Northrop Grumman Sued Over Mallard Crash

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

From AvWeb:

Quote:

Northrop Grumman Sued Over Mallard Crash

It's not often that a manufacturer is sued for allegedly defective products it hasn't built in almost 60 years but that's where Northrop Grumman finds itself. Chalk's Ocean Airways and its insurer AIG is suing the company over the crash of one of Chalk's Grumman Mallards in December of 2005, claiming the 58-year-old aircraft wasn't properly made. "There was a manufacturing problem with the rivets," Chalk's attorney John Eversole told the Miami Herald. "Our allegations are that there was a weak area where the wings are attached to the fuselage, an area that could lead to weakness if under stress. This area is enclosed and cannot be inspected. The metal is built around the area where this wing sheared off..." The right wing on Chalk's Mallard came off in flight and the resulting crash killed all 20 aboard. The Herald said Northrop Grumman declined comment on the suit.

Chalk's never recovered from the accident and its operating certificate was pulled in November of 2007. AIG paid out $50 million in claims. The NTSB blamed faulty maintenance and Chalk's failure to spot the fatigue cracks that caused the accident but Eversole said there was nothing anyone could have done to spot the problem. "We think the NTSB was way too quick to blame Chalk's for maintenance when there is no maintenance that can be done with this area," he said. "You can't inspect it, you can't perform maintenance on it. There is nothing you can do short of rebuilding the airplane."

RyanShort1 · **Posted:** Mon Jan 19, 2009 2:26 pm

You know, if I had AIG insurance I think I would call them up and tell them what I thought of that. That's just wrong.

Ryan

brucev · **Posted:** Tue Jan 20, 2009 6:24 pm

Is the General Aviation Revitalization Act any help for the manufacturer in this case? I'm not well versed in its details but perhaps the 18 yr liability limit doesn't apply for whatever reason?

bdk · **Joined:** Sun May 02, 2004 1:16 am **Posts:** 11319

Maybe it isn't considered general aviation because it is over 12,500 lbs gross weight?

P51Mstg · **Joined:** Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:36 am **Posts:** 1202

As we set off to vilify and crucify the lawyers in the crowd (unless they own cool warbirds; those guys are OK). Unless lawyers worked on the airplane and somehow caused it to crash, they are not to blame.

Please bear in mind that it appears that this lawsuit was started by AIG to attempt to recover what they paid out for the crash. NG is well prepared to defend themselves and I'm sure some settlement will be reached in the case long before it goes to trial.....

I can say that those who have insurance (and I don't insure my aircraft) need remember that if the company has to pay out something, they will try to get it back from somewhere other than premiums.....

Of course they were also nice enough to hand out $50mil in claims without a fight, so that AIG isn't as bad as you all think. Would you rather see NG sued or see some children of dead passengers out in the street.

Of course the recent law to "protect" aircraft manufacturers, limited what they do to maintain old aircraft. Its my understanding that some will not allow "old" airplanes to maintained by factory authorized service centers. If that happens then they are liable for those models again.

For others parts get more expensive. Its my understanding that Bell Helicopters raised prices on the metal rotor blades on my Bell 47. Blades used to list at about $70,000 a set and now they are supposed to be $360,000 a set (yeah for blades)..... That should eventually ground a lot of helicopters that are currently worth $160,000 for the whole helicopter. For me..... No problem, I've got 90% life left in my blades and I doubt I'll wear them out in my life time as long as I keep them out of the trees....

I'm sure that the people who post here are not quick to blame the pilots to the point of not wanting to even discuss the accident..... I can say that there is a THIN LINE between pilot error and the pilot being the HERO. The USAir Pilot that put the Airbus in the river came out on the right side of that line. It could have just as easily come out the other way.

Some mechanics are good and some aren't (my father was one in the USAF and for USAIR, Allegheny, and Mohawk for 40 years).... I think that most try to see that the airplanes that they take care of are safe to fly and they usually do their jobs well.

So, lets not blame lawyers (unless they screwed up the inspection in some way) or the pilots, mechanics or the manufacturers or even the insurance companies ...... What happens happens. Sorry thats how it goes.

Mark H

Warbird Information Exchange

Northrop Grumman Sued Over Mallard Crash

Who is online