184), was acquired from the U.S. Army by the LCSO on January 3, 1996. After acquisition by the LCSO, the aircraft was shipped to Heli-Tech, located in Panama City, Florida, where it was refurbished and given an annual inspection. After completion, the helicopter was delivered to the LCSO on October 16, 1996, and placed into service. The last inspection had been completed by the LCSO on September 8, 1999, at 4340.7 hours. The last 300-hour/annual inspection was completed on November 12, 1998, at 4146.0 flight hours. At the time of the accident, the aircraft had accumulated 4419.4 hours.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

The Southwest Florida International Airport (KRSW) 0753 surface weather observation was clouds 20,000 feet broken, visibility 10 statute miles, temperature 57 degrees F, dew point temperature 55 degrees F, wind from 040 degrees at 4 knots, altimeter setting 30.10 inches Hg.

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION The helicopter crashed into the roof of an animal control building located at 5600 Banner Drive, Fort Myers, Florida, a short distance from the landing pad, located adjacent to the LCSO headquarters building. Examination of the crash site showed that the helicopter came to rest on a bearing of about 210 degrees magnetic, and was wedged into the roof of the building in a nose down attitude with the aft fuselage and tail section intact, protruding out of the top of the roof. Debris from the impact was present on the roof, and around the northeast corner of the building. The nose and pilot compartment of the helicopter exhibited extensive crushing damage. The seats and seat structures, as well as the instrument console were displaced as a result of the impact. The airframe, and the cabin floor exhibited excessive buckling, and had damage consistent with compression overload forces, and the skids had separated from the main fuselage.

The main rotor system exhibited damage consistent with a power on flight condition. Three of the four rotor blades separated from the hub assembly, and all four blades exhibited leading edge damage consistent with impact and a sudden stoppage. All main rotor system upper flight controls exhibited damage consistent with an overload condition. Control continuity was confirmed from the cockpit cyclic control to the main rotor system in the longitudinal axis, and from the collective control to the main rotor. The lower rod end of the lateral control from the tunnel routed control tube was found separated, with the rod end still connected to the lateral idler bell crank in the broom closet.

The tail rotor system exhibited no damage, and it functioned normally when moved by hand. The tail rotor gearbox rotated smoothly, and when manipulated manually, the pitch change levers moved the tail rotor in a manner consistent with normal operation. The tail rotor gearbox's magnetic chip detector was removed and inspected, and was found to be free of metal. Control continuity from the cockpit directional control pedals to the tail rotor blades was confirmed, but exhibited fractures and bends consistent with an overload condition.

The main rotor drive and tail rotor drive systems remained intact except for the engine to main transmission interconnecting drive shaft. The upper and lower drive shaft flex couplings showed overload fractures, consistent with a sudden stoppage. Both main transmission magnetic chip detectors were removed and examined, and found to be free of particles. The transmission exhibited drive continuity to the main rotor and tail rotor systems when turned by hand. The over-running clutch functioned properly when moved by hand after its removal from the engine, rotating freely in the over running direction, and engaging when rotated in the driving direction.

The oil tank, oil service lines and gear case contained oil. The engine fuel pump filter was found not installed, and the filter bowl and fuel lines, except for the fuel line in the area of the fire shield to the fuel spray nozzle, contained fuel. The fuel tank contained at least half its capacity of fuel. A vacuum check of the engine fuel system, and a pressure test on engine's pneumatic system revealed no leaks, except for the lower fuel line, from the fuel pump to the fuel control unit, which was slightly crushed at the fuel control unit fitting, and the main fuel line from the airframe to the fuel pump, which had crimp at its midpoint. All other fuel, oil, and pneumatic lines and their fittings were intact and tight. There was no evidence of fuel contamination.

Part 2 below



:E

The aircraft was equipped with an Allison T63-A700/250-C18 turboshaft engine, serial number CAE-402035, rated for 317 shaft horsepower. On scene examination of the engine showed that there was external crushing damage to the engine, and the engine was displaced to the rear and downward in the engine compartment. The left and right engine mounts were bent, consistent with overload forces such as those from the impact. The exhaust stacks experienced downward crushing and exhibited minor buckling of the lower exhaust support. The left side rear face of the engine's fire shield was bent slightly inward. There was minor damage on the leading edge of two compressor blades on the first stage, but the compressor stage rotated smoothly, freely, and was continuous, through the N1 gearing, to the starter. The power turbine exhibited no visible damage, and rotated freely, smoothly, and was continuous through the N2 gearing, to the output shaft.

The engine was retained and shipped to the manufacturer, Rolls-Royce Allison, Indianapolis, Indiana, for further examination. At Rolls-Royce Allison the engine had to be tested to new engine specifications for a C20 engine, since electronic test data was not available, because of the vintage of the engine. Data was first manually plotted to derive performance data for the test, and then the tests were conducted. The test showed that all engine starts, temperatures, pressures, and vibrations were normal, and the engine performed as designed. Derived values were on the plus side at takeoff, and normal cruise settings. MEDICAL INFORMATION

The pilot sustained serious injuries, and was admitted to the hospital. No toxicology testing was performed on specimens from the pilot during admission.

TESTS AND RESEARCH

Federal Aviation Regulations (Parts 21, 39, 43, and 91), and MDHC Service Information Letter HL-124.2, specify that the OH-6A/369A rotorcraft maintenance and inspections be conducted in accordance with applicable military technical manuals, or as specified by MDHC 369 H series maintenance manuals. Records indicate that after receipt of the helicopter from Heli-Tech, it was placed in service by the LCSO, and was maintained and inspected in accordance with the manufacturer's "Basic Handbook of Maintenance Instructions (BHMI)," for the Hughes 369 HS, and "Appendix B: Airworthiness Limitations, Overhaul and Replacement Schedules Periodic Inspections, Weight and Balance Procedures, " to the BHMI, since military technical manuals were not available.

In addition to the refurbishment and annual inspection of the helicopter, records also indicate that Heli-Tech inspected and modified the vertical tunnel routed main and tail rotor control tubes, in accordance with FAA Airworthiness Directive 89-23-14, and MDHC Service Information Notice HN-217.1.

The lower end of the lateral control rod had been found separated from the control rod during the postcrash examination, and the rod was retained and submitted to the NTSB metallurgical laboratory for analysis. Analysis revealed that the adjustable end of the control rod was bent 17 degrees relative to the axis. The bushing did not move freely, and required considerable effort to rotate by hand. The threaded portions of rivet were in place in the fixed end of the of the rod, but the rivet did not extend through the interior of the fixed end of the rod, nor was any portion of the rivet found in the hole through the threaded portion of the rod end. The internal diameter of the thread portion (minor thread diameter) of the fixed end of the rod was measured at a depth of about 0.2 inches from the end of the rod. Measurements were taken at about 45-degree increments, rotating clockwise starting from the rivet, and they were 0.035, 0.376, 0.374, and 0.384 inches. The outer diameter of the rod end fitting (major thread diameter) was 0.370 to 0.371 inches, measured at a distance up to 0.25 inches on the rod side of the lock nut.

The fixed end was cut from the remainder of the control rod and sectioned at about the 90-degree point from the rivet, and the threaded sections were examined using both optical microscopy and scanning electron microscopy (SEM). A significant portion of the thread profile had been worn away, over about one half the length of the threaded region. The thread peaks appeared shiny, and smooth when viewed by optical microscopy, showing evidence of longer term rubbing and wear. A dark deposit was observed between the thread peaks in the worn area. A white deposit was observed in the threaded section starting at a distance of 0.55 inches from the rod end. Examination of the dark and white deposits by energy dispersive x-ray spectroscopy (EDS) revealed similar spectra having peaks that indicate the presence of aluminum and oxygen.

The rod end fitting was also examined using optical and scanning electron microscopy. The thread peaks below the lock nuts were slightly worn, and appeared shiny on the rod side of the lock nut, consistent with indications of long term rubbing and wear. A dark deposit was observed between the thread peaks, and a white deposit was observed at the tip of the threaded portion of the fitting. Both the dark and white deposits exhibited peaks representative of aluminum and oxygen in the EDS spectra.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The aircraft wreckage was released on December 30, 1999, to Captain McKinney, Deputy Sheriff, LCSO. Components which were retained by the NTSB for further testing have also been released to the LCSO.


:E

B Sousa
17th Oct 2003, 01:42
Where would we be without you, Lu......Thanks

Notar fan
17th Oct 2003, 03:41
Whatever amount of money he got will never be enough for his injuries. One interesting point though,is the fact that the maintenance organisation seems to have gotten away with the bad workmanship that caused the accident. Anybody hear any different?

It also amazing how a manufacturer can be held responsible for a 31 year old aircraft, and the poor workmanship of a maintenance facility. I guess it really is the deepest pocket who pays. Imagine if the same rule was applied to cars!

B Sousa
17th Oct 2003, 06:38
Notar Fan Writes: "It also amazing how a manufacturer can be held responsible for a 31 year old aircraft, and the poor workmanship of a maintenance facility. I guess it really is the deepest pocket who pays. Imagine if the same rule was applied to cars!"

I was wondering when someone would bring this up. Its the reason the $75k Cessna 172 is now about $200K and so on.... That Aircraft had a bunch of hours on it Im sure and may even had combat damage. None of which brought it down. Still the Lawyers are allowed to sue anyone who even looked at the thing......
Its the American way and it will only get worse.....
Hope the Pilot hangs in there. Im betting he might even have flown it in the Military....

Lu Zuckerman
17th Oct 2003, 07:45
To: Bert

Some time ago there was a man that had a Piper Cub that he modified to carry cameras in the front seat area. The mod was not FAA approved and the maintenance on the aircraft was so poor that the field manager made him remove the aircraft to a new airfield. The rear seat only had a lap belt as shoulder straps were not approved for the aircraft.

The added weight in the front seat upset the CG so badly that when the pilot tried to lift off it nosed over and without shoulder harnesses the pilots face struck the metal structure in the front seat.

He sued Piper and won.

:E

B Sousa
18th Oct 2003, 00:52
Lu, I heard that one or many similar. Its really sad. Not in this case, but sometimes We pay for others stupidity...... Maybe we should get a thread on Stupid Lawsuits, but I dont think PPrune has enough space.