I for one am appalled at the insensitivity of some responses on this thread and just as befuddled at how many pilots are placing the entire burden of not only this accident, but ANY accident, on the PIC. The typical reaction I’ve seen post-accident from fellow pilots (and the unions without exception) is a concerted effort to blame anything and anyone BUT the pilots, even though we know historically about 80% of all accidents involve an element of pilot error. However, the trend, at least in scheduled operations, seems to be changing. A large number of relatively recent major crashes have in fact been caused primarily by factors other than pilot error.
Planes do fail and it is not always the pilot’s fault. He or she may not be in a position to effectively “deal with it” due to a manufacturer’s failure to warn, a failure to properly train, or, the aircraft might have been rendered completely unflyable because of a catastrophic system/structural failure. There may be a defect in the design itself or in the manufacturing process. For a classic example, think Comet. In the past few years, I’ve been involved in a number of major crash investigations in which pilot action was only a small part of the equation, if at all: US 427, US 5481, AS 261 are a few. UA 232 has also been mentioned. Capt. Haynes of course might understandably wish everyone had survived, but if you think he takes all of the blame for the accident and its outcome, you are mistaken. Some might say he and the other cockpit crewmembers simply did what they were paid to do, but in my book, they went far beyond that. They certainly had not practiced their situation in the sim. What if MacDoug knew, years before the accident, that an uncontained failure of #2 would very likely lead to a loss of all major flight controls and they consciously decided not to address the hazard? Is that not acceptance of the risk by the manufacturer? Should they not be held accountable? Of course. They EXPECT to be held liable in such a situation and account for it. The manufacturer in that type of case assumes the risk of the accident occurring and the resulting liability. The occupants of the aircraft, whether pilots or passengers, do not. To suggest otherwise is both absurd and contrary to law.
There are undeniable indications that the MU-2 carries an atypical operating risk under certain conditions. Adequate management of the risk may entail anything from a simple one line warning placard to extensive scenario specific training, perhaps a type rating requirement, on up to major design changes, and maybe (in very rare situations), grounding of a fleet. Were it not for the extreme economic hardship that would have occurred throughout the whole country, not just the airlines, the entire early series 73’s would have been (temporarily) grounded after US 427. There were some high up in the DC food chain that wanted to do so regardless of the consequences. Look at what the USMC did with the Osprey. Personally, I think there is a problem, or problems, with the MU-2 and I do not believe they have been adequately addressed. Otherwise, the accident history would be substantially different than what it is.
Exactly what needs to be done remains to this day unanswered, but I guarantee you the anticipated NTSB final report will not be the end of the story. It never is. There are both political and economic reasons for that. If you think that the FAA or NTSB can or will step in and FULLY address this, or similar situations, you’d be wrong, far more often than not. As noted above, the wheels (props) must keep on turning for the greater good of the nation. The individuals wronged are often left out in the cold. They must instead rely upon our civil justice system. This can be good for aviation safety too, if for no other reason than the fact that the concept of legal cause is much broader than the technical (probable) cause. In addition, their individual power to cause a change may actually be more effective than government action in improving safety. Regulation can only go so far. Finally, a truly comprehensive investigation to unearth all contributing factors takes much more time and money than the NTSB has to spend, especially on general aviation/135 accidents (unless of course one or more victims was powerful and/or famous).
I get the impression that a significant number of posters feel like the families of crash victims have some sort of objectionable agenda. There are people (including aviation attorneys) who are not only seeking just compensation for their (client’s) loss, but honestly want to try to prevent the same accident from ever happening again. The surviving families of crash victims receive monetary compensation for their loss because that is the only method we have. Their losses are real and they run deep. As has been said, the loss of a close family member is a far cry from the loss of a fellow aviator. Relatively few aviators of more than a couple of years experience have escaped knowing a fallen comrade. On the other hand, few aviators have faced the loss of their husband, wife, parent, etc. to a crash. This may explain to some extent the apparent disdain pilots have for post-accident litigants, and their defense of each other, or even their “rides.” It may also be a reason that, as a group, pilots (and virtually anyone professionally active in aviation) fail to understand that there is a monumental difference between JUST compensation for the family of an air crash victim and the aim of too many frivolous suits admittedly filed in the past that we have all heard about. I too detest the latter. I despise even mere suggestions that ignore where obvious fault may lie (e.g., the it is always the PIC and no one else line).
While it is true enough that pilots more often than not bear some/most of the blame, there is almost always something else, some additional factor, without which the accident would not have occurred. Shouldn’t ALL possible causes be considered, if not for the purpose of assigning blame, then in the interest of preventing, or at least reducing the risk of, a reoccurrence? Many times I have steadfastly refused to pursue theories of liability against aircraft builders, or any other potential party, including pilots. There must be something far more substantial than the bare possibility that someone, or something, played a role in bringing a plane down. The assertion of fault must be made in good faith with a reasonable basis. A finding of actual liability requires that one carry a heavy burden of proof. Even if that burden is carried, there are very specific limits on how much can be received in damages and sometimes severe limits on the types of damage that are compensable.
Before someone starts up with the greedy lawyer argument, allow me to say that I am personally familiar with virtually every single major aviation attorney/law firm in the USA. With the rarest of exceptions, I don’t know anyone who has “gotten rich” litigating plane crashes (especially GA and 135 cases). Air crash cases are long and arduous. The days of large contingency fees have gone the way of airline pilot salaries (i.e., down, in most cases, way down). A number of these aviation lawyers, their associates and consultants, are themselves ex-airline and former military pilots, or once worked as engineers for the manufacturers, and so on. An even larger number of them have a GA background as well, including everything from J-3’s to jets. The best, most successful of the lot do what they do because they believe in what they are doing. They should. Many of the aircraft design and ops procedure changes that make flying as safe as it now is were made in response to the investigations related to crash litigation, not an NTSB recommendation or FAA initiative. Every time you and I board an airplane, we are safer because of it – like it or not.
I sincerely hope that the families of those who needlessly died in these most recent MU-2 crashes sought and obtained adequate representation. They deserve compensation for their loss, closure, and certainly, more sympathy than that exhibited by those who would blindly defend a tarnished heap of metal over the life of a human being. Boards such as this one can be valuable sources of information, but I have to agree that the sort of answers sought will probably not be found here. Furthermore, certain types of posts may be harmful to the families, not just those replies directed at them, but potentially those made by them – if they intend to pursue legal action. However, there is a way for these post-accident threads to be productive for the aviation community as a whole. Generally speaking, the free exchange of ideas without fear of retaliation, coupled with thoughtful analysis, hazard identification and proposed solutions, is indeed one of the most effective methods known to improve aviation safety.
