Grumble

Any judges or lawyers here want to try and defend this one?

Massive $26M Verdict Against Lycoming Raises More Questions Than Answers | Aero-News Network

Sata 4000 RP

Uh...yeah...this one is ripe for an appeal.

block30

Unbelievable. Yet ANOTHER example of of our zero personal responsibility society. Thanks for sharing, I hope this gets the negative publicity these lawyers (and probably the plaintiff) deserve. Thanks to them for ruining GA for everyone else.

By the way, who composed the jury? Pilots?

N9373M

Why on earth was a pop-up IFR not requested?

From the NTSB:

The pilot, age 47, held an airline transport pilot certificate with airplane multiengine rating, and a commercial pilot certificate with airplane single-engine land and airplane single-engine sea ratings. In addition, the pilot held a turbojet powered rating and type ratings in various transport category aircraft. A first-class airman medical certificate was issued on November 26, 2007, with the limitations stated, "must wear corrective lenses, not valid for any class after." The pilot reported on her most recent medical certificate application that she had accumulated 14,200 total flight hours.

EDIT: The report further states: Examination of the engine revealed that the number four cylinder exhaust valve was stuck in the open position and was bent. The camshaft was intact and each of the camshaft cam lobes exhibited severe wear and spalling signatures. The corresponding tappets exhibited severe spalling on their respective camshaft contact surfaces. The engine exhibited signatures consistent with a high time engine."

So that's probably why the jury did what it did - it was the engine's fault /sarcasm.

CRM114

Wait for it........

UnderOveur

Seems an improbable verdict unless the plantiff's attorneys were somehow able to have the NTSB report suppressed...which I'm pretty sure would, in and of itself, be grounds for appeal.

satpak77

gotta be more to the story

seattlepilot

What you all dont see is that this process of ambulance chasers is putting people out of business. Lycoming can weather this and the legal fees but small operators are the ones paying the price. And people wonder why aviation is getting so expensive .

Yoda2

For those that have been around awhile, this is nothing new, or shocking.
This is exactly why Cessna stopped building piston powered airplanes. Additionally, none of the NTSB's findings are admissible in court. You cannot just slap the NTSB's work on the court and say pay up. This, in large part, leaves the door wide open for what happens next. The greiving or greedy family finds an attorney, or more likely one finds them... Reasons given in court for an accident are often twisted or concocted, or a parallel investigation is performed by an attorney to substantiate an NTSB position, if that would be in their favor... If an independent investigation turns up the same result as an NTSB investigation, then the same net argument can be put forth in court, relieving an attorney of making something up... Attorneys, many times, would much prefer to go after a light plane accident as opposed to other heavier aircraft. Take a generic Cessna Citation for example; attorneys have a harder time saying the flight crew wasn't qualified or otherwise lacked training or proving a defect with the aircraft or that the maintenance was improper and not up to date. It makes their job tougher. That is why attorneys foam at the mouth over piston accidents. Cirrus has taken some steps in the right direction to protect themselves but they are not adequate. The best I have seen so far is Frank Robinson's approach, with the special FAR. Unfortunately, this is the world we live in...

UnderOveur

I was unaware of this. Why??

It is an official gov't agency, tasked specifically with determining the kind of information that would be relevant to Lycoming's defense. Furthermore, since it's #1 goal is to ultimately promote and enhance safety, it's finding could be viewed as non-discriminatory in nature.