Cessna Being Sued by Family of Pilot

[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