In re Crash of Aircraft N93PC on July 7, 2013, at Soldotna, Alaska

WO IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
In re Crash of Aircraft N93PC ) No. 3:15-cv-0112-HRH
) [Consolidated with
on July 7, 2013, at Soldotna, Alaska ) No. 3:15-cv-0113-HRH and
_______________________________________) No. 3:15-cv-0115-HRH]
O R D E R
Honeywell’s Motion in Limine No. 10
Honeywell International Inc. moves to exclude plaintiffs from offering testimony
related to what the pilot of the accident aircraft was thinking or perceiving during the
accident flight.1 This motion is opposed.2 Oral argument was requested but is not deemed
necessary.
Background
On July 7, 2013, a deHavilland DHC-3 “Otter” airplane operated by Rediske Air, Inc.
and piloted by Walter Rediske crashed shortly after take off from the Soldotna Airport.
Rediske and all of the passengers on board were killed in the crash. A Honeywell TPE 331-
10R-511C turboprop engine had been installed in the accident aircraft. Plaintiffs, which are
1Docket No. 401.
2Docket Nos. 460, 462.
-1-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 523 Filed 06/22/21 Page 1 of 6

the estates of the passengers and Rediske, assert wrongful death, negligence, strict product
liability, and breach of warranty claims against Honeywell.
Honeywell contends that plaintiffs’ experts have speculated that Rediske was looking
at his torque gauge, perceived and relied on alleged erroneous data, and advanced the
throttle, which somehow overtorqued and broke the torsion shaft. Specifically, Honeywell
cites to Colin Sommer’s deposition testimony that
[i]f the bushing is to bind because of its location in the rear of
the engine where it’s much hotter due to the turbine section – if
the bushing is to bind either because the bushing is improperly
sized or because of the excess heat and coking, which
Honeywell indicates can happen to both the shaft, the torsion
shaft and the main shaft, you are now going to get an improper
torque indication in the cockpit. And a pilot is going to look at
his torque gauge and believe that he has less torque on his
engine than he really has. And if he is to believe that torque
gauge and then to apply greater torque to the engine because he
believes he has a margin there – and more likely than not, this
engine would have been torque-limited on this flight as opposed
to temp-limited – then he could possibly overtorque the engine,
breaking the torsion shaft because of the bound bushing between
the two components.[3]
Honeywell also cites to Arthur Coffman’s deposition testimony that
[i]f we have binding -- the torsion shaft reads the amount -- the
torque indicator reads the amount of twist that we put in the
shaft from one end to the other. If we have binding at the rear
bushing and it’s not free to measure the twist from one end to
the other, it could be causing a low torque reading in the
cockpit, which the pilot may be applying more torque.
3Video Deposition of Colin Sommer at 48:5-22, Exhibit A, Honeywell’s Motion in
Limine No. 10 [etc.], Docket No. 401.
-2-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 523 Filed 06/22/21 Page 2 of 6

* * *
Let’s say that it’s binding and he’s got the engine in an
overtorque mode and that binding let[s] go. It’s going to apply
a shock to that torsion shaft, an instant shock when it lets go if
it popped loose.
* * *
Then I think that’s possible, to apply an overtorque load to the
shaft.[4]
Honeywell also contends that Sommer has testified that Rediske decided to trade airspeed
for altitude and attempted to continue his climb before stalling the aircraft.
Honeywell now moves to preclude plaintiffs from offering the foregoing expert
evidence at trial on the grounds that it is speculative and untested.
Discussion
“Rule 702 requires that expert testimony relate to scientific, technical, or other
specialized knowledge, which does not include unsupported speculation and subjective
beliefs.” Guidroz-Brault v. Missouri Pacific R. Co., 254 F.3d 825, 829 (9th Cir. 2001).
Honeywell first argues that expert testimony that the pilot overtorqued the engine is
speculative and untested. Honeywell points out that there are no eyewitnesses who can
testify about what the pilot was doing, plaintiffs’ experts had never flown with the pilot or
have any knowledge of his habits, and there was no black box or recordings with air traffic
controllers. Thus, Honeywell argues that plaintiffs’ experts have no evidence that shows that
4Video Deposition of Arthur Lee Coffman at 25:5-26:10, Exhibit B, Honeywell’s
Motion in Limine No. 10 [etc.], Docket No. 401.
-3-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 523 Filed 06/22/21 Page 3 of 6

the pilot was looking at his torque gauge, perceived and relied on alleged erroneous data, and
advanced the throttle, which somehow overtorqued and broke the torsion shaft.
Honeywell also argues that plaintiffs’ experts have conducted no testing to confirm
their overtorquing theory. Honeywell contends that plaintiffs’ experts have not tested
whether a bent shaft or a bound bushing would cause a reduction in torque that would be
perceptible to the pilot. Honeywell also contends that Sommer has admitted that he did not
know how much horsepower would be required to “overtorque” the torsion shaft and cause
it to break and that no flight testing was done by him in this case.5 Honeywell also contends
that Mark Hood, another of plaintiffs’ experts, has admitted that he did not try “to calculate
what the momentary torque load would be, assuming that the . . . aft bushing somehow
bound and then unbound[.]”6 Thus, Honeywell argues that any testimony from plaintiffs’
experts that the pilot was looking at his torque gauge, perceived and relied on alleged
erroneous data, and advanced the throttle, which somehow overtorqued and broke the torsion
shaft, is untested and must be excluded.
To the extent that plaintiffs’ experts have testified about what the accident aircraft
pilot was doing or perceiving, such testimony must be excluded as it is pure speculation.
However, the court does not rule out the possibility that an appropriate hypothetical situation
5Sommer Deposition at 49:19-22; 150:24-151:12, Exhibit A, Honeywell’s Motion in
Limine No. 10 [etc.], Docket No. 401.
6Deposition of Mark B. Hood, P.E., at 30:3-21, Exhibit C, Honeywell’s Motion in
Limine No. 10 [etc.], Docket No. 401.
-4-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 523 Filed 06/22/21 Page 4 of 6

could be put to plaintiffs’ experts which would allow them to testify about what a
hypothetical pilot might do. The court is not persuaded by Honeywell’s argument that
testimony about what a “reasonable and prudent” pilot might believe or do is too speculative
or untested to potentially be admissible. Plaintiffs’ experts have sufficient education,
training, knowledge, skill, and experience to offer such testimony. Any “objections to the
inadequacies of” of such testimony “are more appropriately considered an objection going
to the weight of the evidence rather than its admissibility.” Hemmings v. Tidyman’s Inc.,
285 F.3d 1174, 1188 (9th Cir. 2002).
Honeywell also argues that Sommer’s theory that the pilot traded airspeed for altitude
is speculative and untested. At his deposition, Sommer was asked, “[h]ow does the plane,
if it’s lost power, get from 50 feet up to 125 feet?”7 Sommer responded, “[i]t’s just trading
airspeed for altitude.”8 And, in his rebuttal report, Sommer stated that “[f]ollowing the
engine failure, pilot Rediske traded altitude for airspeed.”9 Honeywell argues that Sommer
is implying that the pilot had made a decision to pull back on the control wheel to make the
plane climb in response to an engine problem, but Honeywell argues that there is no evidence
of such a thought process, decision, or action by the pilot of the accident aircraft. Thus,
7Sommer Deposition at 128:22-23, Exhibit A, Honeywell’s Motion in Limine No. 10
[etc.], Docket No. 401.
8Id. at 128:24.
9Aeroscope Inc. Rebuttal Report - Rediske, Exhibit E at 3-4, Honeywell’s Reply in
Support of Motion in Limine No. 10 [etc.], Docket No. 489.
-5-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 523 Filed 06/22/21 Page 5 of 6

Honeywell argues that this theory is speculative and untested and testimony related to it
should be excluded.
Again, plaintiffs’ experts cannot testify about what the pilot of the accident aircraft
did or perceived as such testimony would be pure speculation. But, just as plaintiffs’ experts
can testify about what a hypothetical pilot might do, plaintiffs’ experts can testify about how
an aircraft, in general, might behave after it lost power.
Conclusion
Honeywell’s motion in limine No. 10 is granted. Plaintiffs’ experts are excluded from
offering testimony related to what the pilot of the accident aircraft was thinking or perceiving
during the accident flight. But, plaintiffs’ experts are not precluded from offering testimony
as to what a reasonable and prudent pilot might have done under conditions similar to the
accident flight or as to how an aircraft under conditions similar to the accident flight might
have reacted.
DATED at Anchorage, Alaska, this 22nd day of June 2021.
/s/ H. Russel Holland
United States District Judge
-6-
Case 3:15-cv-00112-JMK Document 523 Filed 06/22/21 Page 6 of 6