Micro AeroDyamics at fault for Alaska crash
Debrief, share, and hopefully learn from the mistakes of others.
Having some trouble understanding exactly why Micro AeroDynamics could be at fault when an aircraft owner buys and installs their product correctly, then crashes on a test flight because of "altered flight characteristics". Isn't that why he bought the vortex generators???
Jury trial, hometown hero, you just know it's not going to be his fault. Interested in Alaskan perspectives, even if this is more California style.
https://www.newsminer.com/news/local_ne ... 81717.html
-
Karmutzen offline

-
Posts:
711
- Joined: Tue Apr 24, 2012 7:47 pm
- Location: Great Bear Rainforest
'74 7GCBC, 26" ABW, Aera 660 feeding G5 and FC-10 FF.
It sounded to me as if Micro or their representatives didn’t take this seriously.
Like the “Super Cub is an inherently hazardous design” lawsuit…..the hazardous design being tailwheel.
In this case, the pilot was dipping a maintenance test flight after installation of the VGs. He was stalling the airplane below 1500 feet. The FAA, in a number of documents, says stalls must be recovered no lower than 1500 feet agl.
One would think that a competent defense attorney could have leaned hard on that. The NTSB report is quite clear whose fault the accident was.
I hope for Micro’s sake they have insurance…..
MTV
-
mtv offline


-
Posts:
10514
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
- Location: Bozeman
-
Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:02 am
mtv wrote:It sounded to me as if Micro or their representatives didn’t take this seriously.
Like the “Super Cub is an inherently hazardous design” lawsuit…..the hazardous design being tailwheel.
In this case, the pilot was dipping a maintenance test flight after installation of the VGs. He was stalling the airplane below 1500 feet. The FAA, in a number of documents, says stalls must be recovered no lower than 1500 feet agl.
One would think that a competent defense attorney could have leaned hard on that. The NTSB report is quite clear whose fault the accident was.
I hope for Micro’s sake they have insurance…..
MTV
So does the plaintiffs attorney. Fault won’t matter and there will be no trial.
-
skyward II offline

-
Posts:
447
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:42 pm
- Location: Upland, CA/Etna, Wy
-
Sun Nov 27, 2022 11:44 am
skyward II wrote:mtv wrote:It sounded to me as if Micro or their representatives didn’t take this seriously.
Like the “Super Cub is an inherently hazardous design” lawsuit…..the hazardous design being tailwheel.
In this case, the pilot was dipping a maintenance test flight after installation of the VGs. He was stalling the airplane below 1500 feet. The FAA, in a number of documents, says stalls must be recovered no lower than 1500 feet agl.
One would think that a competent defense attorney could have leaned hard on that. The NTSB report is quite clear whose fault the accident was.
I hope for Micro’s sake they have insurance…..
MTV
So does the plaintiffs attorney. Fault won’t matter and there will be no trial.
Oh, there WAS a trial, and the jury found for the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff (the pilot’s widow) 3.5 Million.
Micro may appeal, but good luck with that.
MTV
-
mtv offline


-
Posts:
10514
- Joined: Sat Feb 25, 2006 1:47 am
- Location: Bozeman
-
Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:01 pm
mtv wrote:skyward II wrote:mtv wrote:It sounded to me as if Micro or their representatives didn’t take this seriously.
Like the “Super Cub is an inherently hazardous design” lawsuit…..the hazardous design being tailwheel.
In this case, the pilot was dipping a maintenance test flight after installation of the VGs. He was stalling the airplane below 1500 feet. The FAA, in a number of documents, says stalls must be recovered no lower than 1500 feet agl.
One would think that a competent defense attorney could have leaned hard on that. The NTSB report is quite clear whose fault the accident was.
I hope for Micro’s sake they have insurance…..
MTV
So does the plaintiffs attorney. Fault won’t matter and there will be no trial.
Oh, there WAS a trial, and the jury found for the plaintiff and awarded the plaintiff (the pilot’s widow) 3.5 Million.
Micro may appeal, but good luck with that.
MTV
Ooops, my bad... I fail to click most links as I have been informed that they contain things that will eat my computer
Last edited by
skyward II on Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
skyward II offline

-
Posts:
447
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:42 pm
- Location: Upland, CA/Etna, Wy
-
Sun Nov 27, 2022 12:04 pm
-
skyward II offline

-
Posts:
447
- Joined: Sun Jul 05, 2020 9:42 pm
- Location: Upland, CA/Etna, Wy
-
This explains why stuff costs so much.
-
David K offline


-
Posts:
142
- Joined: Tue Apr 10, 2018 3:27 pm
- Location: Cypress Hills area
- Aircraft: Cessna 172D
-
Post install flight test/check is required. I flew mine and find this BS but this is also why I'm never chosen to be on a trial.
These VGs are so benign, and only if you are lacking any stall recovery skills (of any student pilot) will this ever become an issue. If you can't fly a stall recover, seek help and families- don't sue someone for your loved one lack of skills.
My post-install flight test,
https://youtu.be/NHt70RT0Jds
-
48Stinson1083 offline

-
Posts:
83
- Joined: Wed Feb 09, 2022 4:19 pm
- Location: Maple Valley
- Aircraft: Stinson 108-3
-
DISPLAY OPTIONS
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests