Back when I was still working for Shell Oil, I attended a number of state aviation maintenance symposiums every year.
Most of the symposiums would have social functions in the evenings. And that’s when many of us would get together and start telling war stories about our latest legal cases.
I would usually relate Shell’s case about grease in a helicopter rotor bearing. It concerns a military helicopter that was flying along when a bearing on the tail rotor drive shaft locked up, disabling the tail rotor.
According to experts at the trial, this model of helicopter will fly safely without a tail rotor if the pilot keeps the forward air speed up and then lands it like a fixed-wing aircraft. But the pilot panicked and went to hover, which spun the aircraft and killed all on board.
The experts then looked into what caused the bearing failure.
It seems that the failed bearing had been removed from another aircraft. It was inspected, cleaned, repacked, and put in storage.
But they were out of the usual oil paper to wrap it in, so they used a regular paper towel, put it in a plastic bag, and put it back into storage.
During storage, the paper towel wicked most of the oil out of the bearing. It was then pulled from storage and installed on the helicopter without the proper inspections discovering that there was almost no lubricant on the bearing. Without the lubricant, it failed.
The lawyers could not sue the pilot, the technician who installed the bearing, or the military. So, they sued the airframe manufacturer, the bearing manufacturer, the grease manufacturer, plus a host of others — including Shell, even though the failed bearing was lubricated with a competitor’s grease.
We got sued because we had a product listed on the military’s Qualified Products List (QPL) for that application and the lawyers thought our product might have accidentally been used.
We hired an outside law firm — for more than $40,000 — and got the case dismissed.
I assume most of you think $40,000 is nothing to a company like Shell, but expenses like this go into the pricing of all general aviation products that you buy.
That leads me to wondering about unleaded avgas.
Well, actually the legal system and its impact on general aviation’s transition to unleaded fuel.
The first big problem is that this is going to be a total change to GA’s fuel with 100LL going away and only unleaded 100 octane fuels available. This means the government is forcing a total change and so any problem that happens after this change will be blamed on the new fuel.
There may also be two or three different fuels with each approved to a different specification.
And not all of the fuels may be approved by the various manufacturers. In addition, we have a lot of “orphan” engines for which the manufacturers are no longer in business, so there is no one to approve the new fuel.
There is also the concern that the different fuels will not be compatible with each other in all of the different applications. If there was a failure, how will we determine which fuel caused the problem?
Another big concern is the exhaust valve recession problems when unleaded fuels are used. This is going to be a large problem for new engine manufacturers and also rebuilders. When these engines start out with new cylinders and no existing lead coating, the chances of recession are much greater than for high-time engines.
What is the answer?
I don’t know, but it looks like the present plan is to throw the different unleaded fuel candidates out there with whatever approval they so choose.
When there is a problem with the transition to unleaded avgas, maybe those affected will sue the EPA or the FAA. But more realistically they will sue everyone from the airplane manufacturers to the fuel distributors, letting the courts sort it out to determine the winners and losers.
Unfortunately, I don’t think this is going to turn out well for the general aviation community.
Having been married to a lawyer for 30 years (and still alive), I also see the other side of this. We (allegedly) live in a society of law, and much of it is pretty arcane.
Lawyers provide recourse for people who have been harmed (physically, financially, sometimes psychologically) by the ignorance, negligence, callousness or malice of others. Think Ford Pinto, for instance.
In any profession, there will be people we fervently hope will find another line of work. We should not condemn all lawyers for the actions of a few, just like we should not condemn all doctors because one of them was named Mengele.
There are also plaintiffs who want to sue for everything at the drop of a hat. Lawyers know that if they take these frivolous cases, they could lose their license. Juries are often totally ignorant of facts, judges have been rumored to occasionally not be impartial, law enforcement (for whom I have the highest respect) might take a “shortcut” sometimes.
We live in an imperfect world, the law tries to make sense of it, and lawyers try to implement the law. And yes, I have also seen silliness in aviation (and other) lawsuits. Single engine aircraft has an engine failure, Continental AND Lycoming were both named in the suit. Motorcyclist hurt in an accident, Bell Helmets gets sued, biker wasn’t even wearing a helmet.
“And when all the laws are knocked flat, where will YOU hide?” (Sir Thomas More.)
Best Regards,
Miami Mike
Thank you, Miami Mike, from another one of those horrible lawyers – and long-time GA advocate.
$40,000 for dismissal? Consider a finding of liability in what appear to have been several wrongful death and survival claims, where all on board were killed.
Regarding the oft-cited “frivolous lawsuit,” “frivolous” does not mean silly, stupid, or someone does not like it or thinks it petty. It means without legal basis and, as you note, most lawyers do not take these cases; admittedly some take them with the goal of provoking what is known as a settlement for nuisance value, and/or publicity.
You forgot to mention the tired trope of “Shakespeare said ‘kill all the lawyers.'” No, Shakespeare did not “say” that. Dick the Butcher, a character in Henry VI, Part II, says the line (abbreviated here) during a discussion with fellow rebels and anarchists on how to overthrow King Henry.
We hear a lot about “the rule of law.” Yes, there are bad lawyers, as in any profession or trade, but who else would uphold and implement that?
As for litigation, most cases settle, many if not most systems require settlement efforts, and at least some courts repeatedly state that they prefer parties to resolve their disputes, via settlement, mediation, arbitration or other ADR, rather than jury trials. They look exciting and glamourous in movies and on TV shows, but are costly and stressful for all involved, even the winner.
Loved your Sir (Saint) Thomas More quote!
GA must be myopic, arrogant, or both, even using the “recession” jargon to describe exhaust valve seat wear. The automotive industry studied this ad nauseum decades ago, which consistently reported that it valve seat wear was only problematic in engines operated typically above 3,500 rpm (racing) or heavy loads (towing). But for stunt flying, crop dusting, or banner towing, the simple solution would be for the FAA to require hardened exhaust valves/seats on new manufacturing, and refitting at the next required tear-down instead of waiting for the lawyer-eniching showdown.
High octane avgas, 100/130, was developed in the 1930’s with the need for high octane fuel for supercharged Air Force aircraft, just prior to WW2.
The only compound that worked, and didn’t cause other damage was TEL.
Most cars only need 87 octane, and with the ethanol that is now used as an ‘oxygenate’ , it is unusable in aircraft and is corrosive to all the aluminum parts; tanks, lines, gascollator.
Cars have steel fuel components which can tolerate ethanol, and usually operate at about 20% power most of the time, where aircraft engines run at 60-80% power continuously.!
There are very few 1940-60’s cars used on a regular basis, while about 1/2 the GA fleet is from the 60’s and older.!
So, it’s a more difficult problem fueling GA aircraft vs cars.
A friend is a lawyer. After an arduous all-night negotiation, he qipped to me: “What’s 10,000 lawyers on the bottom of the ocean? A good start.” QED
Regards/J
Ben, I have a proposed solution for the problem with lawyers. If I get sued and they win, the plaintiff AND their lawyers split the judgment. But, if I win, the plaintiff AND their lawyers are liable to me for the amount of the judgment they have sought. This would level the playing field. Sue me for a million and win, you get paid. You lose, and I get paid a million.