When I was young, I used to watch the TV series Dragnet. One of the famous lines from that series was “The facts, ma’am, just the facts.”
But today the question has become what are the facts and whose facts are correct?
When I watch the news, on almost every issue, one party will show facts and/or data showing their side and the other party will show just the opposite. So, which one is correct? Well kind of sort of both.
The example I give is on fuel economy in an automobile. Since I am considered a leading expert on automotive fuel economy, people will ask me if adding 10% ethanol to mogas will help or hurt the fuel economy of their cars.
If someone offered to hire me to run tests to document this, I would have to think to myself, what answer do I need here?
If it is the corn growers’ association paying for the test, I would need to show the benefits of ethanol. If it is the petroleum industry paying for the test, I would need to show the disadvantages of ethanol. So just by the design of the test, I could get whatever result I desired and it would be statistically significant.
This manipulation of the “facts” plays a big part in general aviation and the cost of liability insurance today.
A few years ago, I heard a talk by a representative of Cessna Aircraft Co. He claimed that the liability premiums they pay for every aircraft the company produces was around $250,000. If they built an airplane that cost $150,000 to make, Cessna would have to sell it for over $400,000 just to make a profit. This added cost is in almost everything you buy in aviation.
The cause of this increase is the cost of legal fights and jury awards.
Unfortunately, in many aircraft accidents, there are no survivors. This means that at a trial, the case will be decided on the merits or believability of the expert witnesses and the attorneys. They will present “facts” as they see them.
I have not been involved in a lot of cases, but in the cases I have been involved in, this scares the hell out of me. I have seen people I have dealt with for many years come up with the wildest theories about what happened or their opinion of the “facts” in some simple cases. Many of these theories I know are improbable or downright impossible.
The jurors, who usually are selected because they have little technical knowledge, are left to judge on the acting ability of the expert witnesses and attorneys.
There is the question of who will win and who will lose in this situation. Well, the attorneys and expert witnesses win and all of GA loses.
When I retired from Shell, our legal department estimated that it cost about $40,000 to win an air-tight case — and more if the opposing attorney was good or there were some out-of-line “facts.” It can easily get into the millions with the right judge.
That’s winning?
There are a lot of attorneys who will file a nuisance lawsuit and hope the company will easily pay just $20,000 and save the other $20,000.
The bottom line is that all of these costs hurt GA.
One of the ways it does this is by killing the development of new technology. The powerplants we use today are basically without major changes since the 1930s and 1940s. So much has changed since then that could benefit GA with easier use and better controls.
But as long as we have people like the ones who sue a manufacturer because the engine quit when he ran out of gas and there was no placard stating that that would happen, the new technology the industry needs will not happen.
That is just the nature of the beast, but not a good reason to stay in the past and not move forward.
I’d like to know more about Shell’s and particularly Jimmy Doolittle’s contribution to high octane gas. I’m a former USAF aircraft performance engineer and KB-50 flight engineer. Currently as a volunteer at the USAF Armament Museum, it would be great to offer how important high octane gas was to defeating the enemy and who the major contributors were.
Doug, I worked 14 years for a manufacturer in Wichita. I worked 7 years as an FAA designee and signed off 6000+ aircraft during my tenure. The small training aircraft were close to give-away items as the insurance costs eat up all profit on them just for liability coverage for the estimated life of the aircraft. Yet, corporate aircraft owners/operators don’t generally go after the manufacturer unless there is a mechanical/design flaw that was blamed on the manufacturer. Of course this statement is not totally accurate if the victim is a celebrity ball player and the widow blames the sale and the operation on the manufacturer. I even witnessed a 1937 model ground incident that went to court and the company still paid out something for bad operation habits
My belief – accidents are 5% pilot error and 95% pilot training error?
As a grad of the USC/LA Flight Safety program, an ATP CFII/ME and 800 hrs in F4E pilot and 1,000 hrs in PA 31…my recommendation has been offered to the FAA, EAA, AOPA … that a pilot who will fly an aircraft model for the first time must review the accident, incident and mechanical history of that aircraft.
I tell my students after they pass their FAA check ride to do me a big favor …
I say that I hope they will never have an accident ….
but if they do, please make it an original one !
There is one seller of very popular airframes – used all over in the USA – that directly told me – “you understand we only actually write the sales agreement contract in Canada or Europe for new aircraft.” [The airframe is European built] ” that saves us an enormous amount of money as compared to doing even one sale directly in the USA. Your liability laws are simply not business workable.” In another case, trying to sell a new type of engine – already certified – to a USA GA application, we needed over $100,000 per airframe coverage by the buyer!!! – simply due to the rules. OBTW that engine sells well to a European airframe today without that additional coverage.
I agree completely. All to often, a jury of “have nots” want to punish big corporations.
One very sad aspect of the aviation liability insanity is that the findings of the NTSB are not allowable in product liability defense. The only fair way to determine an accident cause would be to present the findings of a panel of impartial and qualified experts – presenting their determination of what might have caused an accident. Trial lawyers will never permit that and that is what happened to personal aviation. I am very surprised that the gun industry has survived, but then a far greater proportion of Americans own guns than the tiny number of aircraft owners.
Ben hit the “nail right on the head” ! I spent 24 years with the FAA, retiring as manager of the Airframe Branch in the Wichita Aircraft Certification Office. During the 1970’s & 1980’s perhaps as much 30% of our staff became involved in litigation activities. The lawsuits were typically in California, Texas, Ohio, & New York(the giveaway states). Where were the airplanes built? Wichita Kansas! The moral- don’t sue in Kansas where the laws seem to be more equitable. I thought there was relief with passage of the Relief Act 1994, but perhaps I am dreaming!
Sadly, you ARE dreaming, Doug. A new C172 costs $400K no matter where you buy it. So much for GARA.