The family of Thai billionaire Khun Vichai Srivaddhanaprabha, is suing helicopter manufacturer Leonardo for $2.6 billion. The family alleges “multiple failures in Leonardo’s design process” led to the October 2018 crash of an AW169 shortly after takeoff from the soccer stadium in Leicester, England. All on board, including Srivaddhanaprabha, who was the chairman of the Leicester City Football Club, died in the fiery crash. The lawsuit claims that the failure of a bearing in the tail rotor control system was to blame.
I doubt very much Leonardo manufacturers that bearing. Instead the family should be suing the bearing company……….oh wait, the bearing manufacturer doesn’t have 2.4 billion. I understand now.
Though the bearing design complied with Airworthiness requirements at the time, the AAIB report states:
During the course of this investigation and as a result of the findings made, the helicopter manufacturer has issued sixteen Service Bulletins and EASA has published nine Airworthiness Directives for the continued airworthiness of the AW169 and AW189 helicopter types.
Compliance with requirements does not free the OEM from liabilities in the future. The death of occupants of the aircraft when flown in accordance with the OEM’s instructions opens the door to a liability. From the perspective of my armchair, to deflect a claim of liability, Leonardo should do some digging and try to insinuate or, even better, demonstrate errors in the owner’s management of continuous airworthiness. 2¢, please.
At the end of the day, pilots and maintainers are the least safe linkages ensuring safety, and if Leonardo cannot shift blame to the aircrew, then the maintenance regime should be their secondary target. 2¢ more, please.
Augusta Westland put the bearing in their helicopter, and so are responsible.
It is a quirk in the law the people involved in the design and manufacture of the machine are not before a criminal court charged with negligence resulting in death to the people who died.
They should be ashamed.
Another giant spike into the heart of general aviation worldwide. When ambulance chasers go American style and look to empty the pockets of others (into theirs) based on the premise that each and all vehicle designs must meet some impossible standard of perfection as an excuse to enrich lawyers the rest of the free world is opening itself to the abuses that make it prohibitively expensive to manufacture aircraft and/or components.
IMHO the actual liabilities involved in risk management are - or at least should formally be when you elect to participate in any function. Flying rotary wing craft is more risky than flying (or flying in) multi engine genav that is more risky than flying genav siingles that is more risky than flying commercial fixed wing turbines and on ad infinitum. So: should the manufacturers of more risky aircraft formats be liable for the free choices made by pilots and passengers of more risky modes of transportation? Should we expect wing suit manufacturers to be liable for control authority limitations contributing to some idiot splattering into a rock wall when trying to thread a needle?
If you don’t understand what I am trying to say (and you are forgiven as this seems to be a topic no regulator or legislator seems to be able to grasp) just ask for a quote on you corporate insurance when you tell them you want to add work on 727 brake components in your industrial machine shop, Come back to me when you decide not to go there and find that your rates are still out of line with your competitors 40 years later because you had the gall to consider - but NEVER ONCE DELIVER such a service. That, BTW is a real world, first hand example I am citing.
Sorry to have to point this out, but: virtually all judges in courts, most legislators, regulators and many enforcers being lawyers or in the loop benefit handsomely from the plunder of manufacturer’s and operator’s pockets by the legal “profession”. We have shot ourselves in the foot by not recognizing and dealing with this much broader problem.
That may be so, but the salient point is: “AS A RESULT OF THE FINDINGS MADE, the helicopter manufacturer has issued sixteen Service Bulletins…” [my caps]
Leonardo had no way of knowing the bearing was defective. They had used it successfully in other aircraft for thousands of hours. Your argument is specious.
Leonardo had used that same bearing successfully in other aircraft for thousands of hours. I see the onus being on the bearing manufacturer for supplying to Leonardo a faulty part.
Understood. Yes, a key detail pointing to the inadequacy of the certification rules. Thanks.
c180tom
(Tom Jensen (please don't post, I get confused with a detective on the Green River Killerf)
13
Will this celebrity crash raise my GA insurance costs, as happened because of the Kobe Bryant crash. “Joint and Several Liability” always leads to suing the deep pockets. (http://arthuralanwolk.com/)
What part of the argument is specious?
That Augusta Westland did not test the bearing for the model of helicopter that failed?
It might have worked in other aircraft but it surely did not in this one.
Or that in a normal world a criminal court and not a civil court would put actual people before a judge and jury to answer for their work, instead of theoretical billions being discussed in a civil court, with just corporate lawyers for the company in dock?