ths@lanl-a.UUCP (10/23/84)
>The aviation industry has more than the FAA to worry about. Read the >article on lawsuits in this months FLYING. Unfortunately the aviation industry has never worried much about the FAA. They have an interesting "relationship" that occasionally borders on the "unethical" if not worse. The insurance industry over the past 20 years has had more to influence on the aviation industry than the FAA. What we are finally seeing is the effect of poor design and quality control, coupled with "almost" criminal behavior on the part of the "big three" in attempting to cover-up their product inadequacies. The FLYING article only touches the tip of the iceberg. Unfortunately, FLYINGs close association with the industry prevents them from being totally objective in reporting the reasons behind the reasons for tremendous increases in product liability over the past few years. Although greedy lawyers have had some effect on the situation, it is the lack of responsiveness on the part of the manufacturers that have brought the situation to its present position. A perfect example of the absurd situation is the famous C-172 "seat sliding problem". They knew about it for years, never acknowledged it, put "band-aid" fixes on it, and finally got their socks sued off. Does anyone know if it would be possible for Cessna (for example) to sell the low end product line (C-152, C-172 etc) to another company without the new company being responsible for past product liability? If that were possible then the price of the aircraft would drop considerably (about 20%). Although I am not an "expert" on the situation, from my view point (educated opinions are allowed?) Mooney is the only current manufacturer that has made reasonable efforts to resolve potentially serious problems with their aircraft.
doug@terak.UUCP (Doug Pardee) (12/31/85)
It *must* be true, everyone says that it is: one of the big reasons
that small planes cost so much is because of product liability
lawsuits.
I was hangar-flying about this subject the other day, when it occurred
to me that nearly all of the lawsuits I could remember were in high-
performance planes, mostly twins. So I dug back through my six years
worth of Aviation Consumer magazine, and made a list of the various
lawsuits against the plane manufacturers.
I found myriads of lawsuits about crashes in Beech Bonanzas and Barons.
Cessna got sued over its 206's, 210's, 340's, 411's, Conquests and
Citations. Piper lost lawsuits on its Pawnees, Twin Comanches,
Aerostars, Navajos and Cheyennes. And the story was much the same for
the smaller manufacturers.
But I didn't find a single lawsuit regarding a 2-seater. And I found
only three lawsuits that centered around 4-place fixed-gear fixed-prop
singles, and none of those three lawsuits alleged that there was
anything wrong with the design of the airframe nor engine.
In all three lawsuits, the issue was the same: seats. Cessna lost two
over the "slipping 172 pilot's seat", and Piper lost one because the
Warrior's rear seat can short out the battery.
Another myth should bite the dust. But I'll bet it hangs on anyway.
--
Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!dougmarcum@sun.uucp (Alan Marcum) (01/02/86)
> I was hangar-flying about this subject the other day, when it occurred > to me that nearly all of the lawsuits I could remember were in high- > performance planes, mostly twins. So I dug back through my six years > worth of Aviation Consumer magazine, and made a list of the various > lawsuits against the plane manufacturers.... > > But I didn't find a single lawsuit regarding a 2-seater. And I found > only three lawsuits that centered around 4-place fixed-gear fixed-prop > singles, and none of those three lawsuits alleged that there was > anything wrong with the design of the airframe nor engine. > -- > Doug Pardee -- CalComp -- {hardy,savax,seismo,decvax,ihnp4}!terak!doug If one views the product liability cost as a fixed overhead ($X/year), then the cost gets amortized over all the product produced in a given year. In this case, even if a large award is made on only high-performance planes, we'll still see effects on the price of simpler ones. -- Alan M. Marcum Sun Microsystems, Technical Consulting ...!{dual,ihnp4}!sun!nescorna!marcum Mountain View, California
ladkin@kestrel.ARPA (01/02/86)
Very interesting information. I, too, believed the myth. Aviation Consumer just recommended the Citation as the safest way to fly yourself from A to B. What was the suit about? I also seem to remember some company with a T-tail single (no prizes for guessing whom) losing a suit to someone who belly-flopped into trees when he couldn't push the nose down on take-off, despite being loaded within limits. Since this is the stuff of which rumors are made, and I don't want to spread one, does anyone have a reference to this? And thanks, Doug, for posting the article. As an Archer owner, I'm wondering now why my insurance is so high. Peter Ladkin Kestrel Institute Palo Alto, Ca ladkin@kestrel.arpa
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (01/07/86)
> If one views the product liability cost as a fixed overhead ($X/year), > then the cost gets amortized over all the product produced in a given > year. In this case, even if a large award is made on only high-performance > planes, we'll still see effects on the price of simpler ones. Actually, it's worse than that. If a manufacturer produces n units per year, he must amortize his liability insurance over n units for the first year. However, in the second year, again assuming he produces n units, he must amortize the cost of 2n units over n units. In the third year it will be 3n units amortized over n units. The units produces in prior years must still be insured even though the manufacturer no longer realizes income from them. Thus the more succesful a product is and the longer the manufacturer is in business, the greater his liability exposer becomes and the higher the cost for the consumer becomes.