S-Tec Wins Suit over 1999 Barron Crash

[KennyFlys]

I'm confused... how is it an NTSB report cannot be admitted as evidence?

[FONT=arial,helvetica,geneva]Manufacturer Wins in Lawsuit Stemming from 1999 Crash[/FONT]

When a Beech Baron crashed into a New Jersey neighborhood in November 1999, killing the pilot and his wife and child, as well as one person on the ground, many lawsuits followed. This week, one of those suits was resolved in favor of S-Tec Corporation, based in Texas, manufacturer of the airplane's autopilot. The case was significant for general aviation, according to lawyer David Zeehandelaar, who led the defense team for S-Tec, because "the conventional wisdom is that it's tough for a manufacturer to win in a product liablity case." The NTSB had determined in July 2000 that the probable cause of the accident was the pilot's failure to maintain aircraft control. Factors in the accident, the NTSB said, were failure of the horizontal situation indicator for undetermined reasons and the pilot's use of inappropriate medication. Zeehandelaar told AVweb on Wednesday that although the NTSB report was not admitted in court, his firm argued that the HSI that failed was not part of the S-Tec autopilot system, and also that the autopilot wasn't being used at the time of the crash. "We had radar data that showed the final turn was made at a rate of 6 degrees per second, which is not standard rate, and would require pilot input," Zeehandelaar said. The trial lasted for eight weeks and included testimony from approximately 30 expert witnesses on topics including piloting, aerodynamics, engineering, meteorology, aeromedical issues, and more.

The plaintiffs in the case were the estates of the three persons on the plane and the owner of one of the destroyed buildings. The city of Newark and about 20 residents of the neighborhood who were affected by the crash sued the pilot's estate and were awarded $2 million in a settlement in 2001. S-Tec also announced this week that it has been acquired by U.K. aerospace firm Cobham PLC for $38 million. The transaction should be completed by the end of this year, subject to regulatory approval, S-Tec said.

Why? Because it establishes negligence? I know of no other agency who puts so much effort into investigating an issue. I'm not saying they are perfect but I'd trust their analysis any day over any other govenment agency at any level.

Add to that, their determination AP was not in use.

 

[tonycondon]

well if the autopilot is wired to turn at 3 degrees per second and the radar track shows a turn at 6 degrees per second its pretty easy to figure out that the autopilot was not flying the airplane.

 

[mikea]

The Jacoby crash?

Why would the guy who was considered the absolute expert on instrument flying and partial panel in Bonanzas have engaged the autopilot?

It's good that justice triumphed for once. I wonder how much Parker-Hannifin coughed up because the plane had a vacuum pump.

 

[Let'sgoflying!]

They 'won', or did they?
I bet 'winning' was not cheap. And the consumer loses, our Stec prices just went up.
Still better than the alternative.

 

[mikea]

They 'won', or did they?
I bet 'winning' was not cheap. And the consumer loses, our Stec prices just went up.
Still better than the alternative.

Yeah. In a lot of cases the scumbags sue for 10% under what they figure defending would cost.

 

[Pilawt]

I'm confused... how is it an NTSB report cannot be admitted as evidence?

It's Federal law (49 USC 1149(b)):

(b) Reports.--No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.

​

 

[maddog52]

I'm confused... how is it an NTSB report cannot be admitted as evidence?

For the same reason that cockpit voice and digital flight recorder information is not supposed to be used in civil suits. They are SAFETY tools used to determine the cause of accidents/incidents and hopefully prevent it from happening again. If you knew anything you say to the NTSB could be used against you in a court of law, everybody would lawyer up immediately and accident investigation would screech to a halt.

Mitch

 

[KennyFlys]

It's Federal law (49 USC 1149(b)):

(b) Reports.--No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.​

For the same reason that cockpit voice and digital flight recorder information is not supposed to be used in civil suits. They are SAFETY tools used to determine the cause of accidents/incidents and hopefully prevent it from happening again. If you knew anything you say to the NTSB could be used against you in a court of law, everybody would lawyer up immediately and accident investigation would screech to a halt.

Mitch

Thank you. I never knew that. The reasoning makes sense. So, in order to admit any of that information, perhaps there needs to be an alternate source; if there is one.

I do wonder... why not allow it for defense? If a report or CVR and/or CDR helped in an airman's defense of charges, either administrative, criminal or otherwise civil, could he/she not ask for its admittance if stipulated by both sides?

I'm thinking if I have the FAA coming after my ticket with an accused violation and the NTSB's investigation reveals I was not at fault, I should have the ability to use it for my defense against the FAA? The strange thing is, once I fail in defense against the FAA then those in possession of the report get to hear me on appeal.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

well if the autopilot is wired to turn at 3 degrees per second and the radar track shows a turn at 6 degrees per second its pretty easy to figure out that the autopilot was not flying the airplane.

That assumes it wasn't defective!! I bet a crafty lawyer could make that argument.

(I'm glad STEC won here, don't get me wrong!!)

 

[poadeleted20]

I do wonder... why not allow it for defense?

Can't bend the rules for just one side in a civil suit -- that would violate the concept of equity. In any event, factual data as discovered by the NTSB may be admitted; the statements of witnesses (which are taken under circumstances not meeting evidentiary standards -- big issue in the TWA 800 investigation when the FBI refused to let the NTSB talk to witnesses while the FBI was conducting a criminal investigation before everyone was convinced it was an accident) and the NTSB's conclusions may not.

I'm thinking if I have the FAA coming after my ticket with an accused violation and the NTSB's investigation reveals I was not at fault,I should have the ability to use it for my defense against the FAA?

FAA enforcement actions are not civil suits for damages, and also do not require that evidence meet normal judicial standards. Thus, you can get any or all of the NTSB report into the proceedings.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

What's somewhat interesting is that NTSB investigators can testify - if I remember correctly (which I might not), it's only the report that's excluded.

 

[Pilawt]

What's somewhat interesting is that NTSB investigators can testify - if I remember correctly (which I might not), it's only the report that's excluded.

That's right, but there's nothing new or unusual about that. In the typical auto accident case, the investigating police officer can testify about facts of which he has first-hand knowledge, but the collision report is inadmissible hearsay.

 

[KennyFlys]

That's right, but there's nothing new or unusual about that. In the typical auto accident case, the investigating police officer can testify about facts of which he has first-hand knowledge, but the collision report is inadmissible hearsay.

Would it be as if an expert witness were testifying to provide supposition based on the facts?

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

That's right, but there's nothing new or unusual about that. In the typical auto accident case, the investigating police officer can testify about facts of which he has first-hand knowledge, but the collision report is inadmissible hearsay.

Right - which has always struck me as somewhat at odds with the rule re: the reports. Because the essence of the report still comes in, despite it being inadmissible.

That's not to say I don't understand the reason for bar on the report - as stated previously, the goal is safety, rather than testimonial.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Would it be as if an expert witness were testifying to provide supposition based on the facts?

Although I've never actually participated in an aviation case, I would assume so - a person giving opinions based on specialized knowledge/experience.

 

[TangoWhiskey]

Regarding introducing NTSB reports into evidence in trials, here's an interesting recent blog post by Ron Rapp, on Precision Airmotive's recent decision to stop manufacturing carburetors, and a simple regulatory change that could help with product liability reform:

http://www.rapp.org/archives/2007/11/precision_airmotive/

 

[tdager]

Why the HELL did the city of Newark and the residence of the subdivision sue?

I wish, very heartily, that we had a "loser pays" system, so that S-Tec could get some of the insane money they spent over the last 8 years defending this lawsuit!

 

[KennyFlys]

Why the HELL did the city of Newark and the residence of the subdivision sue?

I wish, very heartily, that we had a "loser pays" system, so that S-Tec could get some of the insane money they spent over the last 8 years defending this lawsuit!

The pilot was essentially negligent by not only use but of excessive use of barbiturates to control the pain from migraine headaches. The city and property owners reasonably sued the estate for damages caused. Worse yet, the pilot concealed the medication use as well as existence of the headaches from the AME, either of which would have grounded the pilot. Two million may have covered actual property damages but I'm not sure it covered the loss of life for an innocent ground victim nor those otherwise physically injured.

I won't even get into the pilot killing his own wife and child as a result.

If many more accidents like this come to pass, I wouldn't be surprised to find the FAA fighting to require a full urinalysis at every aeromedical exam.

 

[poadeleted20]

Why the HELL did the city of Newark and the residence of the subdivision sue?

Because it cost them millions to rescue and treat the wounded on the ground, put out the fires, clean up the mess, and rebuild the roads and buildings destroyed as a result of the crash, and they didn't feel that the taxpayers of Newark should foot the bill for the results of what the courts determined were the pilot's negligent acts

PS: I'm not saying they were right or wrong, just explaining their thinking.