Free Motion for Summary Judgment - District Court of Colorado - Colorado

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK

Document 56-2

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 1 of 4

EXHIBIT A-1 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS IN SUPPORT OF PILATUS DEFENDANTS'SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION

1. David Rupert is the only witness offered by plaintiffs as a failure analysis expert.

Excerpt from plaintiffs FRCP Rule 26(a)(2) report attached as Exhibit A-3. Q How would you describe your present area of expertise? A I consider myself to have expertise in the technical aspects of aircraft accident investigation and in the area of failure analysis of aircraft components and systems. Rupert Vol. 1 p. 17 attached as Exhibit A-5 Excerpt from plaintiffs FRCP Rule 26(a)(2) report Section 5.3 Opinions and Conclusions para. 4 attached as Exhibit A-3. Excerpt from plaintiffs FRCP Rule 26(a)(2) report Section 5.3 Opinions and Conclusions para. 4 attached as Exhibit A-3. Excerpt from plaintiffs FRCP Rule 26(a)(2) report Section 5.3 Opinions and Conclusions para. 4 attached as Exhibit A-3. Q. On the PT blade failures that you reviewed, clarify these, these were all 67D engines, not 67B, correct? A. 67 series on engines other than the 67B and other PT6 series engines, other than the 67B. Rupert Vol. 2 p.239 attached as Exhibit A-5

2. Rupert's opinion is that the abnormal engine symptoms described by the pilot were caused by a power turbine blade failure. 3. Rupert said his conclusion that a power turbine blade failed is based on "several reported incidents involving power turbine blade failures in PT6A-67D engines." 4. The subject engine was a PT6A-67B engine which is not the same as the PT6A-67D engines Rupert said he used as his factual basis.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BY PILATUS DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT A-1 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

Page 1 of 4

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK

Document 56-2

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 2 of 4

5. The "reported incidents" that form the factual basis for Rupert's opinion were reported in the form of service difficulty reports (SDRs). 6. None of the SDRs that form the factual basis for Rupert's opinion involve the subject airplane, a Pilatus PC-12, the subject engine, a Pratt & Whitney PT6A-67B or the subject power turbine blade, part number 3044183-01.

Rupert Deposition Exhibits 220 and 221 attached as Exhibit A-4 [On Exhibit 221, only the SDRs marked by the witness with stars are relevant.] Rupert Deposition Exhibits 220 and 221. attached as Exhibit A-4 All of the relevant SDRs that indicate an aircraft make and model are Beech Model 1900s. All of the relevant SDRs that indicate an engine make and model are Pratt & Whitney PT6A-67Ds. Only two of the relevant SDRs specify the power turbine blade part number in both cases, the part number is not the same as that of the subject engine. Those indicated part numbers are 311856301 for a/c registration number N87552 and 312011201 for a/c registration number N16540 on Exhibit 220. The subject part number was 304418301 as stated by Pratt & Whitney witness Jean Pelletier below. Q. And you also mentioned a part number. Do you know the part number off the top of your head? A. On this thing, going throughout service bulletins, it's a 3044183-01. Pelletier p. 35 attached as Exhibit A-6 Excerpt from plaintiffs' FRCP Rule 26(a)(2) report. Attached as Exhibit A-3. A. I believe it's probable there was a defect within the engine. Q. What was the defect? A. In all probability a problem with a second stage turbine, power turbine. Q. What was the problem with the power turbine blade that you described? A. I don't know. Excuse me, I don't know. [Although Mr. Rupert said there was a defect. When asked what the defect was he said it
Page 2 of 4

7. Rupert did not state in his Rule 26 report or testify in deposition what caused the power turbine blade failure and could not rule out causes other than a defect.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BY PILATUS DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT A-1 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK

Document 56-2

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 3 of 4

was an unknown second stage power turbine blade problem. But a problem is not necessarily a defect.] Rupert Vol. 2: p212 attached as Exhibit A-5 Q. BY MR. BYRNE: Would it be fair to state that you are not able to say within a reasonable degree of probability what caused a PT blade failure in the Access Air incident, if in fact such a failure occurred? A. With the information I have right now that is correct. Rupert Vol. 2 p.178 attached as Exhibit A-5 Q. In your analysis of what you believe to be a PT blade failure, did you make an attempt to investigate all the possible causes of a PT blade failure? A. I didn't have any parts to investigate so really I don't understand the question. I have also thought of a couple of other possible causes, foreign object damage, debris gets through the engine far enough to damage a blade, handling damage during assembly, building material damage, such as a bolt or vein failure. Those are a few more possible ones but I'm sure there's more. Rupert Vol. 2 p.237 attached as Exhibit A-5 Rupert Deposition Exhibits 220 and 221. Q. ... was a determination made of what caused the blade failure? A. I don't think I have any information on any of these SDR's as to what caused the blade failure. Rupert Vol. 2 p.239 attached as Exhibit A-5

8. The SDRs which form the factual basis for Rupert's opinion do not specify the causes of the power turbine blade failures.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BY PILATUS DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT A-1 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

Page 3 of 4

Case 1:01-cv-02056-JLK

Document 56-2

Filed 10/17/2005

Page 4 of 4

9. Plaintiffs offered no evidence that any power turbine blade on any turbo-prop engine ever failed due to a manufacturing or design defect. 10. Mr. Rupert admitted in his deposition that he did not know and without physical evidence, could not know what caused the power turbine blade failure.

11. Plaintiffs offered no evidence of design defect or any witness qualified to testify on this subject.

12. Plaintiffs offered no evidence of negligence.

Excerpt from plaintiffs' FRCP Rule 26(a)(2) report. Attached as Exhibit A-3. and Rupert Deposition generally (not attached in entirety.) Q. Do you agree that without physical evidence we can never know what the cause of the PT blade failure was, assuming there was PT blade failure? A. That's correct. You might get some ideas from reports that are more detailed than the SDR's that I have, previous investigations of 67D failures might give you an idea of a probable cause. But I think that's the closest you'd ever get is analyzing other PT blade failures on this series engine. Rupert Vol.2 p.238 attached as Exhibit A-5 Q You have never been involved in the design of an aircraft or an aircraft engine, have you? A No, I have not. Q And you have never personally been involved in the manufacturing of an aircraft engine or an aircraft; correct? A No, I have not. Q Have you ever been involved in modifications to an aircraft or an aircraft engine? A No. Q I take it, then, that you do not consider yourself to be an expert in designing a turboprop engine? A No. Q And you do not consider yourself to be an expert in the manufacturing of a turboprop engine? A No. Rupert Vol 1 p. 37 attached as Exhibit A-4 Plaintiffs' FRCP Rule 26(a)(2) report. Attached as Exhibit A-3.

SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION BY PILATUS DEFENDANTS EXHIBIT A-1 SEPARATE STATEMENT OF UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

Page 4 of 4