More Legal Commentary On CC3407 -- This Time From Arthur Wolk | 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-04.22.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.16.24

Airborne-FlightTraining-04.17.24 Airborne-AffordableFlyers-04.18.24

Airborne-Unlimited-04.19.24

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

Thu, May 21, 2009

More Legal Commentary On CC3407 -- This Time From Arthur Wolk

A Controversial But None-The-Less Interesting Take On The CC3407 Disaster

Arthur Alan Wolk is a 'love him' or 'hate him' kinda guy... and many in aviation will pretty much adopt the latter criteria when his name comes up. An opponent to a number of aviation interests over the years, Wolk has sued for (and won) millions of dollars in judgments that have either (depending on your viewpoint) penalized parties who were liable for the damage their products caused... OR driven a number of aviation firms to the brink of insolvency with expensive and controversial litigation. Regardless, with all the wild and non-specific posturing we've read from a number of Attorneys trying to get a piece of the upcoming legal jackpot surrounding 3407, this is the first piece of legal analysis we've seen that actually has some aero-conversant thought and analysis behind it -- which is not to say that we agree with everything he says (especially in regards to our direct experience with the Cessna Caravan and his synopsis of the 3407 stall cause/effect)... though it has give us some interesting thoughts. Much of the other 3407-related legal statements we've read contain an astonishing amount of (mostly) emotional grand standing. As a result, love him or hate him, we thought his thoughts on CC3407 (even though they might, ultimately, be self-serving) deserved to be read and considered... 

When the inevitable suits head to court, we have a feeling that many of the arguments presented will ultimately wind up looking like this... so check it now while you can.

Stop Faulting the Flight Crew for the Crash of Colgan 3407!

By Arthur Alan Wolk

The flight crew was blameless for this crash and everyone investigating the crash knows it. It’s just easier to blame the dead crew than to blame the manufacturer who failed to equip this airliner with modern anti-ice equipment. The airplane suffered a tail stall as soon as the flaps 15 setting was selected and the crew did what they were taught – they reversed the procedure and retracted the flaps.

The captain, in spite of the hideous criticism for having nonessential conversations below 10,000 feet, was otherwise professional and all required briefings were carried out.

The aircraft pitch up and airspeed loss has occurred dozens of times in Cessna Caravans just before control is lost in ice. It is a pitch up when the tail loses its ability to provide required down force due to ice contamination. The airspeed bleeds off rapidly and the stick shaker and pusher react. The crew knows that the standard recovery of lowering the nose won’t work so they pull back like they were taught. Lateral control is then lost, followed by pitch control as well.

This aircraft was never certified to fly in freezing drizzle or rain and the crew, like every other airline crew, was misled into believing it was. No one is told that if the conditions are anything other than moderate – clear or rime – the airplane cannot fly. The use of outdated rubber boots, which allow the ice to accumulate before activation, aggravates the situation and just leads to trouble.

It is true that the captain was not the world’s best pilot and the first officer was a kid. Their training stunk and their non-pertinent discussions below 10,000 feet demonstrated poor judgment. However, the transcript from the cockpit voice recorder, read in context, reveals that nothing in their past or their conduct on that flight caused this accident.

No one should confuse legal liability for a crash with blame placed by investigating authorities. Legal responsibility belongs to Continental, Colgan, Pinnacle, and Bombardier and they will pay for all the losses. Blaming this crew is a hideous attempt to hide the truth. Airplanes with deicing boots no longer have a place in commercial aviation.

FMI: http://airlaw.com/commentary_colgan3407_crash.htm

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (04.24.24): Runway Lead-in Light System

Runway Lead-in Light System Runway Lead-in Light System Consists of one or more series of flashing lights installed at or near ground level that provides positive visual guidance a>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (04.24.24)

Aero Linx: Aviation Without Borders Aviation Without Borders uses its aviation expertise, contacts and partnerships to enable support for children and their families – at hom>[...]

Aero-FAQ: Dave Juwel's Aviation Marketing Stories -- ITBOA BNITBOB

Dave Juwel's Aviation Marketing Stories ITBOA BNITBOB ... what does that mean? It's not gibberish, it's a lengthy acronym for "In The Business Of Aviation ... But Not In The Busine>[...]

Classic Aero-TV: Best Seat in The House -- 'Inside' The AeroShell Aerobatic Team

From 2010 (YouTube Version): Yeah.... This IS A Really Cool Job When ANN's Nathan Cremisino took over the lead of our Aero-TV teams, he knew he was in for some extra work and a lot>[...]

Airborne Affordable Flyers 04.18.24: CarbonCub UL, Fisher, Affordable Flyer Expo

Also: Junkers A50 Heritage, Montaer Grows, Dynon-Advance Flight Systems, Vans' Latest Officially, the Carbon Cub UL and Rotax 916 iS is now in its 'market survey development phase'>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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