Family Of Dr. Perry Inhofe Files Wrongful Death Suit | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-04.29.24

Airborne-NextGen-04.30.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.01.24 Airborne-AffordableFlyers--05.02.24

Airborne-Unlimited-05.03.24

Thu, Dec 11, 2014

Family Of Dr. Perry Inhofe Files Wrongful Death Suit

Attorney Claims NTSB Was Wrong In Citing Pilot Error Probable Cause In Fatal MU-2 Accident

The family of Dr. Perry Inhofe, the son of Senator Jim Inhofe, has filed a wrongful death suit saying one of the engines on the Mitsubishi MU-2B-25 Dr. Inhofe had recently purchased failed during the accident flight.

The NTSB said in its probable cause report, which is not admissible in court, that Dr. Inhofe lost control of the airplane "during a known one-engine-inoperative condition. The reasons for the loss of control and engine shutdown could not be determined because the airplane was not equipped with a crash-resistant recorder and postaccident examination and testing did not reveal evidence of any malfunction that would have precluded normal operation."

Dallas, TX-based attorney William Angelley said the NTSB was wrong in making that assessment. "My investigators found it within thirty minutes. Plus it's right there in the NTSB's own data," Angelley said in a news release reported by Tulsa television station KOTV.

The suit names engine manufacturer Honeywell International, as well as Landmark Aviation Services and Standard Aero, which the suit says worked on the engine that failed. It also names Intercontinental Jet Service Corporation, which the suit says reinstalled the engine on the MU-2.

The accident flight was the first time Dr. Inhofe had flown the airplane solo. He had completed  training required by the FAA for engine-out situations in the MU-2. In the suit, Angelley says the NTSB is wrong in saying that the MU-2 should have been "flyable" on one engine. Configured as the airplane was, the lawyer who is a former Navy helicopter pilot says, with landing gear and flaps extended, "virtually no one could have recovered from that. There is simply too much drag and not enough power."

(Mitsubishi MU-2 pictured in file photo. Not accident airplane)

FMI: NTSB Probable Cause Report

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.02.24)

Aero Linx: Model Aeronautical Association of Australia MAAA clubs are about fun flying, camaraderie and community. For over 75 years, the MAAA has been Australia’s largest fl>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.02.24): Touchdown Zone Lighting

Touchdown Zone Lighting Two rows of transverse light bars located symmetrically about the runway centerline normally at 100 foot intervals. The basic system extends 3,000 feet alon>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (05.02.24)

“Discovery and innovation are central to our mission at Virgin Galactic. We’re excited to build on our successful record of facilitating scientific experiments in subor>[...]

ANN FAQ: Contributing To Aero-TV

How To Get A Story On Aero-TV News/Feature Programming How do I submit a story idea or lead to Aero-TV? If you would like to submit a story idea or lead, please contact Jim Campbel>[...]

NTSB Final Report: Cirrus Design Corp SR20

Student Pilot Reported That During Rotation, “All Of A Sudden The Back Of The Plane Kicked To The Right..." Analysis: The student pilot reported that during rotation, “>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC