Family Points Finger At Vacuum Pump Maker | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-04.01.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.09.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.10.24 Airborne-Unlimited-04.11.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.12.24

Join Us At 0900ET, Friday, 4/10, for the LIVE Morning Brief.
Watch It LIVE at
www.airborne-live.net

Sat, Nov 15, 2003

Family Points Finger At Vacuum Pump Maker

Late Missouri Governor's Wife Accuses Parker Hannifin

The way the family of the late Missouri Governor Mel Carnahan sees it, Parker Hannifin Co. knew for 20 years its vacuum pumps were responsible for plane crashes, but did nothing about it. The way the defense tells it, the problem wasn't mechanical, it was "inadvertent" spatial disorientation on the part of Carnahan's pilot -- his son, Randy.

The Carnahans are suing Parker Hannifin for unspecified damages after the governor's Cessna 335 went down October 16, 2000. Governor Carnahan was on the campaign trail, running for US Senate against John Ashcroft, before his appointment as US Attorney General.

According to the NTSB report, Randy Carnahan was flying from St. Louis Downtown Airport in Cahokia (IL) to County Memorial Airport in New Madrid (MO) at around 7:30 pm when he reported having trouble with his attitude indicator while he was in IMC. Eventually, he asked for and was granted permission to divert to Jefferson City (MO), where he thought he might be able to get out of IMC. The Cessna 335 never made it. Instead, it impacted a grove of trees near Hillsboro (MO). The NTSB report indicates the aircraft was traveling at approximately 300 kts when it struck the ground. Three people were killed. There were no survivors.

In its report, the NTSB says:

On the basis of the examination of the left-side (primary) attitude indicator, it was determined that the rotor was most likely spinning, but not at a high enough rpm to keep the display erect (the wreckage fragments of the left-side attitude indicator clearly aligned in an inverted attitude), indicating that this attitude indicator was not displaying properly at the time of impact. Although the pilot reported that his primary attitude indicator had failed and examination of the attitude indicator supported that such a failure had occurred, the investigation could not determine the cause of the failure in that instrument.
 
On the basis of the examination of the right-side attitude indicator, it was determined that the rotor was spinning, the display was erect when the airplane made initial contact with the trees, and the attitude it displayed was consistent with the airplane's attitude when it struck the trees (as determined by an inspection of the accident site and a three-dimensional model of the airplane's flight path through the trees), indicating that this attitude indicator was functioning properly until the time of impact.
 
After first reporting that the primary attitude indicator was malfunctioning, the pilot continued flight for about 11 minutes, including two controlled heading changes, indicating that the pilot had functioning cockpit instruments and that he could control the airplane. Further, in the event that an instrument malfunction occurs, instrument flight rules (IFR)-qualified pilots are trained to use other relevant instruments, which evidence indicates were operating on the accident airplane (the right-side attitude indicator). Therefore, the loss of the primary attitude indicator alone does not explain why the pilot lost control of the airplane and crashed.
 
However, the right-side attitude indicator was not large and would have been several feet to the right of the pilot. Therefore, using the right-side attitude indicator would have resulted in the pilot making frequent, rapid head movements to cross-check that instrument with the other instruments. The pilot's head movements most likely caused him to experience spatial disorientation. Further, the rain conditions in which the pilot was maneuvering would have increased the noise level in the cockpit, and the presence of turbulence would have made it more difficult to control the airplane with failed instrumentation, both of which would likely have exacerbated the pilot's spatial disorientation.

What caused the attitude indicator to fail? That's the bone of contention in the Carnahan family lawsuit. The family's lawyer, Gary Robb, blamed the two vacuum pumps on board and went further in his three-hour long opening statement. He said Parker-Hannifin has known about pump problems for two decades. He claimed the company's failure to correct the problem has caused 46 deaths.

"There is no question the primary attitude indicator went out on this airplane," Parker-Hannifin attorney Wayne Taff said. "Why did it fail? We'll never know." He also added that, given the redundant nature of the vacuum pump configuration on the twin-engine Cessna 335, both pumps would have had to fail for them to have caused the attitude indicator malfunction.

Further, the vacuum pump drives the directional gyro. The NTSB report specifically states Randy Carnahan was able to follow headings given to him by ATC. In other words, it appeared to investigators that the DG was functioning at the time of the crash. And as if to speak in final support of the manufacturer, the NTSB indicated both pumps appeared to have been working when the aircraft hit that grove of trees.

FMI: http://www.ntsb.gov/publictn/2002/AAB0202.htm

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (04.13.24)

Aero Linx: Florida Antique Biplane Association "Biplanes.....outrageous fun since 1903." That quote really defines what the Florida Antique Biplane Association (FABA) is all about.>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (04.13.24): Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (BVLOS)

Beyond Visual Line Of Sight (BVLOS) The operation of a UAS beyond the visual capability of the flight crew members (i.e., remote pilot in command [RPIC], the person manipulating th>[...]

Airborne 04.09.24: SnF24!, Piper-DeltaHawk!, Fisher Update, Junkers

Also: ForeFlight Upgrades, Cicare USA, Vittorazi Engines, EarthX We have a number of late-breaking news highlights from the 2024 Innovation Preview... which was PACKED with real ne>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (04.14.24)

“For Montaer Aircraft it is a very prudent move to incorporate such reliable institution as Ocala Aviation, with the background of decades in training experience and aviation>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (04.14.24): Maximum Authorized Altitude

Maximum Authorized Altitude A published altitude representing the maximum usable altitude or flight level for an airspace structure or route segment. It is the highest altitude on >[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2024 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC