Was It A Bad Preflight, Or A Bad Design?

A jury heard closing arguments Friday in a lawsuit filed against Cessna by families of two of the 10 victims of a Caravan accident near Dillingham Airport (PADL) during a 2001 ice storm.

According to court documents, the families contend a structural weakness in the plane's empennage caused the PenAir Caravan to stall shortly after takeoff. This is despite an NTSB ruling that icing on the wings -- and the pilot's failure to catch it during his preflight -- was the cause of the October 10, 2001 accident.

In the complaint filed with the court, the plantiffs cite "the Caravan's hypersensitivity to surface contamination, including icing and glycol deicing fluid, so as to constitute a defective product." The lawsuit also alleges Cessna failed to adequately inform operators of possible risks with the aircraft when ice is present.

The plantiffs are going after Cessna for both actual and punitive damages, in unspecified amounts.

A similar case against PenAir has already been settled for an undisclosed amount. However, according to reports by Anchorage's KTUU-2, the families maintain Cessna must pay, as well -- alleging the Wichita, KS airplane manufacturer "failed to take appropriate action to remedy and/or warn of and/or guard against the damages.”

"From the time that plane was in trouble, the pilot knew it. He knew it but he didn't know what to do because Cessna hadn't warned him. And make no mistake, you saw the size of that plane. The passengers knew it was in trouble too," said plantiffs attorney Christina Weidner-Tafs.

Cessna's attorneys say the NTSB Probable Cause ruling on the accident backs up their contention that pilot Gordon Mills' failure to ensure the wings were clear of ice before taking off, and not an inherent problem in the Caravan, caused the accident. The report specifically states the airplane had been sitting outside the night before the accident, during which it had rained lightly at near-freezing temperatures. A ramp attendant who fueled the aircraft told NTSB investigators the frost on the wings was so thick, he needed a set of pliers to remove the fuel cap.

The attendant also stated the aircraft had been sprayed with "a lot of glycol" by ramp crews prior to engine start, although no one could say for certain if the glycol was sprayed along the top surface of the Caravan's high-mounted Caravan, or if the pilot had checked up there afterward.

In either case, Cessna says the design of the airplane was not at fault.

"That aircraft was not defective, it was not dangerous, there was nothing wrong with the design of it. It was a good plane. It was good for the use that they had safely put it to for 15 years," said Cessna attorney Matt Peterson.

During the trial, Cessna cited witness testimony the Caravan needed a much greater takeoff distance to lift off, possibly a sign that icing on the wings affected normal lift. (This contradicts the witness cited in the NTSB report, who stated that the airplane appeared to takeoff normally.) Lawyers for Cessna also showed the jury flight tests conducted with the Caravan, demonstrating the turboprop's normal procedures as well as conditions which could lead to a stall.

The NTSB report specifically cites the pilot's lack of a preflight inspection as a factor in the mishap, which lead to ice on the wings causing a loss of control -- that much is indisputable.

Whether the pilot was negligent in his preflight, or -- as the plantiffs allege -- the nearly 80-year-old aircraft manufacturer failed to provide adequate warning and instruction on handling icing conditions in the Caravan, is now in the hands of the jury. 

FMI: Read The NTSB Probable Cause Report