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.

 

USA Today "Unfit for Flight"

There has been a lot of discussion in the aviation community about this 3 Part Expose' Series in      USA Today - Most of our aviation community agree that - we should strive to make aviation safer.  Most of us on this side of the fence,  also agree that the condemnation of manufacturers in this industry was - just a little slanted.  I happen to know several of the players and the other side to many of the examples and lawsuits presented.   It is not as cut and dried as the articles suggest.

Mr Bertorelli - who I respect as an aviation journalist and pilot - made several good points in his Blog  As most people are aware - Aviation is the "most regulated business in the world".  In this industry we laugh at drug and medical device companies - because they have it easy.    In this environment how could an outside news agency find fault with our industry.    Given the economics of this particular business,  it isn't profitable to do a bad job.   Paul stated all of this in his blog very clearly:

There’s wide agreement that over regulation has had a hand in getting us into this mess, so further regulation — of manufacturers or more stringent training requirements —won’t get us out of it.   The entire community just doesn’t have the stomach for it. And neither do I, frankly.  Not to mention the utter lack of any economic engine to drive it all.

I was however struck today with one of Mr. Bertorelli's responses to this safety issue - and because an element of the rebuttal involved a segment of the aviation industry that I have become quite familiar.

At this point, we work on fuel level systems in aviation and most recently the automotive industry.

We have a unique but very narrow viewpoint.

GA Safety: All Heat, No Light

Excerpt from Paul Bertorelli's Blog 

As a refreshing change, the USA Today report almost tried to cast pilots as steely eyed but hapless victims of shoddy manufacturing and outdated aircraft designs. Were it only so. None of us have to look in the mirror to know that although out-of-the-blue mechanicals do cause accidents, preventing every one of that category wouldn’t change the accident rate much.

Even in some of the egregiously poorly prepared reports, the pilot obviously did something stupid—like flying into bad weather, overloading the airplane or, a perennial favorite, running the tanks dry because the fuel gauges aren’t accurate.  

That last item is a cultural thing in which automotive knowledge contaminates aviation thinking. It’s like that GEICO commercial; everybody knows the gauges aren’t accurate and we have means to work around this deficiency. 

Using a crash as a means of highlighting it seems somehow unsporting. Yeah, the stupid gauges should work, but no, they don’t.  So buy a totalizer or learn to use a watch.
But unless you, as the owner or pilot, take personal responsibility, your 35-year-old Cessna 172 is not going to be fitted with more accurate fuel gauges. 

-------------------------------------------------------

Unfortunately neither the NTSB or FAA equate "Bad Fuel Gauges" to Fuel Exhaustion,  but it is interesting that Paul does state this in his blog.  It is quite common to report to the NTSB or FAA after an accident that the fuel gauges are not accurate in your damaged aircraft.  There is no consequence to those statements.  If your flight plan did not indicate average fuel burn - look out.  

I also agree that fuel level is a cultural thing in aviation - I am not familiar with the GIECO reference Paul equates - but fuel level in automotive applications is barely adequate, the website tankonempty.com illustrates this very well.  The issue in aviation, is that for most small aircraft, the fuel level system was taken from a ground vehicle system, think automotive, tractor, truck - This system, was barely adequate for an automotive application as illustrated by the website above  - and this system really struggles with fuel quantities that are 3 times larger, and the fuel and vehicle movement that occurs in aviation.

When we talk to people outside aviation - and we state things like Paul's statement "Yeah the stupid gauges should work, but no, they don't"     - they look at first puzzled and then to a each non aviation person we have stated this quizzes us back "Don't small aircraft run out of fuel"  Yes they do. 
   The National Highway Transportation and Safety Administration - NHTSA in a recent automotive recall for bad automotive fuel fuel gauges on Chevrolet Trucks stated that the there was an obvious safety issue with having bad fuel gauges  - specifically from the recall announcement:

"If a customer runs out of fuel without any warning from the fuel gauge, it will cause the vehicle to stall and increase the risk of a crash, the company said."

In aviation, as Paul Bertorelli stated for fuel level  - "we have work arounds". 

-------------------------------------------

As I am focussed on a small aspect of the aviation safety issue - and this is seemingly the common aviation response to a significant issue. 

Because from where I am sitting -  maybe the pilot of the 35 year old Cessna 172 should at the least have the fuel gauges checked and calibrated at annual. 

If the gauges are too far gone - he should have the maintenance facility send in a Service Difficulty Report to the FAA - let the Feds know we have an issue out here in the field.   Let's quit making excuses or work arounds for equipment that should and by law be required to function correctly. 

I think we as a community should start questioning these common assertions and take off the cultural blinders.  

-------------  

I think we all want to make aviation safer - including USA Today.