Cessna Being Sued by Family of Pilot

[Swass]

Family of pilot sues Cessna over crash

BY MOLLY MCMILLIN

The Wichita Eagle

The family of the pilot killed in a crash of a Cessna Caravan airplane has filed suit against Cessna Aircraft Co. alleging fraud, product liability, negligence and breach of warranty.
The family is seeking $25 million in punitive damages for the loss of their mother, Nancy Chase Allen, an air cargo pilot for a FedEx feeder airline.
Cessna's policy is not to comment on any litigation, spokesman Doug Oliver said.
The Canadian Transportation Safety Board is investigating the crash on Oct. 6, 2005, near a major intersection in Winnipeg, Manitoba.
The board has cited in-flight airframe icing as a factor in the crash, according to the Nolan Law Group, a Chicago law firm representing the family.
Cessna is marketing the Caravan as a safe and secure plane for winter operations, the law firm said in a statement. But lives are being lost.
The Chicago law firm is representing victims and families from four accidents involving Caravan planes that have crashed from icing induced stalls.
"There is an undeniable pattern of design failure directly contributing to the growing number of people killed and injured in these crashes," the firm said in a statement.



What design failure? This crap is ridiculous. Last time I checked ice sticks to every airplane.

 

[ground stop]

sue for a large amount, then cessna will settle for $2 mil or so. lawyers get $1 mil then divide the rest between the people in the class action. easy money, just work for the plantiff's clerks and cessna's lawyers.

 

[big_al]

so accountability over your actions and what products you make, is wrong?

 

[Hung Start]

"There is an undeniable pattern of design failure directly contributing to the growing number of people killed and injured in these crashes," the firm said in a statement.

Sure is. A badly trained or prepared pilot.

Hung

 

[torchred]

Good point when it comes to the pilots training and preparedness for such conditions, especially in Winnipeg!

 

[Swass]

so accountability over your actions and what products you make, is wrong?

How is Cessna liable?

How about this -
Send a bill to Bic for every forest fire that was caused by lighting a cigarette and then tossing the butt out of your car window. Is Bic liable or is the smoker?

Read my sig. Idiot.

 

[Hung Start]

I can easily think of at least a dozen guys on this board who flew up in Maine, all winter long. Slogging along in piston twins well below 10,000 feet, day in and day out. Or, should I say, all night long! All of the Northeast and Canada.
I never heard of a trip canceled because of flying conditions, but I can recall cancelled trips because the runways were too iced up to land!

Were we all lucky?? I don't think the odds were that good. And, did we all get scared sh#tless once and a while,, you betcha!! But nobody I know got hurt because of in-flight icing.
You learn early on to prepair for it, and respect it.

Hung

 

[ksu_aviator]

If the aircraft is tested to be unsafe than Cessna is liable for making false claims about a product. If the pilots exceeded published limits than they are liable.

 

[MrPink1911]

i hesitate to say problem, but if there wasn't an issue then the FAA would not have issued the airworthiness directive regarding C208s and icing.... it hasn't been isolated incidents of C208s having problems with icing.... personally, i like the airplane, but when as the temps keep on dropping, you can bet that i am not just going to blindly punch through icing conditions.... i guess the bottom line is, all 208 drivers should be aware of the planes propensity to accumulate ice, and should all have some sort of plan in mind to deal with it when its encountered.... pilot training, yes..... after all, the PIC has the responsibility for flying into the conditions in the first place.... my $.02 thank you.

 

[AC560]

How about this -
Send a bill to Bic for every forest fire that was caused by lighting a cigarette and then tossing the butt out of your car window. Is Bic liable or is the smoker?

That one is easy, Big Tobacco is to blame.

 

[Hootie9750]

This is retarded. F'ing lawyers.

 

[bell47]

Blaming Cessna is like blaming a spoon for being fat. Families don't ever believe that there dead family member did anything wrong. I've flown a caravan (in Maine) and yup I've been in the ice. Maybe I was lucky. I just don't think it's cessna's fault. bell47

 

[BombJet45]

My exact words too Hootie. Lawyers are ruining this country.

 

[osu_av8r]

right, lawyers are scum. but objectively and from a product liability standpoint, I think they have a valid case. ask anyone and you'll find that the caravan is connected to icing like the Ford Pinto is to bursting into flames. as much as I want to vomit, they have a case.

 

[Kruger Stellman]

right, lawyers are scum. but objectively and from a product liability standpoint, I think they have a valid case. ask anyone and you'll find that the caravan is connected to icing like the Ford Pinto is to bursting into flames. as much as I want to vomit, they have a case.

Just like the V Bonanza is a killer ? Take any aircraft and put a low time inexperienced pilot in it and you will have a higher accident rate. You can't blame an airplane for a pilots poor performance. If you look at the cases in question, you will see that they are ALL low time pilots out there trying to build time. Not old salts that have been at the job for 30+ years. There will always be some money hungry a__hole lawyer to take a product liability case. IMHO

 

[HalinTexas]

Does the Caravan have boots?

How are they gonna prove that icing caused the incident?

Maybe her training in the use of said boots was to blame. Maybe she forgot to put the gear down. (graveyard humor)

I think it's probably overblown, like the Eagle-ATR-Roselawn incident.

 

[Princedietrich]

There is absolutely nothing unsafe or fraudulent about the design of the Caravan. While the airplane is definitely not designed to slog through the worst ice that mother nature can offer, that's not the point. NO aircraft is designed to do that. Ice protection systems are designed to keep the airplane safe long enough for a smart, well-trained pilot to GET OUT of the bad stuff. The Caravan will keep you alive and safe long enough for you to get out of the really nasty ice, and it will shrug off the light stuff with nothing more than a slight airspeed loss (well ok, any airspeed loss in a Caravan is signifigant since the things are so dang slow).

The point is that Cessna is not to blame, not in this case or in any other case where a 'Van went down in ice. This is pilot error/negligence, pure and simple. We wouldn't have all these ADs and the 'Van wouldn't have this reputation if idiot pilots didn't go blasting off into category 5 ice storms, turn on the autopilot, and whip out the Maxim while the airplane turns into an igloo around them.

Pilot error, pilot negligence. Nuff said.

 

[Hung Start]

I don't care what airplane you are in, sit in icing conditions long enough and boots, heater, etc. are going to get overloaded.

And,, not like they don't fail when you need them the most, I'm sure none of us have seen that!

One wing blowing, one frozen down. Half the tail cleaned, one blade heater inop. Icing is a dark art, I tell ya!!

And, not in any way to defend litigators, but it is always thye surviving geedy family member that retains and authorizes the attorney. Lawyers don't usually just sue for the fun of it. (except that Philly, gear up my jet, lawyer)

Hung

 

[MrPink1911]

ok, so agreed that the airplane is not bad.... but the AD requires an increase of some 20 knots to the minimum icing airspeed AND 4 very explicit criteria to what constitutes moderate icing when encountered while flying the Van.... i guess sorta idiot proofing the airplane.... but what it suggests is that pilots were flying the plane per the pre-AD limitations and still cracking them up and getting themselves hurt in the process..... does this mean the airplane is bad??? no.... does it mean the pilots where ill prepared for what they flew into??? maybe.... and i think at least one of the guys was fairly high time.... but still, any time the govt. mandates changes to how your product is operated because people are getting hurt, you can pretty much bet that the lawsuits are soon to follow.... and from an uneducated jury's perspective, all they are going to see is that the govt. stepped in and forced changes.... that alone is evidence enough to show there was a problem with the product.... and the punitive judgements will be soon to follow!!!

 

[osu_av8r]

Exactly Mr.Pink. we know the caravan can be operated safely, but this is an aviation forum so we all know better. everyone else put yourself in the perspective of the lawyers, jurors, the universal notion that the caravan is a turd in ice and previous NTSB reports. We got the ingredients for a lawsuit. Anything is possible in a society where gun manufacturers are being sued because their product had no defects or flaws whatsoever. A person pulled the trigger, therefore the familiy sues Smith & Wesson. A pilot tools around in severe icing, the family sues cessna. Aaaahh, the circle of life.

 

[pilot125]

Can't some of these Caravan crashes due to airframe icing be labeled "unavoidable" events, where it's not necesarily the pilot's fault, and at the same time, not a problem with the design of the airplane----just very bad luck (which does happen in aviation from time to time). There is such a thing.

Example----Experienced caravan pilot with 10,000+ hours and vast knowledge of airframe icing takes off from airport. Climbing through 2000', he's picking up ice. As he continues his climb through 3000', same thing. Keeps climbing like we all would, trying to get in between layer, like we all would. Through 4000', 5000', and 6000', still not out of the ice. Keeps climbing through 7, 8, 9, and 10,000', and still no relief. Maybe he tries to go higher, maybe he can't anymore. In any case he has no other choice but to go back down, searching for layers..........at this point, on his way down, and passing through 3000', with no relief in sight, the airplane has loads of ice and will not fly anymore. THE END.

Now, I know this is not the best example, but it is just off the top of my head, and I'm sure you can pick out different points in this scenario and say he could have done this or he could have done that...... but the point I'm trying to make is that, in general, this guy tried doing the right thing and what you're trained to do. He tried finding layers, climbed as high as he could initially, then started back down trying to find layers again. He never once stayed at an altitude where the icing was building up on his airframe.

Now I haven't flown a light twin in a while, but when I was, that's how we tackled icing up here in the midwest. The system worked, and it worked well. Still, it wasn't always a sure thing. One airplane would fly through an area of severe icing, and 5 minutes later another airplane would fly through that same area and not pick up any ice at all. Thats how UNPREDICTABLE ice is, as we all know.

We all have our own horror stories or know somebody who has been iced up, started to get scared, and then finding an OUT, either landing at the nearest airport or finding a warm layer or something that helped us get out of the situation. And 99.9% of the time, we come across an OUT! But what would have happened if we didn't find that OUT.............if you never found that layer, if your airplane could not maitain altitude and there was no suitable airport within 50+ miles............etc..........THAT'S CALLED BAD LUCK!

BAD LUCK does happen, and maybe it had happened with some of those caravan crashes, and maybe not. But all's I'm saying is that icing can sneak up on you and bite you in the you-know-what. I've never flown a caravan, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do know that there are rare instances where even the best of us are unable to escape. Stuff like that happens, as rare as it is.

I do believe that inexperience has played a big part in alot of these caravan crashes, but not ALL of them. Don't they have fairly high insurance minimums on these airplanes? It's not like 500 hr. pilots are flying these caravans around all over the country......right????????

 

[Kruger Stellman]

Can't some of these Caravan crashes due to airframe icing be labeled "unavoidable" events, where it's not necesarily the pilot's fault, and at the same time, not a problem with the design of the airplane----just very bad luck (which does happen in aviation from time to time). There is such a thing.

Example----Experienced caravan pilot with 10,000+ hours and vast knowledge of airframe icing takes off from airport. Climbing through 2000', he's picking up ice. As he continues his climb through 3000', same thing. Keeps climbing like we all would, trying to get in between layer, like we all would. Through 4000', 5000', and 6000', still not out of the ice. Keeps climbing through 7, 8, 9, and 10,000', and still no relief. Maybe he tries to go higher, maybe he can't anymore. In any case he has no other choice but to go back down, searching for layers..........at this point, on his way down, and passing through 3000', with no relief in sight, the airplane has loads of ice and will not fly anymore. THE END.

Now, I know this is not the best example, but it is just off the top of my head, and I'm sure you can pick out different points in this scenario and say he could have done this or he could have done that...... but the point I'm trying to make is that, in general, this guy tried doing the right thing and what you're trained to do. He tried finding layers, climbed as high as he could initially, then started back down trying to find layers again. He never once stayed at an altitude where the icing was building up on his airframe.

Now I haven't flown a light twin in a while, but when I was, that's how we tackled icing up here in the midwest. The system worked, and it worked well. Still, it wasn't always a sure thing. One airplane would fly through an area of severe icing, and 5 minutes later another airplane would fly through that same area and not pick up any ice at all. Thats how UNPREDICTABLE ice is, as we all know.

We all have our own horror stories or know somebody who has been iced up, started to get scared, and then finding an OUT, either landing at the nearest airport or finding a warm layer or something that helped us get out of the situation. And 99.9% of the time, we come across an OUT! But what would have happened if we didn't find that OUT.............if you never found that layer, if your airplane could not maitain altitude and there was no suitable airport within 50+ miles............etc..........THAT'S CALLED BAD LUCK!

BAD LUCK does happen, and maybe it had happened with some of those caravan crashes, and maybe not. But all's I'm saying is that icing can sneak up on you and bite you in the you-know-what. I've never flown a caravan, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do know that there are rare instances where even the best of us are unable to escape. Stuff like that happens, as rare as it is.

I do believe that inexperience has played a big part in alot of these caravan crashes, but not ALL of them. Don't they have fairly high insurance minimums on these airplanes? It's not like 500 hr. pilots are flying these caravans around all over the country......right????????

Don't you consider a Lear a light twin?

 

[Steve]

Anyone know how much time she had in the 'van and total? I've always heard that the fedex feeders required some pretty high time (>2000) to get in the caravan. Don't they all train at flight safety or with cessna in Kansas? If thats the case i'd imagine the training would have been pretty good.

 

[DZ BUM & EFS]

The real problem with the Cessna 208 is that its a general avaition plane being asked to do a commercial job. How many accidents would there be if the pilots got to pick the days they fly of don't?

 

[CutEmUp]

. Anything is possible in a society where gun manufacturers are being sued because their product had no defects or flaws whatsoever.

This is a very good point. However, the view of the courts is that a gun or an airplane can never be produced without any defects.

The "defect" and product liability of the gun comes from the fact that they are so dangerous. It is the obligation of the manufacturer to do as much as possible to mitigate the danger of it's product. This is very dificult to do with both guns and aircraft.

Take Cirrus for example. Do you think that you are really getting a good deal because with your purchase of a new airplane you get some free flight training? Maybe, but Cirrus itself does this to reduce the product liability by mitigating the dangerous nature of the aircraft by putting a better trained pilot at the controls.

There is a point where product liability lawsuits get rediculous (usually because of lawyers). The GA revitilazation act of 1993 did a great deal to help the small guys Cessa, Beech, Piper get back into light GA aircraft manufacturing without having to worry so much about frivolous product liability lawsuits.

 

[Bringupthebird]

They'll settle for 20 million and the requirement for a placard that says, " A turbine engine and the name FedEx on the side doesn't make you invinceable. If it's slippery outside, go tell dispatch you're going to the hotel".

 

[Hung Start]

Or move to South Florida, like me!

Haven't seen an icing acident report in months.

(of course, haven't seen IFR down here in a loong while, either)

Hung