Lawyers: 480000000, General Aviation: 0

[Squawk 8888]

Jury orders Cessna to pay $480 million (http://web.wichitaeagle.com/content/wichitaeagle/2001/08/17/business/0817cessna_txt.htm) The jury wants Cessna to fix the aircraft and said so in a resounding, unequivocal way :rolleyes:And just how are they supposed to fix anything if they're bankrupted by lawsuits? If this gravy train doesn't get derailed soon then GA will be priced out of the market for most of us. When that happens where do we get the next generation of professional pilots?

[Onan the Clumsy]

According to Avweb,this is the NTSB accident report...

Accident occurred Monday, August 14, 1989 at MYRTLE GROVE, FL

Aircraft:CESSNA A185E, registration: N95KW

Injuries: 3 Serious

A NORMAL APPROACH WAS MADE TO RUNWAY 36. THE FLAPS WERE FULLY EXTENDED & FULL NOSE UP TRIM WAS APPLIED PER THE OWNER'S HANDBOOK. THE WIND WAS FROM THE EAST AT 3-8 KTS. THICK SCRUB TREES BORDERED THE EAST SIDE OF THE RUNWAY. A THREE POINT LANDING WAS PLANNED & TOUCHDOWN OCCURRED ON THE TAIL & RIGHT MAIN WHEEL. THE RIGHT WING CAME UP AS THE LEFT WHEEL TOUCHED & THE PILOT INITIATED A BALKED LANDING. HE & HIS WIFE, ALSO A PRIVATE PILOT, SAID THE NOSE PITCHED UP ABRUPTLY, & A DEPARTURE STALL TO THE RIGHT WAS ENCOUNTERED. BOTH BELIEVED THAT THE PILOT'S SEAT SLID REARWARD. POST IMPACT FIRE DESTROYED THE SEAT RAILS. EXAM OF THE WRECKAGE SHOWED THAT THE FRONT SEATS APPEARED TO BE IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows.

THE PILOT IN COMMAND INADVERTENTLY STALLED THE AIRCRAFT DURING A BALKED LANDING.

[Squawk 8888]

According to the newspaper account, the pilot argued that the seat slipped and blamed it on a design flaw. I don't buy it- part of my own preflight in Cessnas is to make sure the seat is in an locked. Even if there was a problem with the design, $480 mil is patently absurd.

[Huck]

The plaintiff lawyer was Arthur Wolk - the same one that got 100 mil for a Bonanza crash a few years back. The private pilot landed short on an ILS and burst into flame. Wolk succesfully claimed that the fuel injection system must have ruptured and spilled fuel on the hot engine, though there was no evidence and such a failure has NEVER been documented.

The O.J. trial was just the tip of the iceberg, I'm afraid....

[Pointer]

Same old story over again....An american product destroyed by american justice because its the....yes american way, cessna should be glad that the copilot didn't have a hot cup off coffee between her/his legs while landing!! could have doubled it!

But siriously, isn't it time that the yanks give up on that jury thing? or at least get some knowledge instead off Accting in the courts? veni vidi...and veni vidi..etc!

[126.9]

I hope that they continue in this vane. If they do, I pray that sooner or later, they will be so busy screwing each other, that time constraints will dictate that they stop screwing the rest of the world!

Go America!! Sink yourselves!!!

[Iain]

I have experienced the seat slide back on me a couple times in a Cessna, I was taxing and being pretty tall it really did not effect me much. I do think it is a bad design, but I do think this ruling is a bit over the top.

[Jetdriver]

Don't be too quick to rubbish Jury awards in the US system.

Cessna still have (and almost certainly will) the right to appeal this case for many years to come.

However their attention is now well focused.
They will certainly have to rectify the defect that resulted in this judgement.

In the UK they would have left the victim to languish taking comfort in the fact that the system would never punish them as a company, and they would be no worse off defending the case than settling the matter.

If you were the injured party where would you rather the case was tried ? Most victims want reasonable compensation and an apology. The companies ( some of whom are serial injurors) will never apologise. The only thing on the table at the end of the day is money. The legal system will devour most of that.

Damage awards that are designed to be punitive, only succeed if the corporation is seriously stung by the award. Their pain will be financial, the injured party will suffer much longer and in a much more tangible way.

I am not familiar with this case, however I would bet that if the award was $1 million, they would have passed the matter on to their insurance company and carried on as normal. This award was presumably designed to make them sit up and take notice. The publicity it will receive will make them do that.

[Pointer]

Whilst training for the gloriuos day i was taking to the sky in my chariot of aluminium. And for no reason the chair was sliding back...all the way back.

Did i sue cessna ???? no i hid my self over the head that i didn't perform my cockpit checks descently..and continued the climb whilst pulling my self in to a better position so i could take the ovation when i would have made the perfect landing....ever.

You know there is a reason why the chairs in a general aviation a/c are lets say simpler of construction...

[Pointer]

Jetdriver,

there must be a golden way between the lawyer crasy americans and the medieval feudal system on the island of virtue!

[mallard]

It happened to me too.
Rotate and the seat slid back.
Either it has been a bad design for thirty five years or it was an old airplane.

[Cyclic Hotline]

Link to some other PPRuNe info on this story....
http://www.pprune.org/cgibin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=53&t=000775

[Huck]

First, the seat track problem was fixed some time ago via AD. This crash occurred in 1989.

Secondly, this was a C-185 taildragger. That means that, before takeoff, these people had to have taxiied around at a pitch angle of about 20%. If the seat was "between holes" on the trackes, it would have slid on taxi out.

I've no problem with proper suits, but shouldn't there be just a smidgen of evidence to support the new millionaires' claims?

[Chimbu chuckles]

I used to own a C-185 and my first job was flying one in the mountains of PNG. I had approval to carry out initial tailwheel endorsements on the type and I've yet to see the instruction to wind in FULL nose up trim on finals! The C185 has a stabilator, which means the whole horizontal flying surface trims, not just a little tab.

This individual was landing in a cross wind with high trees bordering the upwind side of the flight strip, surely a recipe for a little windshearing/swirling etc.

He should have been doing a wheeler landing in those conditions(subjective I know) but instead tries a 3 pointer and almost ground loops....pours on the coals for a go-around and roars back into the air with FULL nose up trim.....and stalls :eek:

WELL WHAT THE FARK DO YOU EXPECT!!!!!

Name me ONE aeroplane that wouldn't if you launched yourself with FULL NOSE UP TRIM.

Even given that configuration the elevator still has full authority around whatever trim datum the stab is set to so quick action on the trim wheel while applying lots of force to the wheel would rescue that situation.

If both front seats were in the same relative position then he almost certainly had his seat set too far back, unless he is very tall indeed, and that being the case would have been struggling to have full control of the rudder and reach easily the trim wheel(on the floor beside the flap handle.)

Did he dump the flaps as soon as he was airborne, that would have reduced the nose-up pitching moment somewhat? while he re trimmed.

Sounds to me like not the best trained pilot(as far as the specific characteristics of that aircraft) applying not the best technique
to the given situation and not coping with the result of his ignorance.

Cessna should sue him for destroying one of the best aeroplanes Cessna ever thought up!! :mad:

Chuck.