Look Out, Raytheon, The Lawyers Say You're Next
Two days of "grueling"
mediation has produced an agreement between the family of a pilot
and the families of Oklahoma State University basketball players
and others killed in a 2001 crash: They won't sue each other.
They'll instead sue Raytheon, the maker of the King Air 200 that
went down.
"It took a lot of concerted effort by the parties and their
lawyers to get this done," said Mike Smith, attorney for the family
of Denver Mills, speaking to Oklahoma City's Daily Oklahoman. Next
stop: a lawsuit against the manufacturer. "We can now pursue
Raytheon, who we all think appears to be a major factor," Smith
said.
The King Air 200 was the last of three aircraft used to
transport basketball team members from a game in Boulder (CO) on
January 27th, 2001. It went down in a field near Strasburg (CO).
The NTSB said weather at the time was IMC. The two-man cockpit crew
and eight passengers were killed in the crash and resulting
fire.
The NTSB, in its final report, concluded that the pilot
experienced a complete loss of AC power. The bureau blamed pilot
Denver Mills for not reacting properly to the power outage.
Four possibilities exist to explain the loss of a.c. power
aboard the accident airplane. But what caused the power to go out?
The NTSB report suggests four reasons in the absence of definitive
proof.
"First, the selected inverter could have failed, and the pilot
might not have switched to the other inverter. However, the pilot
should have been familiar with this switch because it is always
used to supply a.c. power after engine start and to terminate a.c.
power before engine shutdown.
"Second, a dual inverter failure could have occurred. However,
it is extremely unlikely that both inverters would have failed
because of the inverters’ history of reliability aboard King
Air 200 airplanes. Only eight FAA Service Difficulty Reports
regarding King Air 200 inverters were submitted during a period of
almost 15 years, and none of the eight reports involved a dual
inverter failure.
"The Safety Board notes that, in October 1990, both inverters
aboard the accident airplane were reported as inoperative for
several minutes, but the cause of the problem was found to be a
failed relay (which was then replaced) and not the failure of both
inverters. Also, the maintenance records for the accident airplane
did not indicate a systemic problem with either inverter. In
addition, the internal fuses from both inverters were found broken
but not melted or burned, which indicated that the inverters had
not shorted.
"Third, the King Air 200 electrical system schematic indicates
that, if at least one of the inverters is operational, no a.c.
power is present at the volt/frequency meter, and d.c. power is
available to the inverters, then one of three components—the
inverter selector switch, the inverter select relay, or the
avionics inverter select relay—could produce an a.c. power
electrical system failure. Thus, all three components are potential
sources of single-point failures in the electrical system. None of
these items was recovered from the wreckage.
"Fourth, wiring failures, shorts, or opens are possible reasons
for the loss of a.c. power."
One of the family members who settled was Mills' daughter. "We
believe that when the evidence is made public, everyone will know
the accident was caused by problems Raytheon had the opportunity to
correct," she said. "The evidence will show that the airplane
failed everyone on the plane, including my father."
Victims' relatives had sued Mills' estate, along with Raytheon,
North Bay Charter, Marathon Power Technologies and Marathon
Flite-Tronic. All but Raytheon, whose representatives walked out of
the mediation, agreed to pay compensation. Now, six of the
families, including Mills', are suing Raytheon.
ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (04.15.24)
See All