Eagle Pilot Sues Boeing

[KigAir]

http://www.military.com/NewsContent/0,13319,164551,00.html

F-15 Pilot Sues Boeing for Damages
St. Louis Post-Dispatch | By Steve Giegerich | March 24, 2008
A Missouri Air National Guard pilot filed suit this week in U.S. District Court, claiming Boeing Corp. "should have known" the F-15C Eagle that broke in half during a training mission last November was "defective and unreasonably dangerous."
Maj. Stephen Stilwell suffered severe injuries when he bailed out of the F-15C over rural Dent County, in south-central Missouri, on Nov. 2.

A native of Chillicothe, Mo., Stilwell, 37, was based with the 131st Fighter Wing at Lambert-St. Louis International Airport.

After the accident, the Air Force grounded more than 300 older model F-15s after finding cracks in some planes and parts that didn't meet safety specifications in others.

The older planes were built by McDonnell Douglas Corp. of St. Louis before the company's 1997 sale to Boeing.

"Boeing knew or should have know that the F-15 as manufactured allowed and permitted for catastrophic flight break-up," said Stilwell's suit, filed by attorney Morry S. Cole.

Stilwell also claims the manufacturer failed to notify the Air Force and Missouri Air National Guard of "the likelihood of excess stress concentrations, fatigue cracking, structural failure and in-flight aircraft break up as a result of the structural deficiencies."

In a December interview with the Post-Dispatch, Stilwell said he managed to eject from the plane despite smashing his left shoulder and arm as the aircraft began to fishtail out of control at 18,000 feet.

His injuries, Stilwell said, required doctors to insert a 10-inch metal plate in the injured arm and shoulder.

Stilwell, who flies commercially for Southwest Airlines, said he has suffered from chronic pain since the accident.

 

[Huggyu2]

St. Louis attorney; he's a private pilot too.
http://www.grgpc.com/morry_cole.html

 

[SIG600]

Popcorn in hand, this is going to be good.

Wonder what effect this will have on his career.

 

[ableone]

Popcorn in hand, this is going to be good.

Wonder what effect this will have on his career.

Which one?

Military or civilian?

I don't think Southwest employees are allowed to have a negative opinion of Boeing.

I hope this dude recovers, sounds like a painful injury.

 

[JungleJett]

Which one?

Military or civilian?

I don't think Southwest employees are allowed to have a negative opinion of Boeing.

I hope this dude recovers, sounds like a painful injury.

With all due respect, if he took a SAM up the pipe, could he sue the defensive suite maker?

Personally, I think it is a lame law suit. Sh!t happens in military aviation. Unless it is proven to be a manufacturing flaw that was covered up by MD, then this guy should be happy to be alive. I also think he should hang up his bag and drop his wings off at the DO's office. How will he ever get back in an airplane and have complete confidence in it and be willing to push it?

Sort of like our good friend Maverick and the flat spin.....

 

[bagasticks]

With all due respect, if he took a SAM up the pipe, could he sue the defensive suite maker?

Personally, I think it is a lame law suit. Sh!t happens in military aviation. Unless it is proven to be a manufacturing flaw that was covered up by MD, then this guy should be happy to be alive. I also think he should hang up his bag and drop his wings off at the DO's office. How will he ever get back in an airplane and have complete confidence in it and be willing to push it?

Sort of like our good friend Maverick and the flat spin.....

I'll agree with you on the lawsuit, but the "hang up the bag, turn in the wings" probably a little suspect unless you have personally had your body broken bailing out of a jet. . I had a skipper in the Marine Corp that had bailed out of both seats of the F4 (injured both times) and I'll promise you has enough confidence for 10 dudes and would happily push another jet beyond the laws set forth by old man murphy. .

 

[stonewall]

This lawsuit sucks. What's next? If someone GLOCs can his family sue the g-suit maker? Can I sue the other guy if he's out of his block and hits me? Bad idea on first impression.

 

[SIG600]

If you're fat it's simple, they make you sign a waiver that says "ejecting will probably hurt you." No suing for me.

 

[AlbieF15]

I have heard Crow is a good guy. I am shocked by this.

I had this discussion with my wife many times. We were friends with the widow of a German gal married to an American who was killed in a tragic mishap in Germany in 1995...one that later made a lot of National media. I knew the pilot...and we of course grieved for his wife's loss. She was (and as far as I know still is...) a wonderful lady. However--I asked my wife if that ever happened to me, to chunk me in the ground, throw a party, take the SGLI, and leave it at that. Our job is to prevent the NEXT mishap, not sue over the last one. These kinds of cases hurt safety and our ability to move forward with the most capable and tactical equipment.

But...its been a while since I chatted with anyone from St Louis, and maybe there is more to the story. On the surface, however, I am agahst...

 

[JungleJett]

I'll agree with you on the lawsuit, but the "hang up the bag, turn in the wings" probably a little suspect unless you have personally had your body broken bailing out of a jet. . I had a skipper in the Marine Corp that had bailed out of both seats of the F4 (injured both times) and I'll promise you has enough confidence for 10 dudes and would happily push another jet beyond the laws set forth by old man murphy. .

I have not jumped from an airplane but I can assure you that if I were to strap an airplane on that came apart under me and then I sued the builder because I thought the airplane was inherently unsafe, your damn right I would have a lack of confidence in it. In fact, by virtue of the lawsuit, he is stating in court papers that he does not have confidence in the airplane. Take the lawsuit out of the equation and I would be willing to bet that when he went out and pulled his first G's, he would be thinking about it and maybe go a little easy. Maybe I am wrong..but it seems like human nature to me.

If I bought a Ford Explorer with Firestone tires on it and the thing flipped on me and I got hurt, then sued Ford, I would more than likely NOT get back in another Explorer or if I did, be a bit concerned about it.

If this guy feels that he was given a "defective and unreasonably dangerous" airplane, do you really think he would get back in it? Seriously? If you felt that "Boeing knew or should have know that the KC-135 (my edit) as manufactured allowed and permitted for catastrophic flight break-up" and you sued them, would you get back in the airplane?

 

[JungleJett]

Well said...and I have had the same talk with my wife.

There will be something learned from this but I think putting Boeing on the defensive is counter productive.

Metal forgives but it does not forget.

I have heard Crow is a good guy. I am shocked by this.

I had this discussion with my wife many times. We were friends with the widow of a German gal married to an American who was killed in a tragic mishap in Germany in 1995...one that later made a lot of National media. I knew the pilot...and we of course grieved for his wife's loss. She was (and as far as I know still is...) a wonderful lady. However--I asked my wife if that ever happened to me, to chunk me in the ground, throw a party, take the SGLI, and leave it at that. Our job is to prevent the NEXT mishap, not sue over the last one. These kinds of cases hurt safety and our ability to move forward with the most capable and tactical equipment.

But...its been a while since I chatted with anyone from St Louis, and maybe there is more to the story. On the surface, however, I am agahst...

 

[bagasticks]

it all sounds like lawyer jive to me. . probably approached and told he would make out like a bandit and there would not be reprisal. I cant imagine any red-blooded fighter pilot conjurring up something like this without serious influence. . who knows though. .

 

[AdlerDriver]

Another perspective

I think some of the opinions expressed so far were formulated with less than accurate info.

First, we're not talking about taking a SAM up the tailpipe, a GLOC or a mx error of mis-connected hydraulic lines. Apples and oranges. Crow would have no problem getting back in any Eagle that was built properly. This isn’t an “inherent” flaw in the design. That jet would have been just fine if Boeing(McDonnel Douglas, actually) had built it with the proper parts in accordance with that design.

The day that the mishap aircraft rolled off the production line in STL, it had longerons that were not built to specifications. It was a loaded gun that took about 30 years to go off. If they were the proper thickness from the start, this mishap would not have happened. It seems pretty cut and dry to me. We're talking about one of the main structural members of the F-15C. If you were going to mess up and get something wrong, THAT one ain't it. If every single aircraft had this problem, I might be less inclined to support Crow on this. However, MacAir got it right with most of the Eagles and somehow they porked it away with this one and the others that got grounded. A little better quality control isn't asking too much for $35 million, IMO.

BTW SIG, He wasn’t hurt during the actual ejection. His shoulder was already dislocated and his upper arm shattered when the aircraft broke up around him. The canopy bow/frame had already broken in 3 places with one of the pieces slamming his arm/shoulder on its way by. Witness marks in the headrest of the seat show that it’s likely that canopy piece would have decapitated him if he had been upright. Then by the grace of God, he was able to reach behind him (because he was pinned forward by the tumbling) and pull one handle with his good arm. Crow can't raise his left arm above his shoulder and is looking at a year of physical therapy to possibly achieve that goal. Daily pain limits his activity. His FAA medical is pulled and may be gone forever. Obviously he's not flying in the military with his physical condition. So, how about we leave out the “red-blooded fighter pilot” BS and cut the guy a little slack.

 

[AlbieF15]

I respect Adler, and I feel for Crow. I don't like the precedent, however. I think helping the plantiff if this "good" case would only open Pandora's box for a host of future lawsuits that will not serve the best interests of the nation or the folks defending it.

Service members suing the goverment, or the DoD contractors that provide them equipment, is a road that has a lot of potential potholes.

All that said...the bro is in my prayers and I wish him the best in his career and his recovery.

 

[AdlerDriver]

I can't say I'm a big fan of law suits in general. I think our society overdoes it in that department. Unfortunately, sometimes the threat is the only thing that keeps corporations feet to the fire when it comes to safety improvements, proper construction techniques, etc.

......a host of future lawsuits that will not serve the best interests of the nation or the folks defending it.

Service members suing the goverment, or the DoD contractors that provide them equipment, is a road that has a lot of potential potholes.

???? So, not only do those folks get to attempt to defend said nation with equipment supplied by the lowest bidder, now they don't even have the same recourse a civilian has to pursue damages if the equipment is defective? How is that in their "best interest"? How can we ask young men and women to join the armed forces and do those jobs if they can’t even be confident that the equipment they’re provided with has at least been built properly?

Would you feel better if the USAF did the lawsuit? Why does the USAF have to accept over 150 F-15C/D aircraft that were delivered with sub-standard airframes? There’s no accountability for this? The USAF should be the one’s going after MD – then make things right with Crow.

Do we, as military members, just have to accept being supplied with a sub-standard product and deal with it? I would think the tolerance for screw-ups in DoD contractor operations would be lower BECAUSE of the nature of their business – not higher because they know they can get a way with it.

 

[AlbieF15]

My solution would be for Congress and the AF to take up this case...not individual lawyers. A Congressional hearing (closed door) could probably get the same effect, while at the same time preventing a host of frivolous claims in the future.

I've got 2300 hours in the jet...of course I want them to do it right. I'm on your side on that one...

 

[SIG600]

BTW SIG, Details of the ejection...

I wasn't speaking in direct reference to him, just a previous post, and commenting that the Navy actually makes us sign a waiver if you're out of MB seat limits. Thats all.

 

[bagasticks]

nor was I stating that said eagle driver wasn't a "red blooded american" my point was that he must have had reason to file suit against the manufacturer of his steed (aside from ejection being dangerous in and of itself). . .If the plane was bought off substandard than absolutely someone should be held accountable. .

 

[JungleJett]

There are a lot of guys in Viet Nam whose families should have a pretty good case against Colt (Armalite)for the poor design of the original M-16.

I too feel for the guy and pray for a full recovery. I too think this will open up a host of other potential suits.

What if this were a commercial airliner? What would the FAA do? Maybe the answer should be to park them all...indefinitely.

 

[AdlerDriver]

What if this were a commercial airliner? What would the FAA do? Maybe the answer should be to park them all...indefinitely.

Huh??

 

[JungleJett]

Huh??

What is your answer to the manufacturing flaw in the airplane? Should we allow them to continue flying and maybe not be so lucky with the next pilot. (And by saying not so lucky, I mean being killed).

If there is something wrong with the airplane, then park it until they are ALL fixed. Why risk another life?

If the FAA were to find a design flaw with a certified airplane, they would give the owner/operator a certain amount of time to fix it or ground the airplane. If it were severe enough, they would ground a fleet. It if were not serious enough and could be controlled by a limit being placed on the operation of the airplane, that would be an answer as well. Should we limit the airplanes capabilities? Say..maybe no more than 2 or 3 g's? What if Boeing were to come out with such a limitation until a solution could be had. Would that be acceptable to both the USAF and the crews that fly the airplane?

 

[AdlerDriver]

What is your answer to the manufacturing flaw in the airplane? Should we allow them to continue flying and maybe not be so lucky with the next pilot. (And by saying not so lucky, I mean being killed).

If there is something wrong with the airplane, then park it until they are ALL fixed. Why risk another life?

If the FAA were to find a design flaw with a certified airplane, they would give the owner/operator a certain amount of time to fix it or ground the airplane. If it were severe enough, they would ground a fleet. It if were not serious enough and could be controlled by a limit being placed on the operation of the airplane, that would be an answer as well. Should we limit the airplanes capabilities? Say..maybe no more than 2 or 3 g's? What if Boeing were to come out with such a limitation until a solution could be had. Would that be acceptable to both the USAF and the crews that fly the airplane?

I think you're confused about what is going on with the F-15s. They did ground them. Then they checked and found the ones with sub-standard longerons. The ones that actually cracked are not flying. The ones that haven't cracked were evaluated and put on various levels of enhanced inspection. Now that the problem is identified, no more lives will be at risk. I'd fly any of the aircraft that have been cleared to fly. The solution that was arrived at was obviously acceptable to the USAF and the pilots because the aircraft are flying again.
I'm not really sure how much this particular point relates to the original discussion.

 

[SIG600]

What if this were a commercial airliner? What would the FAA do? Maybe the answer should be to park them all...indefinitely.

Grounding a fleet of (insert airliner model here) doesn't have a direct effect on National Security.

 

[JungleJett]

Grounding a fleet of (insert airliner model here) doesn't have a direct effect on National Security.

I agree 100%...but a law suit might.

 

[coho92]

I guess if he is suing for his injury while on a military status, than of course DOD should have the right to charge him for the use of the ejection seat, helicopter transport to the hospital, and definitely ask for any pay and benefits provided while recovering from said mishap. I wasn't aware that an officer on military duty could randomly sue contractors, the SPOs, might as well go after the logistics center that did the the overhauls, defiantly local maintenance was faulty in not realizing this, if this goes through I'm hoping to make millions in pain and suffering caused by TACC but really - we're all officers who took a frick'n oath and know the risks involved flying in todays military - everybody who has been in this business for a few years knows someone who has flown west so to go and sue the aircraft manufacturer is chicken ****, that's the USAF's job not some pilots - sounds like conduct unbecoming to me so flame on

my two cents

 

[jdlilfan]

The plaintiff might have a case really. Government Contractors are shielded from liability for injuries and death to not only military personal but civilians while using their products if a design defect is found. They are not protected by the Us Gov't for manufacturing defects.

my 2 cents...

 

[atomicmatt]

Should have known he was ANG

I knew I'd get your attention. Come on, people. This jet was 27 years old and had lived most of her life in the BFM arena. I've lost several friends to accidents involving maintenance and the word "sue" has never entered into a conversation in the post mortem.

Those of us with gold wings accept the fact that this is a very dangerous business and we are much more likely to kill ourselves in the air than some engineer that designed this plane more than three decades ago. If airframe fatigue is a problem, it should have been discovered years ago during the many routine inspections that our precious Sailors, Marines, and Airmen (OK, Soldiers too, but we are talking about fighters here) make oh so many times.

 

[milky]

I am all for him getting taken care of for any long-term injuries that hinder his career earnings potential. I would hope for the same for me if it happened to me.

I am curious how Boeing is really the target of the lawsuit. The US Government bought the product. If they have an issue with a default in the contract, they should be seeking damages. As a user of the equipment, it seems to me that a pilot would only have the right to sue the owner of the equipment. The lawsuit should be against the AF for allowing pilots to fly unsafe airplanes (if that is actually the case). I don't agree with this lawsuit as the facts have been discussed here. I know he can't sue the AF, so he may be looking for somebody else to sue. I actually hope that the case is thrown out on the technicality of who is doing the suing. Then, he needs to write a letter to his congressman telling of the unsafe practices/airframes that he has experienced so that they can fix the problem. We all know how efficient that will be, but that seems to be the right process. I agree with the sentiment of most of the posters to this thread, while I do hope/pray for the most expeditious and fullest recovery of my brother in arms.

 

[Deuce130]

I.

Those of us with gold wings accept the fact that this is a very dangerous business and we are much more likely to kill ourselves in the air than some engineer that designed this plane more than three decades ago.

But guys with silver wings don't accept this? Whatever.

 

[AdlerDriver]

I knew I'd get your attention. Come on, people. This jet was 27 years old and had lived most of her life in the BFM arena.

If airframe fatigue is a problem, it should have been discovered years ago during the many routine inspections .......

Gold wings - yah... whatever.

You're entitled to your opinion but at least form it with actual facts.

The unit converted to C-models about 3 years ago and the jet lived most of "her" life on active duty. That means it's got plenty of Saudi sand in the nooks and crannies and boocoo hours in the 1990's capathon over Iraq. So your BFM theory is out.

It wasn't simple airframe fatigue. A major structural member was improperly fabricated during the initial construction of the jet. "Routine inspection" schedules are established using the specs of the aircraft. If it ain't built to those specs, how can you be so sure it would have gone the full distance between inspection cycles and have been discovered? Not to mention, the failure point is not at the "normal" high stress areas typically scrutinized during "routine inspections".