Pilot Claims Her Bell 47D1 Manual Contained Improper Instructions

Yet another lawsuit has figured out how to circumvent the Product Liability reforms that were supposed to provide some sense of relief from legal actions against products with significant histrories... like the Bell 47. And so, a lawsuit stemming from the 2005 crash of a Bell 47D1 in Rancho Murieta, CA can go forward, a California appeals court has ruled.

Alika Rogers survived the crash of the 52-year-old helicopter when it went down. She claims that the maintenance manual contained outdated instructions for balancing the aircraft's tail rotor blades.

Courthouse News Service reports that the last manual update had been in 1975. A trial court had initally agreed with Bell, who held that the manual is part of the aircraft and therefore cannot be used as evidence. But the 3rd Court of Appeal in Sacremento disagreed, saying that the manual was not part of the aircraft, and so was admissible.

In returning the case to trial court, Justice Ronald Robie wrote:  "Federal regulations do not require a maintenance manual to be onboard the aircraft ... and unlike a flight manual that is unique to the aircraft, used by the pilot, and necessary to operate the aircraft, a maintenance manual applies to different aircraft models, is used by the mechanic, and only for troubleshooting and repairing the aircraft."

Rogers is seeking (of course) unspecified damages from Bell.

FMI: www.courtinfo.ca.gov/courts/courtsofappeal/3rdDistrict, www.bellhelicopter.com