Look Out, Raytheon, The Lawyers Say You're Next

Two days of "grueling" mediation has produced an agreement between the family of a pilot and the families of Oklahoma State University basketball players and others killed in a 2001 crash: They won't sue each other. They'll instead sue Raytheon, the maker of the King Air 200 that went down.

"It took a lot of concerted effort by the parties and their lawyers to get this done," said Mike Smith, attorney for the family of Denver Mills, speaking to Oklahoma City's Daily Oklahoman. Next stop: a lawsuit against the manufacturer. "We can now pursue Raytheon, who we all think appears to be a major factor," Smith said.

The King Air 200 was the last of three aircraft used to transport basketball team members from a game in Boulder (CO) on January 27th, 2001. It went down in a field near Strasburg (CO). The NTSB said weather at the time was IMC. The two-man cockpit crew and eight passengers were killed in the crash and resulting fire.

The NTSB, in its final report, concluded that the pilot experienced a complete loss of AC power. The bureau blamed pilot Denver Mills for not reacting properly to the power outage.

Four possibilities exist to explain the loss of a.c. power aboard the accident airplane. But what caused the power to go out? The NTSB report suggests four reasons in the absence of definitive proof.

"First, the selected inverter could have failed, and the pilot might not have switched to the other inverter. However, the pilot should have been familiar with this switch because it is always used to supply a.c. power after engine start and to terminate a.c. power before engine shutdown.

"Second, a dual inverter failure could have occurred. However, it is extremely unlikely that both inverters would have failed because of the inverters’ history of reliability aboard King Air 200 airplanes. Only eight FAA Service Difficulty Reports regarding King Air 200 inverters were submitted during a period of almost 15 years, and none of the eight reports involved a dual inverter failure.

"The Safety Board notes that, in October 1990, both inverters aboard the accident airplane were reported as inoperative for several minutes, but the cause of the problem was found to be a failed relay (which was then replaced) and not the failure of both inverters. Also, the maintenance records for the accident airplane did not indicate a systemic problem with either inverter. In addition, the internal fuses from both inverters were found broken but not melted or burned, which indicated that the inverters had not shorted.

"Third, the King Air 200 electrical system schematic indicates that, if at least one of the inverters is operational, no a.c. power is present at the volt/frequency meter, and d.c. power is available to the inverters, then one of three components—the inverter selector switch, the inverter select relay, or the avionics inverter select relay—could produce an a.c. power electrical system failure. Thus, all three components are potential sources of single-point failures in the electrical system. None of these items was recovered from the wreckage.

"Fourth, wiring failures, shorts, or opens are possible reasons for the loss of a.c. power."

One of the family members who settled was Mills' daughter. "We believe that when the evidence is made public, everyone will know the accident was caused by problems Raytheon had the opportunity to correct," she said. "The evidence will show that the airplane failed everyone on the plane, including my father."

Victims' relatives had sued Mills' estate, along with Raytheon, North Bay Charter, Marathon Power Technologies and Marathon Flite-Tronic. All but Raytheon, whose representatives walked out of the mediation, agreed to pay compensation. Now, six of the families, including Mills', are suing Raytheon.

FMI: www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2003/AAR0301.pdf