Twin Otter Lawsuit - (Was: Twin Otter production restarted!)

[divrdave 0]

While seraching around for more info on the new Twin Otters, I came across this article that says that the Twin Otter is an unsafe airplane to use for skydiving. Is this guy for real?

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

By Maggie Rotermund

Missourian Staff Writer


Four days after losing their youngest child in a plane crash, the parents of Victoria Delacroix have filed a wrong- ful death suit in Franklin County Circuit Court.

Delacroix was killed Saturday, July 29, along with five others when the skydiving plane they were in crashed near Sullivan. The 22-year-old would have been making her first jump.

The suit, brought by Vivian and Susan Delacroix of Kent, England, claims negligence caused an engine to fail. The suit names Quantum Leap Skydiving Inc., the engine’s manufacturer and those responsible for the plane’s maintenance and upkeep.

The wrongful death suit filed Wednesday, names Pratt & Whitney, maker of the two turboprop engines on the DeHavilland DHC6 Twin Otter plane, as the main defendant, and seeks unspecified compensatory and punitive damages.

A spokesperson for Pratt & Whitney declined to speak about the suit, saying it is against corporate policy to discuss anything currently under investigation.

The suit also names:

Adventure Aviation, a Delaware corporation that co-owned the plane;
Scott Cowan, the Quantum Leap co-owner and pilot who also perished in the crash;
Sullivan Regional Airport, and the city of Sullivan as its owner, which allegedly did service work on the plane; and
Quantum Leap Skydiving Center, which owned the skydiving operation.
The management of Sullivan Regional Airport declined to speak to The Missourian on the pending litigation. Calls to Quantum Leap and Adventure Aviation were not returned.

“In skydiving operations, it seems that there is a disproportionate number of this type of severe crash,” said Gary C. Robb, the attorney representing the family. “I think it has to do with the type of engine used.”

Robb’s firm, based in Kansas City, specializes in aviation-related cases and has done so for 25 years. He represented six families of skydivers killed in a 1998 crash in Grain Valley, Mo., near Kansas City. He also represented the family of Missouri Gov. Mel Carnahan, who was killed in a plane crash with his son and an aide while campaigning for the U.S. Senate in 2000.

Robb said the engine on the plane, a turboprop PT6A, is a propeller engine designed to take a plane from point A to point B.

“These turboprops are designed to take off and cruise,” he said. “They are not made for 10 to 12 takeoffs a day. It is too much wear and tear on the engine.”

The plane is used widely for skydiving groups.

Twin Otter planes are popular among skydivers for three reasons, according to Robb. He said they are commonly used because the planes have a large load capacity; a high-wing design, which allows even the most inexperienced jumper to jump without fear of hitting the wing; and a high rate of climb, allowing pilots to quickly reach an altitude suitable for skydiving.

Robb said despite these attributes, Twin Otters should not be used for skydiving because the engine was not built to handle the dynamics of skydiving operations.

“Somewhere along the way, this design was hijacked by the skydiving industry and used in a way the engine was not designed for – it can’t handle the excessive takeoffs of skydiving trips.”

Robb said his experience in aviation leads him to the conclusion that skydiving operations should use an air-cooled jet engine in their planes.

“They won’t do that though,” he said. “They are more expensive from the outset and eat more fuel.”

Robb was in Franklin County on Friday to meet with witnesses and speak with an area lawyer assisting him on the case, Frank K. Carlson, of Union.

“My initial investigation points to a right engine failure just after takeoff,” said Robb. “In cases such as this, it is unusual to have such uniformity among eyewitness accounts. In this case, all of the eyewitnesses are saying the right engine burst into flames immediately after takeoff.”

The plane, carrying seven skydivers and the pilot, took a nosedive and struck a utility pole and trees before hitting the ground, according to Robb.

The similarity of each eyewitness story was his first indicator that something was awry, Robb said.

“In this crash scenario, of major engine failure, the pilot loses power and nosedives into an uncontrollable descent,” he said.

Also killed in Saturday’s crash were skydiving instructor Robert B. Cook, 22, of Rolla; Melissa Berridge, 38, of Maryland Heights; Robert Walsh, 44, of University City; and skydiving instructor David Paternoster, 35, of Claycomo.

The two surviving divers aboard the plane were Kimberly Dear, 21, of Melbourne, Australia, and Steve Parrella, 46, of St. Louis. Both remain hospitalized at St. John’s Mercy Medical Center in Creve Coeur.

Delacroix’s body was flown back to England and arrived at Heathrow Airport on Thursday. A private funeral is scheduled for Aug. 9.

Delacroix had just graduated from England’s Derby College with a degree in geography. She was in Missouri working as a camp counselor at Sunnyhill Adventures, in Dittmer.

“Her parents are still in the midst of the trauma of it all,” Robb said. “They’ve acted now, through this suit, because they don’t want any other family to go through what they’ve experienced in the past few days. If they can prevent this type of accident from happening again, that is what they are looking for from these companies.”

The National Transportation Safety Board is investigating the cause of the crash. A preliminary report may be issued next week. A final report will take at least six months.

Robb employs a former 11-year veteran of the NTSB to run his investigations. He added that he would have a good report ready in six weeks.

[pilotdave 0]

That's almost funny. It would be if there hadn't been a fatal crash and a stupid lawsuit.

"Robb said his experience in aviation leads him to the conclusion that skydiving operations should use an air-cooled jet engine in their planes."

Oh yeah, he sure sounds experienced!

Glad I know that Pratt has good lawyers. This shouldn't be a tough one...

Dave

[sundevil777 94]

Air cooled jet engines?

I'd like to know what turboprop or jet engine isn't air cooled.

People are sick and tired of being told that ordinary and decent people are fed up in this country with being sick and tired. I’m certainly not, and I’m sick and tired of being told that I am

[DrewEckhardt 0]

Quote

While seraching around for more info on the new Twin Otters, I came across this article that says that the Twin Otter is an unsafe airplane to use for skydiving. Is this guy for real?

Gary Robb specializes in aircraft acicdent lawsuits.

The airframe and power plant manufacturers could theoretically be responsible for failures in 30-40+ year old airplanes. Chances of discovering new design defects at this point are microscopically greater than zero. Those companies having much deeper pockets than the pilot and company that maintains the plane has nothing to do with it.

The PT6 engines used on Otters also power King Airs, Porters, Caravans, Casas, Pacs, twin engined Bell helicopters (including the twin-Huey), and oodles of other aircraft. Sky Vans and a few turbine porters are the only common turbine skydiving planes that don't have a PT6.

The engines are rated for a maximum sustained output, time between overhauls, and engine starts on various components. It doesn't matter how you get to those limits.

I don't worry about any specific engine or aircraft type.

[howardwhite 5]

CASAs use Garrett turboprops.

[tombuch 0]

The NTSB Preliminary Report on the accident is located here: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060803X01086&key=1.

The lawyer, Gary Robb is very, very, very good, and has a solid track record in wrongful death cases. I encountered this guy in the late 1990's, and although he blew the case I was involved in, he is dangerously aggressive, and focused only on building a case to win the maximum damage award for his client. If he is your lawyer, I suppose that's a good thing.

Tom Buchanan
Instructor Emeritus
Comm Pilot MSEL,G
Author: JUMP! Skydiving Made Fun and Easy

[2fat2fly 0]

Not to go all SC on this-but what the lawyer will do is try to raise enough ruckus to get a "it's not worth fighting, just go away" settlement. If that doesn't work, then he'll try confuse a non-aviation jury with a bunch of tech data. It's not that hard to do..

I am not the man. But the man knows my name...and he's worried

[kingbunky 3]

Quote

Twin Otter planes are popular among skydivers for three reasons, according to Robb. He said they are commonly used because the planes have a large load capacity; a high-wing design, which allows even the most inexperienced jumper to jump without fear of hitting the wing; and a high rate of climb, allowing pilots to quickly reach an altitude suitable for skydiving.

i'd think you'd have to be a very experience skydiver to be able to get close enough to the wing to hit it! is there a jumpship in common use where hitting the wing is an issue? the tail maybe....

"Hang on a sec, the young'uns are throwin' beer cans at a golf cart."
MB4252 TDS699
killing threads since 2001

[Mostly_Harmless 0]

Quote

Quote

Twin Otter planes are popular among skydivers for three reasons, according to Robb. He said they are commonly used because the planes have a large load capacity; a high-wing design, which allows even the most inexperienced jumper to jump without fear of hitting the wing; and a high rate of climb, allowing pilots to quickly reach an altitude suitable for skydiving.

i'd think you'd have to be a very experience skydiver to be able to get close enough to the wing to hit it! is there a jumpship in common use where hitting the wing is an issue? the tail maybe....

The tail on the King Air is pretty low.

_________________________________________
www.myspace.com/termvelocity

[BGill 0]

Quote

The tail on the King Air is pretty low.

as is the tail on the PAC750XL

[riggerrob 563]

That is really scary!!!!!

Lawyers like him deserve ..... oh!
Wait a minute ... I am not allowed to say that in public.

How about: the only thing WORSE than a divorce lawyer is a tort lawyer.

Both species have to look up to see whale shit.

[squirrel 0]

Peoples need for lawyers is a direct ratio to their inability to take responsibility for their actions, and their lack of ability to work through problems. So, with the on going dumbing down of the worlds public, it is a natural (although bad) result, that lawyers like this guy will proliferate.

________________________________
Where is Darwin when you need him?

[billvon 2,476]

> Peoples need for lawyers is a direct ratio to their inability to
>take responsibility for their actions, and their lack of ability to work
>through problems.

Not only are skydivers suing skydivers nowadays, some people are _encouraging_ other jumpers to sue skydivers to deal with things like pattern accidents. So we are gradually becoming those people.

[pchapman 262]

So this thread is getting derailed.
We need one for the Twin Otter production line (that although it has gotten the green light, hasn't yet happened), one for the Quantum Leap lawsuit, and one to hurl insults at effing lawyers.

From that news article:

Quote

If they can prevent this type of accident from happening again, that is what they are looking for from these companies.

Good, so I'm sure all money made in the lawsuit will go directly to aviation safety organizations to lobby the FAA for regulatory change, and to Pratt & Whitney Canada, to sponsor research into short engine cycle stresses on PT6's...

[slotperfect 7]

I agree . . . I detached this from the orginal thread and gave it a home of it's own. Unfortunately, as always, that ends up dragging some original reply content along unintentionally.

A note to all: don't just reply to the last poster . . . either reply to the original poster or the specific post you are replying to. That will keep your reply, caught up in a hijack, from getting unavoidably moved.

Arrive Safely

John

[78RATS 0]

Quote

and those responsible for the plane’s maintenance and upkeep.

Any jumper that has been around a while knows this could be trouble.

NOT TALKING ABOUT THIS CASE. Just saying...

Rat for Life - Fly till I die
When them stupid ass bitches ask why

[ZigZagMarquis 8]

Quote

Robb said his experience in aviation leads him to the conclusion that skydiving operations should use an air-cooled jet engine in their planes.

If you take that statement literally, then we should be using Turbo-Fan or Turbo-Jet (Straight Jet) powered aircraft for jump ops and not Turbo-Prop powered aircraft... irregardless of the fact that all 3 classes are air cooled... I won't even bring up propeller driven aircraft equipped with air cooled reciprocating engines; radial, horizontally opposed or otherwise.

So, how many Turbo-Fan or Turbo-Jet powered aircraft out there are being used for jump ops? Perris' DC-9. Anyone, please point out others, but that's all that comes to my mind.


Unfortunately, none of this (re: the original post) should surprise any of us that have been around the block a few times. Nor cause us to question whether he's for real or not.

Face it, if any of us got called for jury duty on this case, besides the fact that we've read and talked a lot about this on DZ.com, we'd probably get tossed because we're skydivers. Some of us would probably get "double" tossed because we're skydivers AND know more then a bit about aviation because we're also Pilots, or Aerospace Engineers, or work in the aviation industry or combinations there of. I doubt the lawyer "Mr. Robb" would want any of us on the jury.

Who knows how this will go down. It will probably be a year or two still (my wild ass guess) before we can look back in hind-sight and say how it all worked out, but unfortunately, it will probably involve Pratt or some of the other "big pocket" types settling out of court for this to just go away for them and/or responsibility (right or wrong) being pushed off on the (dead) pilot.

That's unfortunate, but unfortunately, that's the world we live in today.

There used to be a time when "legal" meant LAW. Now it just means some sort of loop-hole or extenuating circumstance or what-not that makes no sense what so ever to an "everyday man's" logic, but works in court.

[2shay 0]

I talked with some others abou this at the first of the year. I try to think positive about it, but it is hard. What other turbine aircraft would be an option? Are there any that are compariable?

don't try your bullshit with me!!!

[azdiver 0]

Quote

***

Face it, if any of us got called for jury duty on this case, besides the fact that we've read and talked a lot about this on DZ.com, we'd probably get tossed because we're skydivers. Some of us would probably get "double" tossed because we're skydivers AND know more then a bit about aviation because we're also Pilots, or Aerospace Engineers, or work in the aviation industry or combinations there of. I doubt the lawyer "Mr. Robb" would want any of us on the jury

no skydivers but im sure some mothers of skydivers he would, especially if he is trying to say that it was negligence and that a message needs to be sent to stop it from ever happening again.

light travels faster than sound, that's why some people appear to be bright until you hear them speak

[diablopilot 2]

Quote

Peoples need for lawyers is a direct ratio to their inability to take responsibility for their actions, and their lack of ability to work through problems. So, with the on going dumbing down of the worlds public, it is a natural (although bad) result, that lawyers like this guy will proliferate.

Exactly the problem I have with how "accessable" this sport has become.

----------------------------------------------
You're not as good as you think you are. Seriously.

[kai2k1 0]

That Article is an old one... cam out right after the crash.. look up the incident in the forums and you can find it there also..

There's no truer sense of flying than sky diving," Scott Cowan

[tdog 0]

Quote

Not only are skydivers suing skydivers nowadays, some people are _encouraging_ other jumpers to sue skydivers to deal with things like pattern accidents. So we are gradually becoming those people.

I am definitely not an advocate of lawsuits. But, the fear of lawyers does do one thing... It keeps DZOs who otherwise could sleep at night with poor maintenance on planes with the attitude "the waiver will protect me" awake to contemplate reasons why they should spend the maintenance money...

The only time I could see a lawsuit I would support - is if there is clear gross negligence... Imagine a maintenance tech telling the DZO, "you need to do this asap" and he ignores it. He made a safety decision on my behalf he had no right to make without notifying me of the risk. Or, lets say a drunk tandem instructor...

It is too bad that people actually participate in gross negligence - we wouldn't need lawyers...

[billvon 2,476]

>The only time I could see a lawsuit I would support - is if there is
>clear gross negligence... Imagine a maintenance tech telling the DZO,
>"you need to do this asap" and he ignores it.

Well, and therein lies the problem. Everyone thinks that's exactly what happened - that there was a clear safety concern, the DZO ignored it, and their loved one was killed. Since you're familiar with the sport, you might decide that ignoring one popped stich on the binding tape on a riser cover is OK, but ignoring a tear in the reserve container is not. To someone whose child was killed, that callous disregard for that popped stitch is the reason their kid died (or is indicative of his habitual negligence) - all so the DZO could save a buck. And shutting him down can save others from the same fate. Or take your pick from any one of these:

-Using a rig (say, a Javelin, or Talon, or Vector) that has had obvious safety problems in the past

-Using a JM whose students have been injured in the past

-Using an aircraft not designed for skydiving

-Going to an altitude where hypoxia is possible without oxygen available (because the DZO is a cheap money-grubbing bastard, of course)

Once it's OK to sue for negligence, then that will get defined by the person involved, and they will set the bar wherever they choose. I'd prefer to stick to the waiver - YOU are responsible for your safety, even if the DZO is doing things you consider questionable. It means a lot more work (i.e. getting to know the pilots, the mechanics, the instructors etc) but it makes you into more of a participant in the process.

[tdog 0]

Quote

It means a lot more work (i.e. getting to know the pilots, the mechanics, the instructors etc) but it makes you into more of a participant in the process.

I agree.

In your example of the binding tape - the risk was known to the participant.

I had very specific examples... A trained (licenced) professional telling the DZO to not operate a plane and he does it anyway - and/or a drunk tandem instructor....

These are cases where the known risk exists as usual - but it was compounded by an individual who did something KNOWN to add a lot more unnecessary risk.

I looked it up:

Quote

GROSS NEGLIGENCE - Failure to use even the slightest amount of care in a way that shows Recklessness or willful disregard for the safety of others.

and if you trust wikipedia:

Quote

Negligence is a legal concept usually used to achieve compensation for accidents and injuries. Negligence is a type of tort or delict and a civil wrong, but can also be used in criminal law. Negligence means conduct that is culpable because it misses the legal standard required of a reasonable person in protecting individuals against foreseeably risky, harmful acts of other members of society. Negligent behavior towards others gives them rights to be compensated for the harm to their body, property, mental well-being, financial status, or relationships. Negligence is used in comparison to acts or omissions which are intentional or willful.

Your examples: My devil's advocate....

Quote

-Using a rig (say, a Javelin, or Talon, or Vector) that has had obvious safety problems in the past

If the manufacture says, "make this mod, we found a safety problem", and the DZ ignores....

Quote

-Using a JM whose students have been injured in the past

Other JMs reported to the DZO they had knowledge the instructor did not have a rating and often came to work with a hangover... The JMs identified their peer taught something fundamentally wrong. The DZO does not take action to investigate.

Quote

-Using an aircraft not designed for skydiving

The trade journals document previous accidents caused by modification of the door on this airframe. The professionals specifically identify a concern. The DZO is sent a letter by the manufacture suggesting no further jumping operations until a reinforcement bar is installed. The DZO does not order the part and proclaims to the staff he knows better than those fools at the factory.

Quote

-Going to an altitude where hypoxia is possible without oxygen available (because the DZO is a cheap money-grubbing bastard, of course)

The pilot repeatedly notifies the DZO that the oxygen tank leaks. He puts it on a preflight inspection form. He is concerned because he experiences hypoxia on a few flights. The DZO says he repaired the tanks, but instead of adding a turn to a loose fitting, he alters the documents, forging a signature on new inspection reports, that cover up the problem that could have been fixed for free with a hardware store tool.


***

Don't get me wrong. I don't advocate lawsuits. I would hate to be part of one. I hope no one sues any DZ I go to...

But - there is a difference between participating in a high risk sport and managing the risk, and a DZO who knowingly and willingly acts in ways to increase risk beyond what a reasonable person would do.

[billvon 2,476]

>If the manufacture says, "make this mod, we found a safety problem",
>and the DZ ignores....

. . . and if the DZO complies with the bulletin, the grieving family still says "there was a KNOWN problem with this rig and they forced my son to use it!"

>The pilot repeatedly notifies the DZO that the oxygen tank leaks. He puts
> it on a preflight inspection form. He is concerned because he experiences
>hypoxia on a few flights.

. . . . and the DZO thus only uses that aircraft for jumps below 12,500 MSL until he can fix it. Someone dies. The grieving family says "There was a KNOWN problem with the oxygen system, and my son died from hypoxia!"

Again, you'd say "well, you're missing the point; those things aren't problems" to all of the above. But those things are gross negligence to _that_ family. And while a jury may well decide that the family is not entitled to compensation, by going the "let the jury figure it out" route you're signing DZ's up for a lot of legal costs.

You can't advocate lawsuits brought only by smart people. Dumb people have just as many rights as smart people, and will take the legal avenues open to them - especially if there is ample precedent set by experienced jumpers suing DZ's.