The Firm's Practice Areas Attorney biographies and contact information. Verdicts & Settlements History of the Firm Frquently Asked Questions News Contact Us
Practice Areas » Aviation » Helicopters

 Helicopters

A leading aircraft designer once testified in one of our trials that the difference between fixed-wing aircraft and helicopters is that if something goes wrong, the fixed-wing aircraft is designed to glide but the helicopter is designed to crash.

It is true that when an engine fails, a helicopter pilot can autorotate, which means that he makes the rotor blades flatten, so that he gets maximum lift. If the failure occurs at a safe altitude, the helicopter can generally be landed without incident.

However, helicopters are designed to work at low altitudes and whether lifting logs or flying tourists around Hawai’i, engine failure often make it impossible to land safely.

O’Reilly & Danko have represented clients in over a hundred low level engine failure cases. In the last five years alone, settlements and verdicts have exceeded $20,000,000. The firm is currently representing cases resulting from tourist flights in Arizona and Hawai’i, fire-fighting, and taxi operations.

While engine failure can be frightening, rotor blade failure is the problem which keeps pilots awake at night. Sadly, these cases seem to be on the rise. In the last two years, the firm has settled blade failure cases in excess of $16,000,000. Blades are enormously sophisticated structures and failure analysis is a skill in which the firm is uniquely qualified.

Some of the helicopter accident cases O'Reilly & Danko has tried include:

  • Bell 47
  • Bell 204
  • Bell 206
  • Bell 407
  • Bell OH-58
  • Bell HH-1K
  • Bell UH-1
  • Bell 214B
  • Boeing CH-47
  • Enstrom F-28
  • Eurocopter BO
  • Hiller FH-1100
  • Hughes 500D
  • Robinson R-22
  • Sikorsky CH54
Dixon v. City of Livermore
Verdict: $11,009,000
Alameda County Superior Court
June 18, 2002
Helicopter Crash
The City of Livermore and Wings for Charity, Inc. agreed to sponsor and promote the 1995 Livermore Air Show. Tri–Valley Helicopters paid a concessionaire-fee to offer sightseeing helicopter rides as part of the air event. The plaintiffs in this case, David Dixon, Sr. and his wife, Ellen Dixon, paid for one of these rides. During the flight, the helicopter ran out of fuel and the novice pilot botched a forced landing. In the ensuing accident, David was killed and Ellen was seriously injured.
The heart of this case rests on the catastrophic mismanagement of fuel by the City, the helicopter operator, and the pilot. Refueling aircraft is not a casual operation: it is governed by statute and requires trained personnel. Exercise of due care at any point in the management of fuel during the air show would have prevented this accident entirely.
Aircraft, unlike automobiles, often have sophisticated tanking arrangements; how the fuel is moved and balanced often requires multiple interconnected tanks. The flow itself can be switched from tank to tank by the pilot, but sudden movement of fuel can dramatically change flight characteristics and has caused crashes in the past.
It is essential for a pilot to know precisely how much fuel is in each tank in order to devise exact calculations for an accurate flight plan. As a result, a fuel operator's role, aside from dealing with the danger of working with a hazardous fluid, has the added responsibility of ensuring each tank is filled with a known amount of fuel.
California Fire Code requires specific fueling arrangements for helicopters in such a setting. The City of Livermore utterly failed to inspect and supervise this dangerous activity and was found negligent. The jury awarded the Plaintiffs a verdict of $11,009,000.