A Triumph Of Emotion Over Evidence

The aviation world was dealt several tough blows last week as a CBS News report relied on hysteria and half-truths to publicize a non-existent danger, while a Kansas City jury penalized an airframe supplier (Parker-Hannifin) for having it's equipment on board an aircraft that crashed in a tragic spatial disorientation accident.

We've said as much as we need to, for the moment, on CBS' lackluster journalistic standards, but the Parker-Hannifin case really needs to be examined, carefully and objectively. The fact of the matter is that this case should never have been allowed to go to trial. The evidence simply did not support the case. Period.

In various criminal/legal endeavors, Judges and Lawyers are required to show that facts/evidence back up the decisions made in court... but the same such concepts often do not apply to civil matters... where emotion often over-rules reason, and "Don't bother us with the facts, our jury's made it's mind up" attitudes rule the day.

The suit was filed after a popular Governor, his son (the pilot), and a staffer were killed in a Cessna 335 that went down in IFR conditions after experiencing some interruption in attitude guidance from one attitude reference... while others were apparently still working.

An exhaustive NTSB report found that the accident was not caused by vacuum pump failure, as alleged by the attorneys suing Parker-Hannifin on behalf of the surviving family members... one of whom ascended to a position in Congress upon the death of her husband (the Governor, who was elected to Congress posthumously) in the accident. The accident was caused when one (but not all) attitude references (an attitude indicator, not manufactured by P-H) failed and the pilot succumbed to the ravages of spatial disorientation while attempting to use other references in bad weather and turbulent conditions. It was a tough scenario, but it was survivable. Ultimately, errors not equipment, brought the bird down... period.

That's what the facts say.

The pilot even admitted (to ATC) that he had other attitude references when he stated that he had lost one. The NTSB Report clearly stated that, "The pilot indicated to ATC several times that he was having problems with the airplane's primary attitude indicator. He also told ATC that he was trying to use the right-side attitude indicator, which indicates that the airplane did not experience a total vacuum system failure. Examination of the wreckage revealed rotational marks in the left and right engine vacuum pumps, which indicates that they were most likely functioning at the time of impact. Further, one of the vacuum gage system failure indicator buttons exhibited evidence of having been in almost the fully retracted position (the other indicator button was found in the partially retracted position), which indicates that adequate vacuum existed for the airplane's instruments to operate."

OK... an AI goes out, but another is working, AND there are other attitude references available, and, YES,  the vacuum pumps were WORKING. The NTSB eventually rules the accident to have been caused by "...the pilot's failure to control the airplane while maneuvering because of spatial disorientation. Contributing to the accident were the failure of the airplane's primary attitude indicator and the adverse weather conditions, including turbulence." It doesn't get more clear-cut than this... from the most expert aviation investigative organization in the world -- who still filed this factual report despite the probable specter of political pressure from the family and, specifically, the former Congressperson widowed by this accident.

The trial was questionable in both result, as well as practice... presided over by a judge appointed by one of the deceased, and where experts with extensive experience on the subject of vacuum pumps were denied a chance to impart their knowledge, while others with little more than an emotional impact had their say. The conduct of the trial sure seems to suggest a bias for the foes of P-H and a disregard for the rules of evidence.

Worse, though, is this, when all is said and done; Parker-Hannifin's insurers will pay out nearly 3 million dollars (the award is somewhat discounted by sums already received by others named in the action), the prices for aviation hardware will increase as a result, and high-tech businesses will continue to shy away (or more accurately, run like hell) from GA equipment production (we've lost hundreds of suppliers over the years for fear of litigation)... leaving us with few remaining, but necessarily costly, suppliers to work with. Sadly; there is no percentage in appealing this verdict, no matter how aggressively the facts might support an appeal. P-H CAN'T appeal the verdict because it would invite a cross appeal from the family, who originally tried to get $100 Million. The uncontested $2.8 Million penalty for Parker leaves the deceased's family with no recourse to get more money.

The scariest part of this? This is actually a "win" for Parker-Hannifin... who would probably pay nearly as much on appeal, regardless, to fight the verdict. Damned, if you do, damned if you don't; that's Parker-Hannifin's cross to bear.

Finally, though, Parker-Hannifin gets to bear the brunt of millions of people reading about how they "killed" a popular political figure and 2 other people. They have had to silently take unrelenting attacks by a grieving family who has been striking out based on grief, not on fact. The widow even went so far as to state that, "My son (reportedly the pilot-in-command of the flight) was found not responsible for the death of his father in the crash of that plane, and that it was in fact Parker-Hannifin... We wanted to establish that Randy was innocent."

It's hard to dispute the words of a grieving widow... some might say that it's rude and unfeeling, but the facts of the matter as established by the results of an NTSB investigation and not a jury blinded by a famous family dealing with immense grief, is that Pilot Error WAS involved... a single attitude reference failed while others remained active (which should have been used to keep the aircraft under control), and the conditions involved were tough and uncompromising. I fail to see where Parker-Hannifin is at fault, and I fail to see how the family has been vindicated in anything... What I do see is a legal system that gave yet another lawyer a darned-good payday, used emotion to overcome fact and reason, and penalized an entire industry (again) due to the failure of a small group of people (the jury), to have sufficient aviation smarts to see what really happened... a tragic accident that could have been avoided by the use of functioning attitude references and more effective IFR procedures. 

Such a tragedy -- both in terms of the price paid by those who lost their lives and the families who loved them... and the industry that will be made to pay for the accident from here on out...

Jim Campbell, ANN Editor-In-Chief

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