Only the FAA can set standards for aviation safety, AOPA told the Supreme Court this week, and states and courts should not be allowed to undermine that responsibility. AOPA submitted a “friend of the court” brief asking the judges to hear the case of Sikkelee v. Precision Airmotive Corp., which involves a 2005 airplane crash in North Carolina. The pilot was killed, and his spouse sued the engine manufacturer, claiming the carburetor was defective. A lower court said the carburetor was not defective because it had been certified by the FAA, but an appeals court said just because it was certified, that didn’t eliminate the possibility of a design defect. That ruling would allow juries to hold a manufacturer responsible even if their product satisfied all FAA regulations and had been FAA-approved, AOPA says.
“This case presents an important question about the states’ role in ensuring continued operational safety of aircraft approved by the FAA,” AOPA wrote in its brief. “As owners and pilots, AOPA members have a substantial interest in the duties imposed upon manufacturers to address unsafe conditions in FAA-approved designs. These duties significantly affect the safety of existing aircraft and future aircraft produced in accordance with that design. Additionally, the cumulative cost effect of aviation products liability actions on manufacturers is also passed onto aircraft owners. Thus, state-law duties defined in an aviation products liability action affect the cost of purchasing new and maintaining existing aircraft.”
“It’s vitally important that manufacturers have one set of standards, established by the FAA, to adhere to,” said AOPA general counsel Ken Mead. “Otherwise they can face the nearly impossible and very costly challenge of trying to follow a hodgepodge of potentially contradictory state standards. That’s bad for safety, it’s bad for manufacturers, and it’s bad for aircraft owners who end up, quite literally, paying the price.” GAMA also plans to file a brief about the case, AOPA said.
