C172 Still In Production After 60 Years.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Acrosport II

I wouldn't say that a 'seat track' fault on the c170a in 1951 killed Cessna or the C172. 43,000 C172 were built after that along with C170Bs.

I haven't read up on this incident, but perhaps that was the first big lawsuit that all the rest followed. Millions of $ as you stated, would be a considerable blow to Cessna back in the early 1950s.

I think that you misunderstood the post there. Supposedly, it was a 170 manufactured in 1951, not a lawsuit award that happened in 1951. I don't know when this was supposed to have happened, or if it actually did. I've never heard of a lawsuit involving the seat tracks of a 170, but it's possible. There was however, a very large judgement against Cessna for seat tracks in a 185 crash. It was a 1966 185, the accident was in 1989, and the award was in 2001. The award was 480 million USD.

[rutan around]

A Squared is correct. Cessna stopped manufacturing the light end of the market for 10 years until some laws were changed. They were sick of defending themselves over faults real or otherwise(mostly otherwise bought on by greedy relatives) in aircraft they built 10,20 and 30 years ago. The new laws limited the age of an aircraft for which the manufacturer could be held responsible. Prior to the new laws the situation was like Ford being fined today for faults in the T model car.

[5th officer]

Sorry I should have included the time line but it was a 1951 Cessna and the seat failure was in the early 1990's, the locating holes in the seat tracks developed ramps either side of the holes and after many years and much wear allowed the pin to jump out causing the seat to slide rearwards on take off. The "Judge" ruled that this was a design fault, Cessna should foreseen this wear??
This is how US litigation worked and quite unfair on Cessna after all those years. Cessna did not want risk the chance of anymore biased litigation and walked away from light aircraft for 10 years. I do believe there is an AD for seat tracks and I checked my 170A seat tracks not long after this incident accident and yes they were worn too.

[Acrosport II]

Originally Posted by A Squared

I think that you misunderstood the post there. Supposedly, it was a 170 manufactured in 1951, not a lawsuit award that happened in 1951. I don't know when this was supposed to have happened, or if it actually did. I've never heard of a lawsuit involving the seat tracks of a 170, but it's possible. There was however, a very large judgement against Cessna for seat tracks in a 185 crash. It was a 1966 185, the accident was in 1989, and the award was in 2001. The award was 480 million USD.

OK, I see now, the lawsuit quoted involved a C170 built in 1951, but had an accident many years later in which the widow sued for millions.

Was it soon after that lawsuit Cessna closed its doors for a number of years?.

The other accident you quoted...$480 million payout to the family, ridiculous, might as well close the company down for good. Bet the scumbag lawyer did OK out of that. Some of them are real Parasites.

Stupid Laws by Stupid Countries (Talking the lawmakers / politicians here, not the aircraft Manufacturers).

Hard to keep going with lawsuits like that.

These aircraft must have operated for a number of years before these fatal accidents. Was the seat issue always there, or was it as a result of worn out materials / fatigue. Or just not being lock in place properly before Takeoff.

An extra block with a pin that goes through the rail maybe a good idea. Set a little back before each pilot climb in.
There are short and tall pilots.

[tartare]

That Maule is a damn fine aircraft - just finished reading the brochure.

[rutan around]

Acrosport 11
It was a wear problem. Most high time Cessnas have had their seat rails replaced at least once. Cessna just a few years ago gave the secondary stops out free. My C210 has one fitted and it works well.

SEB07-5 Rev 5 provides for the installation of a secondary seat stop under the pilot’s and copilot’s seats. It looks a lot like a seatbelt reel attached to the bottom of the seat. The end of the belt is attached to the cabin floor. The reel has a release mechanism that is activated by the same lever the pilot lifts to release the latching pins.

I believe the New Start Cessnas have a different rails. The top of the rail is smooth where the rollers run and the positioning holes for the lock pin are in the side of the rail. The new style rails should have a much longer life.

[Pinky the pilot]

The other accident you quoted...$480,000 payout to the family, ridiculous, might as well close the company down for good. Bet the scumbag lawyer did OK out of that. Some of them are real Parasites.

Umm Acrosport II; Unless I'm grossly misreading that particular post, the amount quoted was;

It was a 1966 185, the accident was in 1989, and the award was in 2001. The award was 480 million USD

My bolding.

And just another view of GA Aircraft Manufacturers:

The construction of the mainstays of Light Commercial GA Twins in Australia, (and probably elsewhere for that matter) the Cessna Piston engined 402/404/414/421 and the 441 Turboprop; and the Piper Chieftain (and its variants) stopped around the same time as the Cessna Singles, and for much the same reasons!

Although I believe cost per unit rose markedly here in Australia once depreciation laws were changed, which contributed to a huge drop in orders which didn't assist the manufacturers at all! Tailwheel and Gaunty are far more able to expound on those issues than I.

My point is; All the abovementioned Twins are getting older and older. What is available to replace them?

ASAIK; Nichts!!

[Acrosport II]

Originally Posted by tartare

That Maule is a damn fine aircraft - just finished reading the brochure.

By all accounts they are.

I haven't actually poled one around, but have done a few sorties into airstrips in the RHS.
It was a MXT7 180HP with CSU.

Seems to fly well, and good for strip work by all accounts.

They have Fabric rear fuse and tail feathers, solid wing from memory.
Can be bought new for significantly less than the C172.

They don't look as nice as a C172, and they have two bars going from the ceiling to the centre of the dash, so the C172 is better in that regard.

[Acrosport II]

Originally Posted by rutan around

Acrosport 11
It was a wear problem. Most high time Cessnas have had their seat rails replaced at least once. Cessna just a few years ago gave the secondary stops out free. My C210 has one fitted and it works well.

I believe the New Start Cessnas have a different rails. The top of the rail is smooth where the rollers run and the positioning holes for the lock pin are in the side of the rail. The new style rails should have a much longer life.

Yes, I would be happier they have that mod if flying one now. I flew a number of Cessna Models without issue with the seats, but remember you had to slide the seat into position then rock back and forth to ensure the pin locked in.

I believe a C206 went in up this way a couple of years back on takeoff for parachuting. Seem to recall that may have been the problem (cannot confirm).

[Cloudee]

If you mean the Caboolture 206 prang the report has not been released. https://www.atsb.gov.au/publications/investigation_reports/2014/aair/ao-2014-053/

[Acrosport II]

Pinky,

Yes, finger trouble.

I've corrected to $480 million

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Acrosport II

Was it soon after that lawsuit Cessna closed its doors for a number of years?.

I don't know. I have no information about this alleged 170 lawsuit or when it took place. Cessna stopped producing single engine piston aircraft from 1986 to 1996. Obviously, the 185 seat track lawsuit was after production had resumed.

Originally Posted by Acrosport II

These aircraft must have operated for a number of years before these fatal accidents. Was the seat issue always there, or was it as a result of worn out materials / fatigue. Or just not being lock in place properly before Takeoff.

An extra block with a pin that goes through the rail maybe a good idea. Set a little back before each pilot climb in.
There are short and tall pilots.

The issue is wear. the seat locks by a steel pin which extends down into a hole in the aluminium track. Over time the most frequently used holes wear. it is possible for the wear to to reach a point at which it is possible for the locking pin to pop out of the hole.

The fix that Cessna has offered is to install a locking belt reel, much like a retractable shoulder harness belt reel. The reel attaches to the seat and the end of the belt fastens to the floor of the aircraft, under the seat. The locking mechanism is attached to the seat adjustment lever which retracts the locking pin. When you raise the handle, you can slide the seat back. When the handle is down, the belt reel locks, preventing the seat from sliding back, regardless of pin engagement.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by 5th officer

Sorry I should have included the time line but it was a 1951 Cessna and the seat failure was in the early 1990's,

Well, that wasn't the lawsuit which caused Cessna to stop production of Single Engine airplanes then. They stopped in 1986.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by button push ignored

And I have installed rear seat locks.
They were not free.

Mine were. As well as other Cessna Owners I know. Cessna for a time was offering the kits for free, plus a reimbursement for the mechanics time to install them. The reimbursement must have been sufficient, as I know mechanics who were actively seeking Cessna owners to do the installation for them.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Pinky the pilot

Although I believe cost per unit rose markedly here in Australia once depreciation laws were changed, which contributed to a huge drop in orders which didn't assist the manufacturers at all! Tailwheel and Gaunty are far more able to expound on those issues than I.

A similar thing happened in the US. The heyday of booming small aircraft sales was the 1960's and 1970's Cessna was selling more than 1000 172s a year for much of that period, and of course other models. Cessna was also selling 182s at about half the rate of 172s, which is still a lot of airplanes compared to today's numbers. Sometime in the late 1970's US tax laws were changed. Prior to that change, it was possible to deduct a large portion of the cost of owning an airplane (and other things) as a business expense. So if you were a small business owner, owning an airplane was pretty economical. As I understand it, the laws were changed so that you could only write off that portion of the expenses which could be demonstrated as being directly related to the use of the airplane in the business. By severely reducing the tax advantage, the cost of owning an airplane effectively rose considerably, and aircraft sales decreased dramatically.

My understanding is that this tax law change contributed a lot more to the decline of GA in the US than most people realize.

[Sunfish]

For those of you wondering about American lawsuits there are a few things you need to understand.

1. America has no social safety nets worth a damn.

2. If a family's sole breadwinner dies, then the kids won't be going to university, they won't have much in the way of healthcare, they will probably have to downsize their house (due to American tax treatment of mortgage interest). Basically, their entire life collapses because in America, you are what you earn.

3. The family may also be destitute or bankrupt if the breadwinner incurred medical bills before dying.

The legal strategy pursued in these aircraft lawsuits is predicated on the fact that the jury makes the award:

(a) Make everyone on the jury totally miserable about the fate of the victims family (see 2).

(b) determine exactly which party to the lawsuit has the deepest pockets.

(c) blame everything on them.

Then add exemplary and punitive damages and "voila!"... $480 million!

The problem is of course exacerbated by lawyers agreements to take their costs plus a share of the damages.

But wait, there is more... we now have "litigation finance companies" who will fund potentially lucrative cases in return for a share of the award.

And since 90% of politicians started life as greasy, scum sucking lawyers, don't expect tort law reform any time soon.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by button push ignored

The FREE secondary locks offer ended in December 2016.
Now Saf-T-Lock sells them for $55.
You get two in a package.
I ended up with four and had to send one package back.

The Cessna program was something quite different. I described it in a post up the thread, but it involved an locking belt reel. If installed correctly, it's automatic, and doesn't require you to remember to tighten iy behind the seat when you adjust the seat.

[A Squared]

Originally Posted by Sunfish

For those of you wondering about American lawsuits there are a few things you need to understand.

1. America has no social safety nets worth a damn.

2. If a family's sole breadwinner dies, then the kids won't be going to university, they won't have much in the way of healthcare, they will probably have to downsize their house (due to American tax treatment of mortgage interest). Basically, their entire life collapses because in America, you are what you earn.

That's why we have life insurance. Given that we don't have the social nets, and it's not a secret, why wouldn’t a breadwinner have a sufficient life insurance policy in place to province for his family in the event of his death?

What was his plan if he just suddenly died of some medical cause through no fault of anyone else? That's just family responsibility 101, have a life insurance policy that will provide for your family if something bad happens to you.

[rutan around]

Posted by A Squared
Over time the most frequently used holes wear. it is possible for the wear to to reach a point at which it is possible for the locking pin to pop out of the hole.

There are other factors worth noting involved in the pin pop out problem and they involve the design and placement of whole system.

The seat is prevented from coming off the rails by metal fingers that fit under the top part of the rail. There has to be some clearance to allow the seat to slide easily but in time the fingers and rail wear and the clearance grows allowing the seat to tilt back and lift the pin further than it did when new. The pin can't be made longer because the rail height and design prevents a deeper hole being drilled to receive the pin.
The third problem is that the mechanism is at the front of the seat which tries to lift when the pilot leans on the seat back as happens on rotation.
Had the system been installed at the back of the seat the problem probably would not exist because on rotation the pin would have been pushed down ...not lifted up and potentially out of the hole.

A late uncle used to say 'If my foresight was as good as my hindsight I'd be better off a darn sight'

The late model system with horizontal holes through the rail and with a horizontal pin unrestricted in length makes all the above problems go away.

[rutan around]

What was his plan if he just suddenly died of some medical cause through no fault of anyone else? That's just family responsibility 101, have a life insurance policy that will provide for your family if something bad happens to you.

Perhaps A Squared might explain to us unedumacated Aussies how the millions of unemployed, under employed and over employed but still not being paid a living wage might go about obtaining that insurance. Remind us of what your minimum wage is ......if your keyboard numbers go that low.