Aviation Industry Putting Its Head in Clouds

A bill that would get rid of all product liability claims for small aircraft could fly in Congress if the aviation industry has its way.

Just a few weeks ago, the House Judiciary Committee heard arguments regarding H.R. 3087 - a bill that would enact a statute of repose for all small aircraft 18 years of age or older. In other words, if a plane built to carry fewer than 20 people crashes 18 years after the delivery date, passengers and their families have no recourse.

The aviation industry argued to Congress that, if enacted, such a bill would pull the industry out of its nosedive and bring it back to its former days of glory.

Manufacturers cited statistics from 1978 when general aviation production peaked in this country at 17,811 airplanes. By 1993, total aircraft sales had plunged to only 954. The bleak picture was blamed exclusively on product liability claims. Not only is this tale untrue, manufacturing officials failed to demonstrate how the proposed legislation would become the industry's fairy godmother.

Product liability is merely being made the scapegoat for self-inflicted mistakes. The real culprit are the general aviation manufacturers themselves who made questionable business judgments, having saturated the market with products that are built for a long life expectancy without adequately considering the safety consequences.

The average small aircraft, if maintained properly, has a flying life of up to 10,000 hours. Considering that generally each plane is flown about 150 to 300 hours each year, that would mean each plane would be flying well past the 18-year statute of repose.

Yet, aircraft manufacturers continued to churn out the product. They did not face their day of reckoning when they had glutted the market while the new sales market had collapsed. Economic factors such as airline deregulation, high interest rates of the 1980s, OPEC oil prices, recessionary conditions and the air traffic controllers' strike in 1981 all added to the downward pressures on general aviation.

Also, it is clear from a glance at the O'Hare Airport or Midway Airport departure and arrival boards that the large commercial airlines are providing more local service than ever before. Using small aircraft to get to local destinations just isn't as necessary as it may have once been 10 or 20 years ago.

Product liability lawsuits are not a cause, but merely a symptom of the spiral. It boggles the mind then that the industry can go to the government - no, really to the innocently injured consumer - for what amounts to a subsidy. The bill under consideration in the House actually shifts the burden of catastrophic injury and death to innocent victims and their families.

Defects may not become evident for years - especially if the aircraft industry is able to hide the problems as it did in the case of the Beech V-tail Bonanza.

There, Beech Aircraft attorneys fought in one lawsuit after another that it was the pilot's error for 250 aircraft breaking apart in midair, killing some 500 people. The company neglected to point out that another version of the aircraft, with a conventional tail, experienced less than one-twentieth of the in-flight failures as the V-tail.

Furthermore, during the investigation of an air crash in Alabama, Beech employees prepared written reports and provided them to Beech's lawyers, but did not share them with the National Transportation Safety Board. The report described a sequence of airframe failures that started in the tail, directly contradicting Beech's position at trial.

At last count, more than 7,000 of these V-tail Bonanzas still fly the skies. H.R. 3087 would only promote this type of chicanery.

And the hoodwinking doesn't end there. The so-called demise of the general aviation industry has been found to be exaggerated as well. Despite reporting gloomy sales figures, aviation publications as of late are reporting stronger sales and manufacturers are even positioning themselves for growth in light of the repeal of the government's luxury tax. For instance, Beech has reported consistently increasing profits totalling $140 million in 1992.

The real issue for Congress to examine is that of liability insurance. While the general aviation industry complains of skyrocketing (pardon the pun) rates, the founder of Commander Aircraft, a single engine manufacturer based in Oklahoma City, stated in 1991 that he was receiving liability insurance quotes two-thirds less than those he had received just two years before -this without any limitations set on product liability claims.

It is clear that the insurance industry is using trumped-up claims to justify their rate increases of the moment. These increases then spur industry lobbyists on Capitol Hill. They all act at the expense of the innocent victim.

H.R. 3087 would not only limit the rights of the personal injury victim, but it would also significantly reduce the manufacturer's incentive to produce a plane safe for the flying life of the aircraft. The passage of time in and of itself is no guarantee of safety. And H.R. 3087 may be closer to reality than one might expect. In March, the Senate overwhelmingly approved S. 1458 its mirror-image bill.

Will the public stand for this type of law should this legislation be expanded to include the aging commercial fleet?

When manufacturers can foresee that their products will be utilized for many decades, why should they not be made to stand behind those products for that period of time? It is feasible that an aircraft manufacturer would be able to coldly calculate its 18 years of risk into the price of doing business, then pass a foreseeable amount onto consumers or worse yet, decide after a cost-benefit analysis of anticipated damages that the product can be marketed in its risky condition.

Arbitrarily barring viable claims after 18 years for potentially up to two-thirds of the United States general aviation fleet leaves me with one conclusion - if the bill becomes law, you'll never get me up in one of those things.