...And Here, Darn it, Are The Heartbreakers
It is both the most "fun," and most difficult task, facing the
ANN staff at the end of every year -- determining who, or what, did
the most to promote the cause of aviation in the past 365 days...
while also chastising those people or entities that did all they
could to undermine the many successes the aerospace community has
managed to accomplish.

Alas, 2007 saw more than its fair share of downers,
aviation-wise. Sure, "stuff" happens... but a few folks, issues, or
entities seemed to go out of their way to create problems for the
world of aviation.
So... it is ANN's annual obligation to recognize a solid dozen
of our Aero-Heartbreakers for 2007... in something of an informal
order, starting from 12th to the 1st. Let us know what you think of
our selections... whom YOU would have liked be included, or
omitted, from such a list. In the meantime, we hope those who had
something to do with this year's selections think a little more
positively about the welfare of this industry, so that future
lists become harder and harder to catalog. Be it ignorance,
arrogance or just plain incompetence, these were the folks or
topics that made our lot a whole lot more difficult and
immeasurably injured the aviation world in the past year.
Shame on those issues, folks or topics that made our lot so much
tougher in 2007...
From the Heartbreaker's List #7: Lawyers, Lawyers,
Lawyers...
Tort reform was
supposed to provide the aviation world with a sigh of relief -- and
we're still waiting. What today's lawyers can no-longer sue for,
means little when there is so much more open territory left to
harvest... and when the rules for today's suits work so much in
their favor.
The legal system is firmly out of control... No matter what you
do, these days, it seems that there is always someone ready to sue
you for it -- and in the process, they seem to have the legal
wherewithal to do whatever they need to do to smear you in the
process of getting ready to clean your clock.
Recently, the Arlington EAA Fly-In reeled under the weight of an
immense and questionable legal judgement after a visiting pilot
erred on takeoff and killed himself in a takeoff accident during a
1999 fly-in. A Snohomish County Superior Court jury awarded
$10.5 million to the family of a pilot who died in
the accident at the Northwest EAA Fly-In in Arlington, WA...
and said that both the national Experimental Aircraft Association,
as well as the regional EAA chapter, are responsible for a large
percentage of the damages. First responders attempted to extinguish
the post-crash fire with portable equipment, and some of the
witnesses tried to pull the pilot out of the aircraft. Within 60
seconds after the accident, a volunteer fire truck arrived at the
scene, and fought the fire. Within 90 seconds after their arrival,
according to the NTSB, the fire was extinguished. During its
investigation, the NTSB determined that the pilot, who earned his
private license less than a year before the accident, had owned the
aircraft for less than two weeks. The Board determined the pilot's
lack of experience in the aircraft contributed to the accident,
while citing the pilot's excessive climb rate, which lead to his
failure to maintain an airspeed above stalling speed, as the
probable cause. The Seattle Post-Intelligencer reported Robert
Hedrick, one of the attorneys representing the pilot's estate in
the lawsuit, said bystanders waited more than five minutes for
firefighters to arrive... an apparent contradiction to the NTSB's
findings (and ANN's own observations as witnesses to the crash). As
a result, EAA has had to make major changes in the Fly-In support
they offer to regional fly-ins and aviation is made all the poorer
(if not less safe, for the lack of opportunity for learning, that
many fly-ins offer).
Just a few year's back, industry leader Parker-Hannifin was
successfully sued (though the judgment was strongly diminished as
P-H fought the ridiculous verdict) for vacuum pump failures that
did NOT take place, according to the NTSB's conclusions into what
was one of the most intense investigations in the last decade (the
case involved a major political leader and his son in a Cessna
335). Parker-Hannifin was originally on the hook for an exorbitant
sum... later argued down to what was effectively "their" part of a
4 million award that should never have been granted in the first
place... but there comes a time when you have to cut your losses
and P-H (grateful to not have been nailed for the original $100
million the lawyers wanted) finally paid... though they are now out
of the vacuum pump business.
What's almost as
disturbing as the suits themsleves, is the "PR Dance" that precedes
them... where lawyers seem able to say anything they want in order
to garner sympathy and plant suggestions in the minds of the jury
pool. First of all, if it is our belief that if ANN went ahead and
published the same kind of allegations that
lawyers (promoting lawsuits) put forth, we could be sued
for slander/libel. Firms and lawyers with a suit in the works seem
to be able and willing to jump to the most "absolute" conclusions
long before the facts are made known... and even thereafter. This
is true even in the face of NTSB and other expert evidence that
contradicts the purposes of the suit. A case in point... despite
the fact that all the evidence that the NTSB has gathered so far
points to pilot error, there is a firm suing Cirrus Design (in the
tragic Cory Lidle crash) for an amount that could reach 100 million
dollars... DESPITE the expert facts known to be uncovered by the
NTSB... which under todays legal environment, CAN NOT BE ADMITTED
into evidence to defend Cirrus! In the meantime, the attornies are
asserting that there is something wrong with the control system of
the aircraft in question... despite any real known evidence to
support their attack on this revolutionary company... one that has
done more to bring modern safety features to today's GA aircraft
than any other.
Of additional and recent note, there is a firm that has stated
in no uncertain terms, that one of the reasons that a Cessna
Caravan (the statistically dependable backbone of much of today's
air freight networks) crashed some months ago (carrying 10
skydivers, without IFR clearance, in icing conditions), was because
Cessna falsified their icing tests. They gloss over the fact that
the aircraft was being operated illegally and without clearance in
conditions that apparently led to the accident that killed everyone
on board. Their lawsuit contains some pretty startling
allegations... and aims. The firm alleges that "The Cessna 208
B is primarily used as a freight carrier from small cities, and
while it typically operates well in good weather, it should never
have been certified to fly into icing conditions." Their site also
says that, "What we have discovered in that litigation is that
Cessna faked the data to get the plane certified to fly in icing
conditions."
Man... If I published that without demonstrable proof, the
lawyers would (justifiably) be on me in a heartbeat.
The firm publicizes their aim, that, "When this litigation is
over the Cessna 208 B will no longer be certified to fly in icing
conditions," while also (shamelessly, we think) pitching other
families bereaved in this tragedy, to call and retain them."
So... this law firm wants to "decertify" what the most expert
certification apparatus in the aerospace world, the FAA, has
already certified... is that arrogance or what?
Folks; the legal system is out of control, and the costs of this
kind of nonsense not only will penalize us all a great deal,
but it stands to make aviation MORE dangerous by increasing costs
on the part of those trying to produce and develop safe products,
and inhibit improvements to current products for fear that
superseded designs will then be seen as deficient. I could go on...
as there are dozens, even hundreds, of known abuses to document...
but you can easily see that there are BIG problems out there from
the limited samples listed above. It's an utter mess. And a
dangerous one, in our opinion.