Jon contacted me for some info.
Yes, Sandel, the avionics manufacturer that figured prominently in early Cirrus SR22 avionics, was sued and lost a product liability lawsuit. The accident involved a pilot with about 17 hours time in type flying two legs totaling 7 hours then flying an ILS approach to minimums. Once inside the FAC, he mysteriously flew about 30 degrees off course, was instructed to correct 5 times, and eventually continued the descent, lost control, and the pilot and his wife perished.
Everybody involved was sued, but Sandel was split off and a trial in California was ready first. The plaintiff attorney argued that a faulty flux gate detector caused the Sandel to confuse the pilot and contributed to the fatal accident. The jury found that Sandel had a defective product, contributed to the accident and was 65 percent liable for damages. Total award was $2.2 million. However, when combined with a settlement in the other half of the lawsuit, we don't know how much Sandel actually paid.
So, yes, avionics manufacturers are at risk for product liability lawsuits.
However, in this Sandel case, the NTSB determined the cause to be pilot-related not equipment- related. As I understand the Avidyne terms that would be crucial to the situation. It was an enterprising plaintiff's attorney who came up with the avionics cause and successfully brought his case in civil court.
Cheers Rick
Many thanks, SDbeach.
Was there evidence the fluxgate was faulty before the impact?
There is obviously no way to claim it was faulty from any post-impact analysis, given the Gs etc.
I fly with the MT102/SG102 kit myself - it is superb quality stuff.
If there is evidence the fluxgate was faulty before the impact, why was the pilot flying at all? The aircraft would have definitely been unairworthy for IFR and possibly for any flight at all.
And if the fluxgate became faulty during the flight, the pilot should have used some alternative or modified procedure to get back down.
Otherwise, it seems like the lawyers just threatened a few people and collected some settlements from whoever they could...
Otherwise, it seems like the lawyers just threatened a few people and collected some settlements from whoever they could...
No: the trial was a real three ring circus because Sandel was convinced, in the opinion of many informed observers correctly so, that the plaintiff's case was a crock. They defended it to the end and still lost.
I think that sort of thing is what has conditioned Avidyne's decision to try to get out from under this kind of claim both from the point of view of actual damages and the costs involved in defending the actions by trying to push the risk onto their customers.
IMHO, however, it doesn't justify what they are trying to do with their warranty programme which will almost certainly result in a substantial part of their Customer base voting with their feet. I know I have...
Sandel tell me the pilot forum information is wrong.
They never paid any settlement in that Cirrus case. Another company paid out for a different product. Apparently the info is all in the court records.
Apparently the pilot descended on the glideslope, with the localiser indication off-scale. It was determined there is no rule against doing that.
Go figure...
Sandel tell me the pilot forum information is wrong.
They never paid any settlement in that Cirrus case. Another company paid out for a different product. Apparently the info is all in the court records.
This is new information. Any way I could get some details? The court records in San Diego are only for that trial.
Cheers
Rick
Was there evidence the fluxgate was faulty before the impact?
There is obviously no way to claim it was faulty from any post-impact analysis, given the Gs etc.
During the Sandel trial, the plaintiff's theory was that the fluxgate failed during the approach prior to impact. In the wreckage, the fluxgate was found damaged but with a critical bolt loose in the case, a bolt required for precise alignment of the fluxgate.
In my opinion, the conflicting testimony of the plaintiff experts and the design engineer of the fluxgate left an impression that it was highly unlikely that the fluxgate failed at that precise moment to have that confusing effect. Occam's razor comes to mind. But in the hands of a skilled attorney, the arguments presented to the jury were compelling and resulted in a decision of defective product.
Cheers Rick
Sandel tell me the pilot forum information is wrong.
They never paid any settlement in that Cirrus case. Another company paid out for a different product. Apparently the info is all in the court records.
This is new information. Any way I could get some details? The court records in San Diego are only for that trial.
Peter?
The fluxgate was not a Sandel one. It was a Humphrey one.
See for example this PDF local copy which mentions it.
A google/images on a Humphrey fluxgate turns up some pics.
This has again been making the news in the USA…
In short, for the IFD540 and 440, they offer an extended warranty called Aeroplan. If you sign up for this, you agree to indemnify Avidyne from lawsuits from 3rd parties, relating to an accident you had (e.g. from lawsuits by the estates of your passengers). The problem is that this could easily create a liability whose total value is much higher than the value of any 3rd party or passenger insurance you are likely to have.
An original background article is here and the Avidyne contract is here.
There is no way to take out additional insurance against the specific eventuality – probably because you signed a contract to enter into the liability 
On a US site, Avidyne have just posted a “clarification” which simply reaffirms peoples’ worst fears about what this means. I don’t think I can post the full text here (it’s not good manners) but I might ask Avidyne to post it here too. But it doesn’t actually clarify anything…
So, your options on those two boxes are:
The basic 12 month warranty, plus
It sounds like everybody out there is going to avoid the 2nd one.
However I wonder whether anything in that indemnity is contrary to European law.
I signed everything and got 6 months of additional warranty for both the PFD/MFD and the DFC90 autopilot.
