Thanks guys. I really appreciate it. Like I said earlier, it really sucked thinking that the litle boy would have lived had we moved faster. At least I know now that he died on impact. Really, really, sad. Keep in mind that my account skips some of the spookier, keep-you-up-at-night kind of stuff that isn't appropriate for this.

Went to a critical incident stress talk with the other Air Force SSgt and Police Officer that were there, along with some other dispatch, Police Sgts, etc. I won't mention their names on here but keep an eye on ADN.com. Those two guys helped probably more than I did. It's just unbelievable but none of us got burned. I had some weird bruises that showed up later and I've now seen pictures of me doing things I don't even remember. Adrenaline is a funny thing. From what we can tell from some of the unreleased pics, we tore that pilot's door off it's hinges!! I saw a pic of me dragging the pilot with my left arm, while the door is still hanging around his arm, and my right arm is spraying a fire extinguisher. I don't even remember that happening. All I can remeber at one point was pulling him through the broken window. Didn't know we took the door with us. I can just remember stuff in little snippets. Found out last night that from the first dispatch call, to the APD Officer pulling Stacie out as the plane was engulfed, was 4 min and 15 seconds!!! It felt like 30 min.

If you don't have an extinguisher in your car, seriously consider getting one. I had one of the small grey automotive ones but I would now recommend getting as much extinguigher as you can realistically find a place for. We, thanks to some quick thinking folks there, went through EIGHT fire extinguishers. The fact that folks brought those from the gas station and the Ingra house is what bought us the time to get them out.

Tick,

Thank you so much! It was the worst feeling to watch that smoke rising from Merrill and know I couldn't help - I thank God that you and folks like you were there, and could and did help.

From SC.org:

There is a fund set up for the Cavners, you can find it Here:
http://prestonandstaciefund.wordpress.com/

gb

Here is the NTSB preliminary on the 206 crash.

NTSB Identification: ANC10FA048
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Tuesday, June 01, 2010 in Anchorage, AK
Aircraft: CESSNA U206F, registration: N59352
Injuries: 1 Fatal, 4 Serious.

This is preliminary information, subject to change, and may contain errors. Any errors in this report will be corrected when the final report has been completed.

On June 1, 2010, at 1705 Alaska daylight time, a Cessna U206F, N59352,registered to Cavner & Julian Inc., crashed one mile west of Merrill Field Airport (PAMR), Anchorage, Alaska, shortly after departure. A post impact fire ensued. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed at the time of the accident. The flight was being conducted under the provisions of Title 14 Code of Federal Regulations Part 91 without a flight plan. The commercial pilot and three passengers were seriously injured. One passenger, a four-year-old child, was fatally injured. The airplane was departing at the time of the accident and was en route to Port Alsworth, Alaska.

According to an airport employee, the airplane had departed runway 25. Multiple witnesses located at various positions north and west of the airport observed the accident airplane depart the runway. One witness commented that the airplane appeared to be “laboring” and possibly had an aft center of gravity or was very heavy. Another witness stated that the airplane was extremely nose-high and tail-low, and was not climbing. The airplane was observed to enter a slight right turn at which time the airplane began to lose altitude and impact an empty parking lot and adjacent unoccupied office building.

An on-scene examination revealed an impact mark on the multi-story building across the street from the main wreckage. The tail cone and tail spring of the accident airplane were found in the parking lot below this building. One power line was down. The main wreckage of the airplane came to rest on an approximate heading of west with the right side of the airplane resting up against an adjacent hill of earth and concrete. The main wreckage consisted of the burned remnants of the right wing and fuselage, the empennage, the left wing, the engine and propeller assembly, and cargo. The wreckage was recovered to a facility in Wasilla, Alaska, for further examination.

The wreckage examination, conducted under the auspices of the National Transportation Safety Board, was attended by two inspectors from the Federal Aviation Administration and investigators from Cessna Aircraft Company and Teledyne Continental Motors. An examination of the airframe and its related systems revealed no anomalies. The examination of the engine revealed signatures consistent with power at the time of the accident. The cargo of the airplane was documented and weighed. The cargo consisted of 55 pieces of lumber, ceramic tile, groceries, clothing, and other personal effects.

Here is the NTSB factual report on this tragic C206 crash at Merrill Field last summer. This is the antithesis of the notion that "if you can get it inside, it'll fly". In particular, look at "Additional Information" for the weight and balance. According to NTSB, the plane was estimated to be conservatively 658 lbs over gross and the center of gravity was perhaps between 3.95 to 8.82 inches aft of the rear most balance limits.

http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20100602X45201&ntsbno=ANC10FA048&akey=1

ANC10FA048
HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On June 1, 2010, about 1705 Alaska daylight time, a Cessna U206F airplane, N59352, sustained substantial damage when it impacted an unoccupied building and terrain following a loss of control during the initial climb from runway 25 at the Merrill Field Airport, Anchorage, Alaska. A postcrash fire consumed much of the airplane. The airplane was being operated as a visual flight rules (VFR) cross-country personal flight under 14 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 91, when the accident occurred. The airplane was owned by Cavner & Julian, Inc., Port Alsworth, Alaska. Of the five people on board, the commercial pilot/airplane owner and three passengers sustained serious injuries. The remaining passenger, the 4-year-old child of the pilot and the right front seat passenger, died at the scene. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed, and no flight plan was filed. The flight was en route to the airplane owner’s lodge in Port Alsworth.

During on-scene interviews with the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigator-in-charge (IIC) on June 1, witnesses reported that just after takeoff, the airplane was flying in a nose high, tail low attitude as it descended into the principally commercial area about 1/2 mile west of the Merrill Field Airport. One witness, who was also a pilot, commented that the airplane appeared to be “laboring” and possibly had an aft center of gravity or was very heavy. Another witness stated that the airplane was extremely nose high and tail low and was not climbing. The airplane was seen to enter a slight right turn, and then began to lose altitude before it crashed into an empty parking lot and adjacent unoccupied wood-framed single story building.

Shortly after impact, the airplane began to burn, which eventually spread to a portion of the building.

The crash site was adjacent to a major one-way north flowing roadway that serviced downtown Anchorage. Several witnesses and vehicle occupants went to the airplane to assist in removing the victims because of the imminent fire danger. Within a few minutes, law enforcement and fire department personnel arrived, put out the fire, and removed the remaining occupants.

During an interview with the pilot, he stated to the NTSB IIC that he recalled taking off and thinking that everything was okay. He remarked that he departed with 30 degrees of flaps which he said was standard for the Cessna 206. At 150 feet above the ground, he raised the flaps from 30 degrees to 20 degrees and detected “an issue” with the airplane. He said he was concerned about maintaining his airspeed and not stalling. He remembered initiating a slight right turn, and said he did not recall anything after that.

PERSONNEL INFORMATION

The pilot, age 33, held a commercial pilot certificate with airplane single engine land and sea ratings. He was issued a second class airman medical certificate without limitations on March 18, 2010.

The pilot’s flight logbook was reviewed by the NTSB. The logbook covered the period from March 24, 2007, through May 26, 2010, and indicated that he had logged 1,717.9 hours total time and 81.1 hours in a Cessna 206, all of which were in the accident airplane. The time in the Cessna 206 was between March 20, and May 26, 2010. The pilot received instruction in the Cessna 206 March 20 through 21, 2010. On March 21, 2010, he completed the requirements of a flight review, and received an endorsement for acting as pilot in command of a high performance airplane.

The NTSB IIC interviewed an aviation mechanic/pilot who had interacted and flown with the pilot. This individual stated he saw the pilot operate the airplane in what he believed was an overweight condition on four or five separate occasions. He said that this was over a 4 week period of time, and he did not know if this was standard. He also stated that he had not seen the pilot weigh any of the cargo or perform a weight and balance calculation during this period of time.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

The accident airplane (serial number U20603221) was manufactured in 1976 and had a standard airworthiness certificate for normal operations. A Teledyne Continental Motors IO-520-F engine rated at 285 horsepower at 2,700 rpm powered the airplane. The engine was equipped with a three-blade, McCauley propeller.

The airplane was maintained under an annual inspection program. A review of the maintenance records indicated that an annual inspection was completed on August 14, 2009, at an airframe total time of 6,888.2 hours and a tachometer time of 6,978.2 hours. On March 24, 2010, at a tachometer time of 6,998.5 hours, the landing gear floats were replaced with wheel landing gear. On April 19, 2010, at a tachometer time of 7,008.5 hours, a gravel deflector kit was installed.

An Aerocet cargo pack, supplemental type certificate STC)SA00096SE was installed on the airplane. According to a mechanic who assisted the pilot, the cargo pack was installed during the week of April 26, 2010. The mechanic stated the owner told him that he would have his “IA” [inspection authorized mechanic] conduct the updated weight and balance calculation later. No maintenance log entry or updated weight and balance calculation for the cargo pack was discovered during the investigation.

According to Aerocet Incorporated, the cargo pack weighed 35 pounds, and for weight and balance calculations, had an arm at installation of 51.0 inches, and a resultant moment of 1,785.0 pound-inches. The weight capacity of the cargo pack was 300 pounds. Aerocet provided a flight manual supplement with the cargo pack, which noted general cargo pack information, the limitations, emergency procedures, normal procedures, and performance. Specifically, this supplement stated that no more than 10 degrees of flaps should be used for takeoff for operations at weights above 3,450 pounds due to the effect of the cargo pack on climb performance. This supplement was not located in the wreckage or in the pilot operating handbook located with the wreckage.

METEOROLOGICAL CONDITIONS

The closest official weather observation station was Merrill Field Airport (PAMR), Anchorage, Alaska, located 1/2 nautical mile (nm) east of the accident site. The elevation of the weather observation station was 137 feet mean sea level (msl). The routine aviation weather report (METAR) for PAMR, issued at 1653, reported, winds 200 degrees at 9 knots, visibility 10 miles, light rain, sky condition scattered at 4,000 feet, broken at 10,000 feet, temperature 15 degrees Celsius (C); dew point 7 degrees C; altimeter 29.48 inches.

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION

The accident site was in a parking lot adjacent to a single story, unoccupied building on the northwest corner of Ingra and 7th street in downtown Anchorage. The accident site was at an elevation of 111 feet msl and the airplane impacted on a magnetic heading of 270 degrees.

An on scene examination revealed an impact mark on the multi-story building across the street (to the east) from the main wreckage. The tail cone and tail spring of the accident airplane were found in the parking lot below this building. One power line was down adjacent to the multi-story building. The main wreckage of the airplane came to rest on a heading of west, with the right side of the airplane against a mound of earth and concrete. The main wreckage consisted of the burned remains of the right wing and fuselage, the empennage, the left wing, the engine and propeller assembly, and cargo.

The wreckage was recovered to a facility in Wasilla, Alaska, for further examination and documentation.

SURVIVAL ASPECTS

In an interview with the 16-year-old rear left seat passenger, she stated that the pilot was in the front left seat, the pilot’s wife was in the front right seat, and the four-year-old passenger was unrestrained and seated on his mother’s lap in the front right seat. The two-year-old passenger sat unrestrained on her lap in the rear left seat. The two-year-old was not sharing a seatbelt with her; he was just sitting on her lap.

Multiple witnesses to the accident came to the aid of the occupants of the accident airplane as it was burning. Photographs and witness descriptions depict several volunteers holding up the left wing while others worked to gain access to the occupants through the left forward exit. One rescuer reported that the airplane cabin was loaded from floor to ceiling, and they had to remove some of the cargo to reach the occupants.

The pilot was the first occupant pulled from the airplane, followed by the two-year-old passenger, who was handed out by the rear seat passenger. The rear seat passenger was rescued next, followed by the front right seat passenger.

The front right seat passenger was unable to hold onto the four-year-old passenger during the impact sequence. During the impact, the cargo shifted, and trapped the child between the cargo and the instrument panel. This prevented initial responders from reaching his location.

TESTS AND RESEARCH

On June 2, 2010, an investigator from the NTSB separated airplane wreckage and cargo recovered from the accident site. The occupant’s packed clothing was laid out to dry, and food and grocery items were separated from the lumber and ceramic tile.

On June 3, 2010, the NTSB IIC, two aviation safety inspectors from the FAA, and investigators from Cessna Aircraft Company, and Teledyne Continental Motors examined the sorted wreckage.

The flight controls, including aileron cables, rudder cables, and elevator cables, were continuous except where they had been cut for transportation of the wreckage. Fuel screens were clean of contamination. The fuel selector valve was in the right fuel tank position. The elevator trim was set at 25 degrees tab up trim. The flap jack screw was measured to a position consistent with 25 degrees of flaps.

The finger screen on the engine driven fuel pump had contaminants across approximately 25 percent of the screen. The contaminants were permeable and were not a solid occlusion. The throttle control was partially open, the propeller control was at low pitch, and the mixture control was at idle cutoff. The spark plugs were clean. Further examination established continuity through the accessories, and valve train. Both magnetos produced spark when power was added.

All of the cargo items and lumber were weighed with a digital scale. See the section of this report titled “Additional Information” for the weight of each item from the accident wreckage. The cargo included a personal backpack full of medical equipment, a three-ring blow-up swimming pool, children’s clothing, floor mats, clothes hangers, pots and pans, a tool bag, ceramic tile, a yellow survival kit, a car battery, wet wipes, a suitcase containing personal effects and adult clothing, a bag containing a lap top, a bean bag toss game, several plastic totes/containers, laundry detergent, several tubes of construction adhesive, 55 pieces of lumber, and food including spice mixes, seasoning, fruits, raw meat, canned goods, pasta, rice, creamer, frozen foods, and soda.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Cessna Pilot’s Operating Handbook

According to the Cessna Pilot’s Operating Handbook (POH) for the Cessna U206F, Section 2 - Limitations – the maximum takeoff weight for the airplane was 3,600 pounds. The most forward center of gravity limit was 42.5 inches at 3,600 pounds and the most aft center of gravity limit was 49.7 inches. Section 4 – Normal Procedures – discussed the use of no more than 20 degrees of flaps for takeoff, both normal and maximum performance takeoff procedures.

Weight and Balance Calculations

The most recent weight and balance calculation for the airplane was documented on April 19, 2010. The empty weight of the airplane was calculated to be 2,165.5 pounds, resulting in a useful load of 1,434.5 pounds. As previously noted, this weight did not include the cargo pack.

The cargo was separated from the main wreckage on June 2, 2010, and allowed to dry. On June 3, 2010, the cargo was quantified and weighed. The following represents a conservative estimate of the weight of the cargo on the accident airplane. The weight of the lost fluid from the juice cans, laundry detergent, fruit, and other burnt items were not represented in this calculation.

55 pieces of lumber were documented:

43 pieces of 8 foot 2 x 4 – 9 pounds each – 387 pounds total
12 pieces of 8 foot 1 x 2.5 – 4 pounds each – 48 pounds total

The cargo, as listed previously in this report was sorted and weighed as follows:

Survival Kit – 15.2 pounds
Car Battery – 40.4 pounds
Tile – 333.1 pounds
Pots and Pans – 29.8 pounds
Food and Grocery Items – 173.4 pounds
Clothing – 72 pounds
Backpack – 16.2 pounds
Bag full of a mini pool and various items – 12 pounds
Tool Bag – 12.2 pounds
Laptop Backpack – 12 pounds

The pilot and passenger weights were documented using hospital medical records from their admission following the accident, in addition to the autopsy report for the fatality. The total occupant weight was 546.4 pounds.

The documented cargo, occupant weights, cargo pack, and estimated fuel load came to a total of 2,092.7 pounds. The gross weight of the airplane at the time of the accident was conservatively calculated to be 4,258.2 pounds or 658.2 pounds over the approved gross weight of the accident airplane. The exact location of each piece of cargo could not be determined. The center of gravity at the time of the accident was estimated to range between 53.65 inches and 58.522 inches, or between 3.95 and 8.82 inches aft of the rear-most allowable limit.

Title 14 CFR Part 91.9 required that the pilot comply with the operating limitation represented in the approved airplane flight manual. The FAA Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge, Chapter 9 – Weight and Balance, provided guidance for performing a weight and balance calculation; however, the FAA Pilot’s Handbook of Aeronautical Knowledge did not provide guidance regarding the risk of estimating the weight of passengers and cargo as opposed to physically weighing the passengers and cargo. The handbook did state that it may not be “possible to fill all of the seats, baggage compartments, and fuel tanks and still remain within the approved weight and balance limits.”

Cargo and Load Distribution

Multiple witnesses at Merrill field saw the pilot loading the airplane the day prior and the day of the accident flight. Several commented that the airplane was full and it was difficult to see where the passengers were sitting due to all of the cargo. Other witnesses reported that the tires were extremely low or flat, due to the excessive weight of the cargo on the airplane.

In an interview with the rear left seat passenger, she stated that lumber, food, tile, grout or mortar, and clothing were on the airplane. There was a “ton” of wood next to her seat. She estimated that there were 30 to 35 pieces of two by four lumber. The lumber was on the floor and some lumber was jutted up against the back of the front right seat, and some of the lumber extended forward between the front right and front left seats. There were also 10 to 15 boxes of ceramic tile on top of the wood. Several bins of food and her luggage were placed behind her in the rear of the airplane.

During an interview with the pilot, he stated that his estimation of the cargo, passengers, and fuel for the accident flight was 1,400 pounds to 1,450 pounds. He stated that all of the cargo weights were estimated, and not physically weighed. Specifically, he also stated that he had 360 pounds of fuel on board. The pilot said that he loaded one heavy item towards the front of the cargo pack, and lighter items towards the rear of the cargo pack. He put plants on top of the cargo in the cabin.

The pilot indicated that he did not use straps or a cargo net to secure the cargo in the cabin. He used twine or nylon to secure the tote and suit cases. He stated that the load was stable, and after he put the potted plants on top of the cargo, there was no room for shifting.

Federal Aviation Regulations

Part 91.107 (1) “No pilot may take off a U.S.-registered civil aircraft unless the pilot in command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board is briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person’s safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness…(3) Except as provided in this paragraph, each person on board a U.S.-registered civil aircraft must occupy an approved seat or berth with a safety belt and, if installed, shoulder harness, properly secured about him or her during movement on the surface, takeoff, and landing… Notwithstanding the preceding requirements of this paragraph, a person may: (i) Be held by an adult who is occupying an approved seat or berth provided that the person being held has not reached his or her second birthday and does not occupy or use any restraining device.

The FAA did not have a definition of adult as it pertains to this regulation. At the writing of this report, a definition or interpretation of adult has not been provided to the NTSB IIC.

FAA Hotline

The FAA has several avenues available to the public if they want to report their knowledge of an unsafe operation in the aviation community. This report can be done anonymously. The telephone numbers are 1-866-835-5322 (1-866-TELL-FAA) or 1-800-255-1111.

That report is positively chilling. If I was NTSB, I'd call it by a different name than "Accident". I fail to see what was "accidental" about this. From the moment the plane taxied for takeoff, the outcome was knowable and calculable.

Very, very sad.

-DP

Grim. The people on the scene were heroes, standing in fire and saving people that they probably did not even know. God bless the lot of you.

Yet another example of the fact that we have the power to make life changing decisions.
Killing your own child is gonna be a horrible one to live with.
The chain of complacency and bad decisions is long on this one.

Let's be careful out there people, this thing can be final.

The discussions and attitudes about flying airplanes over gross weight continue: "Oh, it'll fly with whatever you stuff in it"..... And, while it MAY indeed fly, it may NOT perform. And, if you don't actually bother to WEIGH things you put in the airplane, how in the world are you going to determine the center of gravity?

The thread here on prop damage reminds me once again of the "urban legends" by which many folks in aviation become convinced that they can do some really dangerous things in airplanes and get away with it.

There are good reasons for most of the "rules" in aviation. Gravity is at work full time, 24/7. And, physics can be a cruel teacher.

What a terrible tragedy in any case, and totally needless.

MTV

Looks like that totally needless episode is being followed by another totally needless episode:

http://www.adn.com/2013/06/04/2926728/family-in-fatal-anchorage-crash.html

I am just as sad and disgusted reading this thread, again. How the family and some blood sucking leech attorney can look in the mirror and file this lawsuit is stunning. Even though I have had a couple dealings with Ace Aviation that were less than positive, I doubt they would have released a plane that was not airworthy. This pilot should be in therapy for grief, not in court for greed, f--k em!

I once heard that the only people that serve on juries are those not smart enough to get off of it. With many of the verdicts we are all familiar with, I hope this isn't one of them. FF

denalipilot wrote:Looks like that totally needless episode is being followed by another totally needless episode:

http://www.adn.com/2013/06/04/2926728/family-in-fatal-anchorage-crash.html

All I can think of is that with $3 million in medical bills alone, the family is hoping for some sort of settlement with the "deep pockets" to help pay bills. In fact the insurance companies may offer some moderate level of settlement in order to avoid the legal costs that will be required to defend against the plaintiff claims.

Nevertheless, as over gross and out of balance as that plane appeared to be, it is questionable whether it could have flown even with a brand new engine.

Let's hope that Continental and ACE take this law suit seriously, and fight it aggressively. Piper failed to do so a number of years ago, leading the President of Cessna to state that "Cessna will never build a tailwheel airplane again".

It's too easy for insurance companies to decide that it's cheaper for them to settle than to defend it. It's high time these kinds of lawsuits are defended and aggressively.

What a travesty....

MTV

The attorney should be boycotted

mtv wrote:It's too easy for insurance companies to decide that it's cheaper for them to settle than to defend it. It's high time these kinds of lawsuits are defended and aggressively.

I'm no lawyer, but I do work for an insurance company. Often we settle because we can control the outcome and avoid setting a negative precedent. A jury is a huge unknown and judges can also be a wild card. A judge "sets the stage" on how the case will be presented and what issues the jury will decide. I don't like it either when I have to pay a claim for something that I didn't intend to cover(I'm and underwriter), but it's part of the business. As an underwriter, you often have no idea what your policy covers until a court tells you...

You would think it would be a no brainer that they would throw the case out, seeing how it was loaded with almost double the useful load of that aircraft. I feel bad that people got hurt, but there is no need to try and drag others and give GA another black eye because of the PIC's mistake of stuffing the plane with everything he could fit in it.

In some tort cases it seems like the plaintiff's' attorneys are very successful trying the case in the court of public opinion: making the deep pocket corporations look evil and finding weak judges who allow bad precedent to be made. I wish there were some way for "Common Sense" to be formally represented in this sort of trial, or maybe a way for the representatives of Common Sense to try these cases in the court of public opinion to expose the plaintiffs' attorneys for what they are. Or maybe a way to shame the judges who do a terrible job of setting precedent.

We need a tort reform uprising akin to the Tea Party uprising. Our civil courts have become ridiculous.

Rule #1...

Money is the answer.
What's the question.

Gump

Papa Foxtrot wrote:

mtv wrote:It's too easy for insurance companies to decide that it's cheaper for them to settle than to defend it. It's high time these kinds of lawsuits are defended and aggressively.

I'm no lawyer, but I do work for an insurance company. Often we settle because we can control the outcome and avoid setting a negative precedent. A jury is a huge unknown and judges can also be a wild card. A judge "sets the stage" on how the case will be presented and what issues the jury will decide. I don't like it either when I have to pay a claim for something that I didn't intend to cover(I'm and underwriter), but it's part of the business. As an underwriter, you often have no idea what your policy covers until a court tells you...

Oh, I totally understand-insurers want to take the cheapest, easiest way out, often. The problem with that, is that it has established a precedent, which encourages MORE frivolous suits, more settlements and more attorneys with the ethics of a street drug dealer.

That said, in the Piper case, I seriously doubt if Piper or their insurers took the case seriously, because there were so many egregious violations by the plaintiff. I'd bet they just assumed that ANYone could see that the guy flying the plane was a scofflaw......and he was. This case could be similar, as someone just posted, the airplane was loaded with nearly double what it legally could carry....... Again, I hope that whoever has control over the claims in this case aggressively goes after it.

Juries may be dumber than a sack of hammers in many cases, but these cases aren't always won in the courtroom, and juries can sometimes be turned around as well.

I hope they don't settle just to get rid of it.

MTV

mtv wrote:

I hope they don't settle just to get rid of it.

MTV

I'll bet they do settle. It is the insurance companies that will be making the business decision, not the defendants. And frankly, even though this is an egregious case, court room process and a lay jury pose the risk that the plaintiff could win -- an outcome that could have a very negative affect on Continental, Ace, and the entire flying community. This country needs tort reform in the worst way. Interesting how the Democrats did not include tort reform in Obamacare -- something that could have actually helped to reduce the cost of healthcare. Like Obamacare, this case is not about justice; its about money.