A Triumph Of Emotion Over Evidence
The aviation world was
dealt several tough blows last week as a CBS News report relied on
hysteria and half-truths to publicize a non-existent danger, while
a Kansas City jury penalized an airframe supplier (Parker-Hannifin)
for having it's equipment on board an aircraft that crashed in a
tragic spatial disorientation accident.
We've said as much as we need to, for the moment, on CBS'
lackluster journalistic standards, but the Parker-Hannifin case
really needs to be examined, carefully and objectively. The fact of
the matter is that this case should never have been allowed to go
to trial. The evidence simply did not support the case. Period.
In various criminal/legal endeavors, Judges and Lawyers are
required to show that facts/evidence back up the decisions made in
court... but the same such concepts often do not apply to civil
matters... where emotion often over-rules reason, and "Don't bother
us with the facts, our jury's made it's mind up" attitudes rule the
day.
The suit was filed after a popular Governor, his son (the
pilot), and a staffer were killed in a Cessna 335 that went down in
IFR conditions after experiencing some interruption in attitude
guidance from one attitude reference... while others were
apparently still working.
An exhaustive NTSB report found that the accident was
not caused by vacuum pump failure, as alleged by the
attorneys suing Parker-Hannifin on behalf of the surviving family
members... one of whom ascended to a position in Congress upon the
death of her husband (the Governor, who was elected to Congress
posthumously) in the accident. The accident was caused when one
(but not all) attitude references (an attitude indicator, not
manufactured by P-H) failed and the pilot succumbed to the ravages
of spatial disorientation while attempting to use other references
in bad weather and turbulent conditions. It was a tough scenario,
but it was survivable. Ultimately, errors not equipment,
brought the bird down... period.
That's what the facts say.
The pilot even admitted (to ATC) that he had other attitude
references when he stated that he had lost one. The NTSB Report
clearly stated that, "The pilot indicated to ATC several times
that he was having problems with the airplane's primary attitude
indicator. He also told ATC that he was trying to use the
right-side attitude indicator, which indicates that the airplane
did not experience a total vacuum system failure. Examination of
the wreckage revealed rotational marks in the left and right engine
vacuum pumps, which indicates that they were most likely
functioning at the time of impact. Further, one of the
vacuum gage system failure indicator buttons exhibited evidence of
having been in almost the fully retracted position (the other
indicator button was found in the partially retracted position),
which indicates that adequate vacuum existed for the
airplane's instruments to operate."
OK... an AI goes out, but another is working, AND there are
other attitude references available, and, YES, the vacuum
pumps were WORKING. The NTSB eventually rules the accident to have
been caused by "...the pilot's failure to control the airplane
while maneuvering because of spatial disorientation. Contributing
to the accident were the failure of the airplane's primary attitude
indicator and the adverse weather conditions, including
turbulence." It doesn't get more clear-cut than this... from
the most expert aviation investigative organization in the world
-- who still filed this factual report despite the probable
specter of political pressure from the family and, specifically,
the former Congressperson widowed by this accident.
The trial was
questionable in both result, as well as practice... presided over
by a judge appointed by one of the deceased, and where experts with
extensive experience on the subject of vacuum pumps were denied a
chance to impart their knowledge, while others with little more
than an emotional impact had their say. The conduct of the trial
sure seems to suggest a bias for the foes of P-H and a disregard
for the rules of evidence.
Worse, though, is this, when all is said and done;
Parker-Hannifin's insurers will pay out nearly 3 million dollars
(the award is somewhat discounted by sums already received by
others named in the action), the prices for aviation hardware will
increase as a result, and high-tech businesses will continue to shy
away (or more accurately, run like hell) from GA equipment
production (we've lost hundreds of suppliers over the years for
fear of litigation)... leaving us with few remaining, but
necessarily costly, suppliers to work with. Sadly; there is no
percentage in appealing this verdict, no matter how
aggressively the facts might support an appeal. P-H CAN'T
appeal the verdict because it would invite a cross appeal from the
family, who originally tried to get $100 Million. The uncontested
$2.8 Million penalty for Parker leaves the deceased's family with
no recourse to get more money.
The scariest part of this? This is actually a "win" for
Parker-Hannifin... who would probably pay nearly as much on appeal,
regardless, to fight the verdict. Damned, if you do, damned if
you don't; that's Parker-Hannifin's cross to bear.
Finally, though, Parker-Hannifin gets to bear the brunt of
millions of people reading about how they "killed" a popular
political figure and 2 other people. They have had to silently take
unrelenting attacks by a grieving family who has been striking
out based on grief, not on fact. The widow even went so far as to
state that, "My son (reportedly the pilot-in-command of the flight)
was found not responsible for the death of his father in the crash
of that plane, and that it was in fact Parker-Hannifin... We wanted
to establish that Randy was innocent."
It's hard to dispute the
words of a grieving widow... some might say that it's rude and
unfeeling, but the facts of the matter as established by the
results of an NTSB investigation and not a jury blinded by a
famous family dealing with immense grief, is that Pilot Error WAS
involved... a single attitude reference failed while others
remained active (which should have been used to keep the aircraft
under control), and the conditions involved were tough and
uncompromising. I fail to see where Parker-Hannifin is at fault,
and I fail to see how the family has been vindicated in anything...
What I do see is a legal system that gave yet another lawyer a
darned-good payday, used emotion to overcome fact and reason, and
penalized an entire industry (again) due to the failure of a small
group of people (the jury), to have sufficient aviation smarts
to see what really happened... a tragic
accident that could have been avoided by the use of functioning
attitude references and more effective IFR procedures.
Such a tragedy -- both in terms of the price paid by those who
lost their lives and the families who loved them... and the
industry that will be made to pay for the accident from here on
out...
Jim Campbell, ANN Editor-In-Chief