...FAA Report Kept From Jury...

  • E-Mail this Article
  • View Printable Article
  • Text size:

    • A
    • A
    • A

Lycoming's legal team is now formulating its appeal and further action could revolve around the FAA's involvement in the case. During the massive recall of some 1800 crankshafts during 2002 and 2003, the FAA accepted Lycoming's contention that Interstate had overheated the forgings and weakened the metal in them. It included that finding in the Emergency Airworthiness Directive that grounded the affected aircraft. But the jury didn't get to hear about the FAA's investigation into the crank failures because the judge in the Anderson trial excluded the report from the agency's Special Certification Review Team as prejudicial and hearsay. Lycoming attorney Rich Bedell told Aviation Consumer that the FAA SCRT report supports Lycoming's view that overheating caused the crank failures and the company may appeal the exclusion of that evidence. Bedell also contends the "jury simply got it wrong" in its finding that Lycoming engaged in fraud when it failed to inform Interstate of known crankshaft failures before signing a supply contract with the company. Lycoming maintains that the addition of vanadium in the forging alloy recipe wasn't the cause of the failures. Bedell also said that Lycoming doesn't think the design of the crankshafts is fundamentally flawed nor is there any reason for the FAA to recertify them.