Defunct Airline Suing Boeing For $179 Million Over 1995 Crash Blamed On Engine Failure And Pilot Error

Boeing is being sued over a 20-year old plane crash by a defunct airline. The planemaker has gone to court to block the case. The Boeing Company v. Cameroon Airlines was filed last week in the Western District of Washington. Back on December 3, 1995 Cameroon Airlines Flight 3701 from Cotonou to Douala crashed with 76 people on board. 68 passengers and 3 crew members perished when a compressor blade in the Pratt & Whitney JT8D engine fractured on the Boeing 737-200. Credit: Christian Volpati via Wikimedia Commons Near touchdown, the aircraft rose slightly. The crew attempted a late go-around but the plane couldn’t accelerate or climb safely and pilots lost control. The aircraft rolled sharply left, struck trees, and crashed into a mangrove about one mile left of the runway and caught fire, destroying the cockpit voice and data recorders. The investigation concluded that if the pilots had identified the engine issue sooner, a properly executed go-around would have been possible. So the crash was deemed the result of separation of the left engine blade (producing power loss and destabilizing the final approach) and the late, slow go-around which produced irreversible loss of speed. The crew had not received simulator training for an engine-out go-around. The successor career to Cameroon Airlines added simulator exercises, go-around decision training, briefings, and crew-resource-management addressing this. Cameroon Airlines, which ceased operations 20 years ago and was replaced by Camair, says Boeing is responsible for failing to: install an alarm informing the pilots that an engine had lost power. provide training for a go-around in this scenario. They contend that if the pilots had received a clearer warning and scenario-specific training, they would have identified the failed engine sooner, configured the aircraft correctly, preserved airspeed, and either landed or completed the single-engine go-around. Camair is seeking $179 million for replacement aircraft ($40 million), operating losses ($130 million), and reputational harm ($8.7 million). Boeing is trying to get the lawsuit blocked because Purchase Agreement No. 1239, executed November 17, 1984, contains: A Washington choice-of-law provision (which the airline breached by suing in Cameroon). The airline’s express waiver and release of other warranties, liabilities, and claims concerning nonconformity or defects including implied warranties, tort and negligence claims, and direct, incidental, and consequential damages. An indemnity protecting Boeing and personnel providing specified post-delivery maintenance training, service support, and related assistance. Credit: Konstantin von Wedelstaedt via Wikimedia Commons This seems mostly straightforward! Washington law lets you disclaim implied warranties, permits exclusive remedies and limitations on consequential commercial damages unless they are unconscionable, and allows negligence releases with exceptions for public policy, adhesion, and gross negligence. Maybe the airline can still claim that Boeing was negligent in its post-sale training and that the waiver violates Cameroonian public policy (but then the state-owned carrier shouldn’t have agreed to it). But even if Camair manages to sustain its suit, it seems like the stronger beef is with Pratt & Whitney than with Boeing, and that the airline’s own crew and its training program outweigh Boeing’s contributory negligence. Topics on this page