USA Today - Unfit for Flight - An In-Depth look at the Editorial Opinion

The USA Today statement suggests that juries awarded in all the aircraft manufacturer cases presented by the author of  Unfit for Flight.  That is simply not true, most of the cases were resolved with judgements.  Having been involved in several aviation product liability cases,  I know personally that these judgements are accepted to mitigate the economics of both time and money.  It is not as USA Today suggests proof positive of conviction in these product liability matters,  it is just another shade of grey as to where the fault might lie and as we know,  shades of grey imply reasonable doubt.

There is a significant issue here - Several law firms target the aviation market, as the issues and procedures of aviation are arcane and not well known among the general public.  This issue was well documented in the discussions surrounding the General Aviation Revitalization Act of 1995.  

The aviation specific trial attorneys know this very well and work to be depicted as experts or teachers as they explain to the juries what they should know about aviation.   It is a definitive bias and a slip of the blindfold on justice.  Whenever a significant aviation tragedy occurs you will find these lawyers set up as media aviation experts across the spectrum of video entertainment.  Expert recognition of these lawyers by the public is key to their sucess rate.

If these trials were held with a "jury of peers" i.e. other pilots - rarely would some of these cases ever darken a courtroom. In keeping with the Opinion aspect of the reports and editorial follow on  -  that is mine.

Case in point - In the three part expose - the author Thomas Frank  talks with a pilot and his crash story.  In this story the pilot relates that a bolt on his engine sheared in flight causing him to lose power.  The FAA and NTSB were all over this pilot about fuel exhaustion and maybe rightfully so.  So let's look a little closer as to why their line of questioning shouldn't have been dismissed offhand.

In the story,  the owner found an expert to redirect the responsibility in this crash.  This aviation expert related that all the fuel was lost when the wing hit a tree - just prior to hitting the ground.  Nice story for non pilots / non aviation savvy people and a good example of talking "aviation" around the general public.  Like I related above,  this story might hold up in front of a jury - just as it was presented to the readership of USA Today. 

The fact that most aircraft have fuel tanks in both wings - makes you question the pilots assertions about his fuel quantity, it also opens a line of questions and thoughts.  This tree did not stop the aircraft, but only damaged a wing.   Did the tree damage both wings?   All the fuel was gone - the only logical conclusion is that the tree damaged both wings equally and in the similar location.    Aircraft fuel tanks in this pilots wing are segregated into separate cells,  some of which have check valves to keep fuel flowing to the engine.  So now having a little information about aircraft, this is what the author Thomas Frank is telling us ....  

• This pilot hit a tree,  that significantly damaged, but did not stop the aircraft.
• The damage was significant enough to empty the remaining fuel and was symmetrical to both wings.
• This damage opened up both multi cell fuel tanks in a similar manner  and in the milliseconds between hitting the tree and ground - all of the fuel disappeared from those fuel tanks and leaked down the trunk of that tree. 

Really...... the limited facts of this story don't hold up to investigative reporting ... Thomas Frank did aviation a disservice by not digging deeper than only the superficial elements of this example.   Mr Frank simply accepted these pilot statements as factual with the support of a court judgement, and an FAA Airworthiness Directive.   If Mr Frank sought out an unbiased aviation expert to discuss these issues, he might have developed a better understanding.

So blindly accepting the expert opinion of what happened to the fuel and knowing that the bolts in question were indicated to have issues in acrobatic and helicopter aircraft just added literal fuel to the fire of Mr. Frank's article. 

One could make an equal unsupported story that the engine starved for fuel and coughing and bucking with the uneven fuel distribution - could have created similar stresses to those encountered in acrobatic or helicopter operations  -  and thus sheared the bolt.  This bolt that the pilot proudly holds, now appears as an icon, saving this pilots dignity.

The above is a story - I believe equal to the author Mr Frank's expose'.   Neither may be true - but there are facts in his story that make a pronouncement of absolute guilt on the part of the engine manufacturer in this case difficult to buy.

Ok so while we are on the subject of fuel starvation - The FAA's rebuttal of the Mr Frank's opus needs a similar examination.  The FAA Administrator clearly indicates "running out of fuel"  is a pilot issue.  This blanket statement piece really needs a closer examination by the FAA.

This comment exposes an issue that has not been handled correctly by the FAA, in my opinion.   By her statement, it indicates that this issue is being ignored from the top down - The admonition that fuel according to the FAA  is a "Preflight" pilot issue.  This line of reasoning ignores that aircraft are required to have working fuel indication by the regulations.  The idea that "preflight" is the only time you know how much fuel you have,  indicates the general lack of satisfaction of fuel indication systems in aircraft.  

Fuel indication in aviation is loathsome at best - it is a dark secret that most aircraft fuel indication systems are marginal from the start.  When you compound a marginal system with poor or no maintenance,  you can make a general statement that an inoperative fuel gauge is common place in aviation.  

Fuel starvation then becomes an aviation issue - and maybe - just not a pilot issue.  

So given Mr. Frank's expose - yes there are issues of safety and yes they need to be improved.  But are we all asking the right questions.