America Once Again Tries To Kill GA With Product Liability Claims..

[Sunfish]

An appeals court in North Carolina believes that individual U.S. States can impose their own product safety standards on aircraft that are more onerous than existing FAA certification standards.

In this case a humble C172N crashed and the North Carolina jury, in its wisdom, decided that the carburettor, even though certificated, was insufficiently designed for North Carolina.

AOPA is now hoping for a Supreme Court ruling. Absent that, or perhaps legislation, watch America try and destroy GA again.

Google Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp

[Car RAMROD]

But they don't have to get ADSB yet and theirs will be cheaper!!

I wonder if Dick etc wants Aussie aviation to take on the same US theme in your post, Sunny. After all, they are "the best" and we should copy them!

[rutan around]

After all, they are "the best" and we should copy them! The difference is the Yank pilot groups will stomp on this latest piece proposed stupidity where as out here the silent majority will always do what they always do .....NOTHING.:ugh::ugh::ugh:

[rutan around]

The difference is the Yank pilot groups will stomp on this latest piece proposed stupidity
https://www.aopa.org/news-and-media/all-news/2016/october/14/aopa-asks-us-supreme-court-to-hear-aircraft-liability-case?utm_source=ePilot&utm_medium=Content&utm_content=adv&utm_campaign=161020epilot

I rest my case.

[The name is Porter]

The difference is the Yank pilot groups will stomp on this latest piece proposed stupidity where as out here the silent majority will always do what they always do .....NOTHING.

I don't think there has ever been a more accurate sentence posted on pprune :ok:

[Andy_RR]

Interesting that the NTSB report (http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20050715X01029&ntsbno=ATL05FA128&akey=1) quotes:

The carburetor received fire damage. The carburetor was removed and disassembled. The carburetor bowl gasket was burned out and the carburetor bowl screws were loose, the internal passages were open with fire damage, and no fuel leaks or stains were observed. The fuel inlet screen was fire damaged and not obstructed. The metal float was fire damaged and needle valve was fire damaged

[rutan around]

I'm amazed that in attributing the cause of the accident to the carby the North Carolina Appeals Court appears to know more about the cause of the accident than the NTSB accident investigation team.

The last 2 lines tell the story. Lawyer Fest methinks.

NTSB Identification: ATL05FA128
The docket is stored in the Docket Management System (DMS). Please contact Records Management Division (http://www.ntsb.gov/info/sources.htm#pib)
Accident occurred Sunday, July 10, 2005 in Penrose, NC
Probable Cause Approval Date: 12/20/2005
Aircraft: Cessna 172N, registration: N73747
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 1 Serious.

NTSB investigators either traveled in support of this investigation or conducted a significant amount of investigative work without any travel, and used data obtained from various sources to prepare this aircraft accident report.
The passenger stated the pilot conducted a preflight inspection and an engine run up before departing Transylvania County Airport and no deficiencies were noted. The pilot did not use the entire length of the runway for takeoff and the airplane lost power after takeoff. The runway is 2,903 feet in length. Review of performance data revealed the airplane would have a ground roll of 870 feet. A witness observed the airplane on its takeoff roll. He said the airplane was about one third down the runway and did not seem to be going very fast, nor did it sound like the airplane was developing full power. The witness turned around, looked back towards the departure end of the runway and the airplane had disappeared from view. The witness then observed black smoke off the departure end of the runway. Another witness stated she heard an airplane approaching her location. The engine sounded like it was at a low rpm, which she attributed to the sound being masked by the terrain. The airplane came into view and was observed at a low altitude in a steep nose down left turn with the left wing perpendicular to the ground. Examination of the crash site revealed a scar was present on the ground and extended 23 feet 10 inches long. Pieces of the left red and white forward wing tip and left red navigation light were located in the ground scar. One propeller blade strike and a red and white paint transfer were located on a road 27 feet down the crash debris line. The left wing was pushed aft and separated. The left wing was bent upward at a 90-degree angle 9 feet 6-inches outboard of the wing root and accordion crushing was located on the leading edge of the wing and wing skin. The right wing was separated at the wing root and was located forward of the left wing. No anomalies were noted with the airframe, flight controls, or engine assembly and accessories.



The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: A loss of engine power for undetermined reasons. Contributing to the accident was the pilot's failure to use the full length of the runway for takeoff, and the inadvertent stall

[rutan around]

It was a dead stick act that would open a dark chapter in his airshow career. In 1992, two FAA inspectors claimed Hoover performed poorly during one show, despite video and eyewitness accounts to the contrary. Later, after Hoover had flown another 33 airshows, the inspectors reported their findings and the FAA asked for his medical certificate. He obliged and at his own expense went through a battery of medical exams. The FAA’s appointed doctor found nothing wrong and recommended he get his certificate back. The FAA refused and issued an emergency revocation, despite no evidence of any medical problem. The case dragged on for more than two-and-a-half years, during which Hoover got an Australian pilot certificate and continued to perform shows internationally.
He was represented before the FAA, the NTSB, and in the courts by friends F. Lee Bailey and AOPA General Counsel John Yodice. Ultimately, the FAA in 1995 returned his medical certificate without ever offering an apology or explanation.
https://www.aopa.org/-/media/images/aopa-main/news-and-media/2016/october/1026_hoover2.jpg?la=en&hash=47DC779FD06CF83EB415AF14E8F92B85831F9B70The FAA’s baseless actions against Hoover sent fear through the entire pilot population. The thinking was that if they can do it to a famous pilot they can act against any pilot. AOPA, other organizations, and legislators set out to rein in the agency with what became to be known as the “Hoover Bill.” Introduced by AOPA member Sen. James Inhofe (R-Okla.), the bill, ultimately signed into law, allowed pilots the chance to immediately appeal an FAA emergency certificate revocation to the NTSB chairman.
This is how the Americans dealt with Bob Hoovers FAA problem. We should learn from them.

[Lead Balloon]

Just goes to show that the FAA, too, has dark corners with zealots untroubled by objective evidence or objective and comparative risks.

Let's hope Xenophon is Australia's Inhofe.

The irony of Mr Hoover getting a medical certificate in Australia when the FAA wouldn't issue one is now quite bitter. It was back when Australia had a PMO who understood AVMED and the proper role of medical certification in a system of civil aviation safety.

[Flying Binghi]

via Lead Balloon:
...Let's hope Xenophone is Australia's Inhofe...

xenophone is a clown who is supporting an anti aviation ideology and is not worthy of comparison with Inhofe.




.

[LeadSled]

Folks,
Hoover's flight test for his Australia licence will probably never be equaled.
As I recall, Royal Vic. arranged tutoring for the exams he had to write, and if my memory serves me correctly, for the flight test, the Examiner was Barry Diamond.
In one flight test, Hoover complete initial issue of a PPL and CPL, initial issue of an Instrument Rating, Multi Engine Rating, Aerobatic Rating, and unlimited low level approval attached to the aeros.
Down in Tasmania, he not only did his usual in an AC500S, but quite a display in a T-28, he had been the original test pilot on the T-28 program.
As for the FAA behavior in Hoover's case, all that proves is that any bureaucracy will circle the wagon to protect incompetence, rather than right a wrong, as we see so often with CASA.
Tootle pip!!