Bradley Kay v. Cessna Aircraft Company, a Corporation

Good Law
548 F.2d 1370·1977 U.S. App. LEXIS 14597
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitFebruary 24, 197774-1785, 75-1437California1,308 words

Opinion

Opinion

Williams, J.

Julius Kay was killed when his Cessna Skymaster Model 337 airplane crashed during take-off. The 337 is a twin engine aircraft of “push-me/pull-me” design, e. g., having one pulling engine forward of the pilot as in the traditional single engine design and the second pushing engine behind the pilot and totally obscured from his view.

The undisputed evidence shows that the Cessna’s rear engine stopped as Kay taxied to the end of the runway after completing his warm-up procedures in the parking lot. It is also not disputed that Kay then sat at the end of the strip for several minutes prior to take-off, and that he attempted his fatal take-off with only the forward engine operating.

With Kay’s particular model of airplane, rear engine failure cannot be detected either visually or by a change in the plane’s movement. This differs from the conventional twin-engine aircraft where the failure of one engine is accompanied by a sharp and violent turning motion. A thrust warning light to alert the pilot to the fact of rear engine failure had been included in early models of the Cessna 337, but was not installed in later models, such as Kay’s, because it proved to be unreliable and…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.