Jaybird180
Final Approach
Ever hear the joke 'A good attorney knows the law, a great one knows the judge'? The below article is an interesting example of a lawyer spinning a story in favor of his clients. If I ever have an incident as a result of improperly applying procedure as documented, somebody find this lawyer for me.
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=bc42ee3c-170b-4efa-bd69-8fb91026786d
Winner Aviation Hit With $11.35 Million Judgement Resulting From 2007 Accident
Attorneys Argued That Skymaster Was Improperly Maintained, Leading To The Crash
One of the largest verdicts resulting from an airplane accident was handed down on December 14 by a Philadelphia jury. Dr. Robert Marisco Jr. and his fiancee Heather Moran, both of Akron, Ohio, were awarded $11.35 million in compensatory damages in an action against Winner Aviation Corporation, a repair facility based at Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport in Ohio.
[URL="http://www.aero-news.net/images/content/politics/2011/Money-0511a.jpg"]
[/URL]
Dr. Marisco, a dermatologic surgeon, and Ms. Moran, the pilot, were flying back to Ohio in Dr. Marsico's Cessna 337 when it developed an engine problems and went down about 10 miles from DeKalb-Peachtree Airport in Georgia on Aug. 8, 2007. A post-crash fire ensued. Dr. Marisco and Ms. Moran both suffered multiple injuries, including third degree burns covering nearly 40 percent of their bodies.
The NTSB notes in its probable cause report that "the pilot, age 34, held a commercial pilot certificate with airplane single engine land, multi engine land, and instrument airplane ratings, and a CL-65 rating with "SIC privileges only." The pilot reported 4,650 hours of total flight time, with 145 hours in make and model. Her latest FAA first class medical certificate was issued on June 5, 2007."
At trial, attorneys for the plaintiffs said Dr. Marsico's Skymaster had been maintained by Winner Aviation prior to his acquisition of the aircraft, and he continued that relationship after he purchased it in 2006. According to the attorneys, from 2006 until the time of the crash, the Skymaster had reportedly experienced recurrent problems with its rear engine. Winner Aviation performed repeated troubleshooting on a waste gate. On the day of the crash, the rear engine on the twin-engine airplane lost power after takeoff, and attempts to restart it failed. Ms. Moran was unable to maintain altitude and attempted an emergency landing. A post-crash fire ensued.
At trial, plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that Winner Aviation did not maintain the aircraft in an "airworthy condition." Plaintiffs further alleged that Winner Aviation's misdiagnosis of the recurrent problems of "power loss" in the rear engine was compounded by an alleged failure to have an appropriate inspector investigate all work that was being performed by its mechanics. Plaintiffs also alleged that Winner Aviation was aware that the front engine was long overdue for a complete overhaul, but did not recommend an overhaul to Dr. Marsico. Plaintiffs argued at trial that the failure to overhaul this engine or, at the very least, perform a proper inspection and repair of its valve guides and other engine parts, caused a diminution of power during an in-flight emergency—precisely when full power was most important.
[URL="http://www.aero-news.net/images/content/genav/2003/c337-3view-0603a.jpg"]
[/URL]
The NTSB probable cause report, which is not admissible as evidence in court, confirmed the engine failure but placed the responsibility for the accident with the pilot. According to the report, "Shortly after takeoff on a hot day, after the airplane was about 10 miles from the departure airport, the rear engine failed for undetermined reasons. The pilot turned the airplane back toward the airport, feathered the rear engine, and maintained front engine power at the top of the green arc of the manifold pressure gage, at 33 inches of manifold pressure. The airplane did not maintain altitude at that power setting, and to avoid houses and vehicles on the ground, the pilot performed a forced landing at a water treatment plant. During the landing, the airplane struck the top of a concrete structure, hit the ground, and became engulfed in flames. According to the owner’s manual, after an engine failure, the remaining engine power to be used is to be "increased as required." The published maximum power setting was 37 inches of manifold pressure at "red line," without any time limitations. A performance calculation indicated that at the existing ambient temperatures, and at that power setting, the airplane should have climbed at least 290 feet per minute. Additional references to the use of a 37-inch power setting, including performance calculations, were noted in the owner’s manual."
The report also states that "At the time of the engine failure, the pilot estimated the airplane was 1,000 to 1,500 feet above the ground, and between 2,700 feet and 3,000 feet above mean sea level (msl). GPS indicated a small airport about 6 miles away, but the pilot felt the larger airport they had just departed, about 10 miles to the south, would be better due to emergency equipment and a control tower. The pilot then began a gradual turn back toward the south, and while doing so, asked the passenger to verify rear engine switch positions. She then attempted an engine restart, and when it was unsuccessful, she contacted DeKalb-Peachtree Tower and advised the controller of the situation."
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be the "pilot’s failure to utilize all of the power available following an engine failure. Contributing to the accident were the failure of the rear engine for undetermined reasons."
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=bc42ee3c-170b-4efa-bd69-8fb91026786d
Winner Aviation Hit With $11.35 Million Judgement Resulting From 2007 Accident
Attorneys Argued That Skymaster Was Improperly Maintained, Leading To The Crash
One of the largest verdicts resulting from an airplane accident was handed down on December 14 by a Philadelphia jury. Dr. Robert Marisco Jr. and his fiancee Heather Moran, both of Akron, Ohio, were awarded $11.35 million in compensatory damages in an action against Winner Aviation Corporation, a repair facility based at Youngstown-Warren Regional Airport in Ohio.
[URL="http://www.aero-news.net/images/content/politics/2011/Money-0511a.jpg"]
[/URL]Dr. Marisco, a dermatologic surgeon, and Ms. Moran, the pilot, were flying back to Ohio in Dr. Marsico's Cessna 337 when it developed an engine problems and went down about 10 miles from DeKalb-Peachtree Airport in Georgia on Aug. 8, 2007. A post-crash fire ensued. Dr. Marisco and Ms. Moran both suffered multiple injuries, including third degree burns covering nearly 40 percent of their bodies.
The NTSB notes in its probable cause report that "the pilot, age 34, held a commercial pilot certificate with airplane single engine land, multi engine land, and instrument airplane ratings, and a CL-65 rating with "SIC privileges only." The pilot reported 4,650 hours of total flight time, with 145 hours in make and model. Her latest FAA first class medical certificate was issued on June 5, 2007."
At trial, attorneys for the plaintiffs said Dr. Marsico's Skymaster had been maintained by Winner Aviation prior to his acquisition of the aircraft, and he continued that relationship after he purchased it in 2006. According to the attorneys, from 2006 until the time of the crash, the Skymaster had reportedly experienced recurrent problems with its rear engine. Winner Aviation performed repeated troubleshooting on a waste gate. On the day of the crash, the rear engine on the twin-engine airplane lost power after takeoff, and attempts to restart it failed. Ms. Moran was unable to maintain altitude and attempted an emergency landing. A post-crash fire ensued.
At trial, plaintiffs claimed, among other things, that Winner Aviation did not maintain the aircraft in an "airworthy condition." Plaintiffs further alleged that Winner Aviation's misdiagnosis of the recurrent problems of "power loss" in the rear engine was compounded by an alleged failure to have an appropriate inspector investigate all work that was being performed by its mechanics. Plaintiffs also alleged that Winner Aviation was aware that the front engine was long overdue for a complete overhaul, but did not recommend an overhaul to Dr. Marsico. Plaintiffs argued at trial that the failure to overhaul this engine or, at the very least, perform a proper inspection and repair of its valve guides and other engine parts, caused a diminution of power during an in-flight emergency—precisely when full power was most important.
[URL="http://www.aero-news.net/images/content/genav/2003/c337-3view-0603a.jpg"]
[/URL]The NTSB probable cause report, which is not admissible as evidence in court, confirmed the engine failure but placed the responsibility for the accident with the pilot. According to the report, "Shortly after takeoff on a hot day, after the airplane was about 10 miles from the departure airport, the rear engine failed for undetermined reasons. The pilot turned the airplane back toward the airport, feathered the rear engine, and maintained front engine power at the top of the green arc of the manifold pressure gage, at 33 inches of manifold pressure. The airplane did not maintain altitude at that power setting, and to avoid houses and vehicles on the ground, the pilot performed a forced landing at a water treatment plant. During the landing, the airplane struck the top of a concrete structure, hit the ground, and became engulfed in flames. According to the owner’s manual, after an engine failure, the remaining engine power to be used is to be "increased as required." The published maximum power setting was 37 inches of manifold pressure at "red line," without any time limitations. A performance calculation indicated that at the existing ambient temperatures, and at that power setting, the airplane should have climbed at least 290 feet per minute. Additional references to the use of a 37-inch power setting, including performance calculations, were noted in the owner’s manual."
The report also states that "At the time of the engine failure, the pilot estimated the airplane was 1,000 to 1,500 feet above the ground, and between 2,700 feet and 3,000 feet above mean sea level (msl). GPS indicated a small airport about 6 miles away, but the pilot felt the larger airport they had just departed, about 10 miles to the south, would be better due to emergency equipment and a control tower. The pilot then began a gradual turn back toward the south, and while doing so, asked the passenger to verify rear engine switch positions. She then attempted an engine restart, and when it was unsuccessful, she contacted DeKalb-Peachtree Tower and advised the controller of the situation."
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be the "pilot’s failure to utilize all of the power available following an engine failure. Contributing to the accident were the failure of the rear engine for undetermined reasons."
