Northrup Grumman is being sued by Chalks over 2006 crash...

[Warbirdnerd]

It was only a matter of time I guess...
From ANN:

Northrop Grumman Sued In 2005 Chalks Ocean Airways Accident Defunct Airline Blames Inadequate Design Of 58-Year-Old
Airframe

The General Aviation Revitalization
Act of 1994, which limited tort claims against manufacturers of
aircraft older than 18 years, allowed a renaissance among general
aviation manufacturers. But there are still attorneys trying to
find ways around it.

The Miami Herald reports Northrop Grumman faces two lawsuits
over the December 2005 crash of a 58-year-old Grumman Turbo Mallard
seaplane in passenger service with Chalk's Ocean Airways. Chalk's
was the last operator using the type in commercial passenger
service, and billed itself as the world's oldest airline, with a
history of flying famous Hollywood stars and infamous
Prohibition-era bootleggers to the Bahamas.

As ANN reported, the plane in question
suffered a right-wing separation, burst into flames, and crashed
into the ocean off Miami in view of crowds on the beach. The NTSB
ruled the wing separated due to fatigue cracks, and blamed
inadequate aircraft inspection by Chalk's, and lax maintenance
oversight by the FAA.

Chalk's went out of business, and the FAA grounded the remaining
Mallards and pulled Chalk's operating certificate.

Now, attorneys for Chalk's, its leasing companies, and AIG
Insurance have filed two suits in federal court in Miami and New
York, claiming the antique plane was "not adequately designed for
its intended purpose."

John Eversole, at attorney for Chalk's says the NTSB was wrong
to blame the airline.

"Our allegations are that there was a weak area where the wings
are attached to the fuselage," he said "...This area is enclosed
and cannot be inspected. The metal is built around the area where
this wing sheared off... You can't inspect it, you can't perform
maintenance on it. There is nothing you can do short of rebuilding
the airplane."

AIG is trying to recover 50-million dollars it paid out in
claims. Also named in both lawsuits is Frakes Aviation of Cleburne,
TX... which is unlucky enough to be the current holder of the STC
that allowed the retrofit of twin Pratt & Whitney Canada PT-6
turboprop engines, in the place of the Mallard's original radial
motors.

AOPA Air Safety Foundation Executive Director Bruce Landsberg,
commenting in his current blog, calls the case both amusing and
infuriating.

"We agree that manufacturers need to be responsible for their
products but is it only in aviation that companies can be held
liable indefinitely?" Landsberg writes "It will be interesting to
see if the legal system has the integrity to seriously question
what I believe is an unjustified suit -- without running up a huge
tab."
FMI: www.ntsb.gov, www.aopa.org/asf/

[Holedigger]

Depending on how this suit goes down, it could either lead to ALL AC over 25 years old being grounded, or just force "antique" AC insurance so high that no one can afford to fly them anymore! But the lawyers will get paid,,,

[TAdan]

The NTSB ruled the wing separated due to fatigue cracks, and blamed inadequate aircraft inspection by Chalk's, and lax maintenance
oversight by the FAA.

So obviously the people that built it 58 years ago must be at fault... not the people operating the 58 year old airplane... I hope Grumman tells them to take a hike.

[RyanShort1]

This was also posted in the General Aviation section earlier.

http://warbirdinformationexchange.org/p ... ht=#265021

Ryan

[Holedigger]

Got a pic (somewhere in my photo crypt) of one of the Chalks birds powering herself up a seaplane ramp in Bimini! It was rather loud! loved that sound!!! Sounded almost like a real airplane!

[John Dupre]

As I recall the source of the cracks that led to the failure was really botched fastener hole. An attempt had been made to drill it out which went bad making a y shaped hole. Someone just stuffed a new fastener in one leg of the hole and left the remains of the old fastener in the other leg. Shoddy ain't the word for it.

Didn't Grumman sell the type certificates to the amphibians to someone else who is trying to bring back the Goose? I wonder if they have some interest in the suit?

[Bill Walker]

This is so typical of several North American product liability law suits I've been involved with over the years. There is no point in discussing the technical issues involved as rational people with a bit of knowledge in the field. This will be decided by a jury of high school drop outs, based entirely on the presentation skills of the lawyers.

Not that I'm bitter or anything...

[PinecastleAAF]

There are many reasons I hope the planitiffs loose but the one of the biggest reasons is that AIG can go F itself. Here they are collecting bailout money in the hundreds of millions from the gubmint and they turn around and sue Grumman for a 58 year old aircraft.

[Tinker51]

There is no point in discussing the technical issues involved as rational people with a bit of knowledge in the field. This will be decided by a jury of high school drop outs, based entirely on the presentation skills of the lawyers.

Truer words were never spoken.

[A2C]

Stupid. It's called admitting that you failed to inspect it properly, not blame somebody else.

[daveymac82c]

I don't want to get involved in this topic because I know I'll get frustrated....

oops... too late.

So, my two cents involve me saying that such a lawsuit is unacceptable. The airplane design in question was indeed designed for the use of transport and passenger operations. Thus, it was built strong enough to do so.

Since it was designed, obviously there have been AD's and other mods done to the airplane, not to mention more powerful engines than it ever was designed to carry. Hmm.. that could add stress to the airplane.

Then there's always the issue with the pilots and how they operate the given airplanes. You could have two identical airplanes sitting in front of you, and from the outside and from the inside they're exactly the same, but you'd never know if one of them had accidentally gone past it's structural G limits, yet stayed together.

That's my idea of what happened with the airplane that had the wing seperation. I'm assuming it had some sort of excessive G loading on it, yet stayed together, then the next time someone put a G load on the airplane, albeit within the max. G loading, it ended up causing a catastrophic structural failure.

Let me just say now that I have not read the NTSB report. I just think that the older planes get, the more wear and tear there is on the airframe. And the longer old planes are around, the higher chance there is of positive and negative G forces having been put on the airframe.

Anyways, I hope the lawsuit gets thrown out.

..........


David

[Django]

Please God tell me WHY I never get put on cases like this when I get called for jury duty...

[jet1]

everything built by man should have at least a 50 year warranty......I swear...where and what rocks do these types crawl out from under.

[A2C]

Depending on how this suit goes down, it could either lead to ALL AC over 25 years old being grounded, or just force "antique" AC insurance so high that no one can afford to fly them anymore! But the lawyers will get paid,,,

No it won't, as long as they recognize the the aircraft was probably abused with it running on turboprops. They'll probably let the trip and fall ambulance chasing lawyers make their money from Northrop Grumman. It's a great case, you know the deep pockets attracts people out of the woodwork.

When it's all said and done, the FAA will probably just write up another AD. Anyway, give AOPA advocacy a call, and tell them to do some premptive action to keep the overreaction down.

[kenlyco]

I had a friend I worked with for a few years at PBIA. that was also killed flying a Chalks Grumman..1990's