Alleges Tail Rotor System On The Widely-Used Aircraft Is Faulty

A lawsuit has been filed against Lockheed Martin by the widow of an Army Helicopter Crew Chief who alleges that the company is responsible for her husband's death last year.

The suit holds that the tail rotor system on the widely-used military helicopter contains components that are "unfit, unsafe, unairworthy and defective.

Crew Chief Jeremy Tomlin was aboard a Black Hawk that went down on April 17, 2017 on a golf course in Breton Bay, MD. The aircraft struck a tree before impacting terrain. Tomlin was fatally injured, but the two pilots survived the accident. The two pilots are also party to the lawsuit, claiming "lifelong debilitating injuries."

The three were on a training mission that originated at Fort Belvoir, VA. They were en route to Stevensville, MD when the aircraft experienced “unexplained, abnormal, and violent vibrations,” according to a heavily redacted accident investigation report obtained by The Washington Post through the plaintiff's attorneys. The pilots attempted an emergency landing, but the tail rotor failed, causing the aircraft to spin out of control.

The investigation found that the an internal skin laminate in the tail rotor came apart during flight, causing the tail rotor to separate from the aircraft. The report did not give a cause for the delamination or indicate who might be responsible for the "material defect" in the rotor. However, the report suggested that the issue with the tail rotor would have been apparent to the pilots.

The plaintiffs contend that the material defect was due to negligence on the part of Sikorsky. According to their complaint, “Defendants knew for years that the aircraft posed a high risk of failure if not adequately monitored, inspected, designed, manufactured, overhauled, assembled, sold, reconditioned or certified properly, and that such catastrophic failure could lead to a loss of pilot control.”

Sikorsky and Lockheed Martin declined to comment on the case.

An attorney not involved with the case but who has previously represented Sikorsky told The Washington Post that the plaintiffs would probably need additional evidence to prove negligence on the part of the aircraft's manufacturer.

(Image from file)

FMI: Source report