Pilot's Estates, Morgan Stanley, Continental, TW Smith in PWK 421 Crash Suit

[FN FAL]

Suit filed in fatal plane crash

Widow sues pilots and enginemaker, alleging negligence

By Richard Wronski
Tribune staff reporter
Published February 9, 2006

The family of one of four men killed in a plane crash last month near Palwaukee Municipal Airport filed a wrongful-death lawsuit Wednesday, alleging that the engine manufacturer and the pilots were negligent.

The lawsuit blames the crash on the failure of the Cessna 421B's left engine.

Filed in Cook County Circuit Court on behalf of Michael Waugh's widow, Lisa, and their three young sons, the lawsuit lists as principal defendant Teledyne Industries Inc., doing business as Teledyne Continental Motors of Mobile, Ala.

The lawsuit also names as defendants the estates of the plane's pilot-owners, Mark Turek, a senior vice president in the Riverwoods office of Morgan Stanley, and Kenneth Knudson, founder of Sybaris Clubs International. Both men died in the crash, as did Scott Garland, 40, of Chicago.

Also listed as defendants were Morgan Stanley, Sybaris and Cincinnati-based T.W. Smith Engine Co., which the suit said overhauled and installed the left engine in 1996.

Neither Teledyne nor New York-based Morgan Stanley would comment. Rande Repke, Sybaris' president, said Wednesday that Sybaris did not own the plane and that Knudson was not flying on company business. Others named could not be reached.

On Jan. 30, the plane came down nose-first around 6:30 p.m. about a mile south of Palwaukee in Wheeling as it was making its final approach.

The attorney who filed the lawsuit, Gary Robb of Kansas City, Mo., said the Teledyne engines have "a disturbing history of in-flight failure."

John Brannen, lead investigator for the National Transportation Safety Board, said Wednesday that the crash was still under investigation. The engines will be shipped to Teledyne's plant, where they will be disassembled and examined, he said.

Last week, Brannen said investigators were only certain that one of the Cessna's propellers was rotating at the time of the crash, based on wreckage evidence.

Several factors, including metal shavings contaminating the engine's oil or a broken rod, could have caused the engine to lock up, Robb said.

Robb also cited an analysis of NTSB data reported last Friday in the Tribune that showed fatalities occurred in half the accidents involving twin-engine Cessna 421 models that had engine loss, even though the plane was designed to fly on one engine. All occurred on takeoffs and landings, which made handling the plane especially difficult.

"Losing an engine just before final approach is going to be fatal," Robb said.

The Waugh lawsuit seeks more than $50,000 from each of the defendants.

Waugh, 37, of Algonquin, was an equity partner in ICON LLP, which runs restaurants, and was general manager of Joe's Seafood, Prime Steak & Stone Crab of Chicago.

 

[NoPax]

I'm sorry for her loss, and don't know what to say about this other than...

Liability lawsuit raises it's ugly head again.

The engine was overhauled, according the article ten years ago Where's Avbug to talk about engine corrosion when you need him?

"Losing an engine just before final approach is going to be fatal," Robb said. - If the engine separated from the airframe probably, is that what the ambulence chaser means? Nice abiguous sweeping statement from him.

Maybe they should wait until the NTSB has finished with their investigation before jumping to assumptions.

Seem to remember reports of clear ice that day...hmmmmm

 

[FN FAL]

Looks like waiting for the NTSB IS a big issue nowdays. I used to fly an engineering company around and assist them with accident investigations, everything from semi-trucks flattening pickup trucks, suv roll overs, cars leaving the road and boucing off trees. Usually both parties agreed to hire the engineering consulting firm to investigate their case. In the semi-truck v. the pickup truck case, we were eating lunch after taking the data, when the lead engineer called the trucking firm's insurance people and advised them to make the early out of court offer. It was determined that the semi-driver crossed the centerline, killing the pickup truck driver. As we took measurements, the sheriff's department investigator did his measurements, he wanted to make sure that everyone came up with the same conclusion as the "accident" was being investigated as a "HOMICIDE". Meaning, you get in any kind of accident where someone dies, it it is considered a homicide. In today's world, the word "accident" doesn't exist, only degrees of culpability and negligence.

NTSB Goes to Fewer Crashes
Backlogged Investigators Pass on Small-Plane Accident Sites


[SIZE=-1]By Sara Kehaulani Goo
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, February 8, 2006; A17
[/SIZE]
Strapped with a backlog of cases and a tight budget, the National Transportation Safety Board is sending investigators to fewer and fewer fatal airplane crashes -- particularly those involving small planes. And that has safety experts worried.

Last year, the agency's accident investigators showed up at 62 percent of all fatal plane crashes, compared with 75 percent of all fatal crashes in 2001, according to NTSB numbers. But data from the Federal Aviation Administration -- which is required to send an investigator to every accident and take note of whether the NTSB is on the scene -- indicate that NTSB investigators showed up less than half the time last year.

The NTSB chafed at the FAA numbers, calling them inaccurate. After a back-and-forth between the agencies, the FAA backed down, acknowledging that its numbers may be unreliable.

Whether the NTSB showed up at 62 percent or less than half of all fatal crashes last year, the downward trend since 2001 has alarmed former accident investigators.
Most of the nation's 1,700 crashes last year involved small planes, such as turboprops owned by individuals. About 350 of those accidents caused at least one fatality.

"The consequences are, you're going to miss some things," said Gene Doub, a former NTSB accident investigator who teaches at University of Southern California. "Every one of these are not just dumb pilots. Some are airspace-system or training issues or airworthiness issues."

Acting NTSB Chairman Mark V. Rosenker said the agency wants "more safety payback" for the accidents where it spends its time. Beginning in 2004, investigators stopped going to small crashes in which the cause seemed to be obvious, such as an inexperienced pilot who flew into trees or a crop-duster that struck a utility pole.

Under the current process, he said, investigators can focus on crashes where a new safety lesson is likely to be gained. Investigators have been encouraged to whittle away at the agency's backlog of 944 accident investigations, each of which is more than six months old. (In 2001, the backlog was 2,400 cases.) "Investigators were showing up to a scene, writing down facts and sticking it in a pile," Rosenker said. "There is a greater payback in doing it the way it is currently being done."

If an NTSB investigator does not arrive on the scene, the agency relies on the FAA to handle much of the field work and eventually an NTSB investigator writes up a probable cause. The NTSB has about 70 accident investigators, and the FAA has several hundred inspectors who also serve as investigators.
Seasoned investigators worry that showing up at fewer accidents means the NTSB could miss an opportunity to improve safety.

The NTSB did not send an accident investigator to a June 2002 crash in Meridian, Miss., after a pilot flying a Piper aircraft reported engine trouble, declared an emergency and crashed in a field short of the airport. The pilot, who was flying alone, was seriously injured.

At first glance, the accident appeared to be caused by an engine failure, which is not unusual to investigators. After examining the engine, FAA investigators learned that a crankshaft gear bolt had failed because it had been improperly made of zinc rather than harder cadmium. The engine's manufacturer, Lycoming, had made a similar part for helicopters, which had also failed and caused several accidents.

Three months later, in Byram Township, N.J., another pilot flying a Piper with the same model of Lycoming engine crashed after the engine quit at 3,500 feet. Two people were killed, and two others on board were seriously injured. The NTSB sent an investigator to that accident, which was caused by a failure of the same crankshaft gear bolt.

Safety experts and makers of small aircraft said the incident highlights the consequences of the NTSB's picking and choosing certain kinds of accidents to investigate on-site.

"While the FAA is very competent, what they do in their primary mission is not accident investigation," said Gregg Feith, a former NTSB accident investigator who works as a safety consultant. Feith said the FAA serves as a regulatory agency whereas the NTSB is an independent agency whose sole mission is to find the cause of accidents. "If you don't go on-scene and examine it, you're never going to find out the root cause . . . you're going to find the obvious cause," he said.

The NTSB said it is "unfair" to blame the second Piper accident on the NTSB's decision not to send an investigator to the other accident. Jeff Guzzetti, the NTSB's director for regional operations, blamed the FAA for not alerting the aviation community to the problems with the crankshaft bolt sooner.

The FAA disagreed, saying that it was aware of the Lycoming problem with helicopters but was not aware that the problem existed on planes.

Brian Riley, lobbyist for a group representing small-plane manufacturers such as Cessna and Piper, said he has urged Congress to give the NTSB more money so it could hire more investigators.

The 2007 budget plan gives the agency a boost, from $76 million to $80 million, after a flat budget from 2005 to 2006. But it is unclear if Congress will approve the administration's request -- and if it does, how the NTSB would spend it.

Riley said he does not see much hope for more investigators.

"In an ideal world, I'd like them to do all accidents, but I know that will never happen," said Riley, of the General Aviation Manufacturers Association. "We feel the NTSB is the unqualified organization who can come out and do an investigation. They are rarely challenged. It's like a stamp of approval."

 

[indianboy7]

I like how Lawyers are now knowledgable enough to know when an engine failure is going to be fatal........I think we should all start a class action law suit against this dooshbag for being stupid.......imp:

 

[NoPax]

I like how Lawyers are now knowledgable enough to know when an engine failure is going to be fatal........I think we should all start a class action law suit against this dooshbag for being stupid.......imp:

Totally agree with you.

To play devil's advocate...the lawyer said 'losing an engine' - if it separated from the airframe then he has a point, but I haven't heard anything about this particular accident that points that this was the case.

There was a fatal accident involving a Beech Travel Air at Cable, CA a few years ago, where the engine separated from the aircraft, due to a prop problem after an 'overhaul' - the prop became unstable and shook the engine off it's mounts. There was an AD after that, and the prop-shop was closed down.

 

[Dubya]

I did K. Knudsons simulator instrument currency check in 2004. Nice guy. I wonder if they will investigate the training he received in the sim.

W

 

[Kingairrick]

I think it's probable that every aspect of this flight will be examined in minute detail. I would look for more litigation on the horizon.
Scott Garland, the other passenger in the back was a good friend. We grew up together in Bradenton, Florida. He moved to Chicago after college. He is survived by 2 and 5 year old children, and his wife, who is freaking out.
His parents live in Tampa, where his mother is the firm administrator for a HUGE law firm. This firm has a fleet of corporate jets. There will be more suits, their merits will have to be decided by the courts.
It is a tragedy for all involved...

 

[sky37d]

Reminds me about the story about the Doctor from the Mayo Clinic that involved in a traffic accident. Policeman comes up to him, and asks "Are you all right". Doctor responds, "How should I know, I'm not a lawyer".

 

[JohnE]

Money grubbing lawyers should not be allowed to fly or get medical care. PERIOD. You really have to wonder why Teledyne bothers to manufacture GA engines at all. According to this sh*theel all piston twins unsafe.

In America there is no such thing as an accident. Someone must be at fault. To me this tragedy seems like an "accident". My guess is the companies all settle out of court. She gets $20 Million, lawyer gets $20 Million. We all pay a little more. Her husband is still dead though.

 

[FN FAL]

In America there is no such thing as an accident. Someone must be at fault. To me this tragedy seems like an "accident". My guess is the companies all settle out of court. She gets $20 Million, lawyer gets $20 Million. We all pay a little more. Her husband is still dead though.

Since you mentioned "ACCIDENT", can you think of one act that you could do, that wouldn't affect another person or society? I'm not saying I'm above any of you, because things we do every day affect others and we never give it much thought until it results in property damage, personal injury or death.

Don't wear a seat belt? Don't think that not wearing one doesn't affect others? You think the person driving the innocent car enjoyed running over this non-seatbelted driver? What a way to ruin someones day.

http://media.putfile.com/1-thrown_from_vehicle_fatal

I don't know how you could call that aircraft crash an accident. If the plane was not controllable because of poor maintenance practices resulting in the loss of a control surface, that's not an accident. If the plane suffered VMC rollover because of poor airmanship, that is not an accident. If the engine failure occured because of a design flaw or poorly made parts, that is not an accident. If the engine quit because of pilot mismangement, that is not an accident.

I'd rather see the courts handling such a thing, than to see families have to seek justice the mafia way.

 

[JohnE]

Since you mentioned "ACCIDENT", can you think of one act that you could do, that wouldn't affect another person or society? I'm not saying I'm above any of you, because things we do every day affect others and we never give it much thought until it results in property damage, personal injury or death.

Don't wear a seat belt? Don't think that not wearing one doesn't affect others? You think the person driving the innocent car enjoyed running over this non-seatbelted driver? What a way to ruin someones day.

http://media.putfile.com/1-thrown_from_vehicle_fatal

I don't know how you could call that aircraft crash an accident. If the plane was not controllable because of poor maintenance practices resulting in the loss of a control surface, that's not an accident. If the plane suffered VMC rollover because of poor airmanship, that is not an accident. If the engine failure occured because of a design flaw or poorly made parts, that is not an accident. If the engine quit because of pilot mismangement, that is not an accident.

I'd rather see the courts handling such a thing, than to see families have to seek justice the mafia way.

Well, as a courtesy then, you should tell anyone who you fly with or offers you a ride in their car, lets you into their house your beliefs. That way they will know what happens if you get harmed in any way on their property. You will sue them.

"the lawsuit lists as principal defendant Teledyne Industries Inc., doing business as Teledyne Continental Motors of Mobile, Ala."

Has it been established already that the engines were at fault? Not from what I have read. As in most accidents, the NTSB will most likely find the pilot(s) at fault, so I guess they should be the principal defendant, not Teledyne. It seems like a group of friends together flying. Now, in addition to the grief from the deaths of their loved ones, the other families will have to deal with this woman in a drawn out lawsuit. And they may also have to suffer financial pain. Sad. Makes you really question if you should take anyone up in the plane with you, especially young eagles flights.

ps - The girls in your avatar are not that hot. ;-)

 

[Brett Hull]

Those are chicks? uke:

 

[FN FAL]

Well, as a courtesy then, you should tell anyone who you fly with or offers you a ride in their car, lets you into their house your beliefs. That way they will know what happens if you get harmed in any way on their property. You will sue them.

"the lawsuit lists as principal defendant Teledyne Industries Inc., doing business as Teledyne Continental Motors of Mobile, Ala."

Has it been established already that the engines were at fault? Not from what I have read. As in most accidents, the NTSB will most likely find the pilot(s) at fault, so I guess they should be the principal defendant, not Teledyne. It seems like a group of friends together flying. Now, in addition to the grief from the deaths of their loved ones, the other families will have to deal with this woman in a drawn out lawsuit. And they may also have to suffer financial pain. Sad. Makes you really question if you should take anyone up in the plane with you, especially young eagles flights.

ps - The girls in your avatar are not that hot. ;-)

No, it should make you question whether or not an act is negligent and whether or not you want to do such a thing un-insured.

Friends is friends and pals is pals, but if you invite the wife and I over for the weekend and one of your hobies is home furnace repair and we die from axphixiation with you and your wife, I'd hope that my estate would attempt to see justice for my family's loss.