Trial Testimony of Douglas Marwill in Vincent Abeyta et. al. v. Cessna
EIGHTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT
COUNTY OF TAOS
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
LISA ABEYTA, individually and as surviving
spouse
and personal representative of
THE ESTATE OF TEODORO ABEYTA, and
as parent
and on the behalf of ANGEL ABEYTA, CHRISTINA
ABEYTA, and DONNA
ABEYTA, the minor
children of Teodoro Abeyta; SANTIAGO VINCENT
ABEYTA
and EDNA ABEYTA, as the
natural parents and next friend of STEVEN
ABEYTA, a
deceased minor; EDNA ABEYTA,
individually; SANTIAGO VINCENT ABEYTA,
individually,
v.
CESSNA AIRCRAFT CO., INC.,
CASE NO. 91-284 CV
TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS
TRIAL TESTIMONY OF ROBERT DOUGLAS MARWILL
On the 8th day of March, 1994, at
approximately 9:00 a.m., this matter came on for
hearing before the HONORABLE JOSEPH E. CALDWELL,
Judge of the Eighth Judicial District, State of New
Mexico, Division II.
The Plaintiffs appeared by Counsel of
Record
GADDY, RAKES & HALL, by PHILLIP C. GADDY and
KATHRYN
HAMMEL, 2025 San Pedro Drive, N.E., Albuquerque, NM
87119 and CUNNINGHAM, LYONS & CABANISS, by JOHN
CABANISS, 207 East Michigan Street, Suite 400,
Milwaukee, WI 53202.
The Defendants appeared by Counsel of Record
SHEEHAN, SHEEHAN and STELZNER, 707 Broadway, Suite 300,
Albuquerque, NM 87103, by JUAN L. FLORES, and BELCHER,
HENZIE & BIEGENZAHN, by WILLIAM T. DelHAGEN.
At which time the following proceedings were
had:
INDEX of PROCEEDINGS
WITNESS: DOUGLAS MARWILL
Direct Examination by Mr. DelHagen:
(Reported but not transcribed herein.)
Cross Examination by Mr. Cabaniss:
Redirect Examination by Mr. DelHagen:
Recross Examination by Mr. Cabaniss:
Examination by Mr. Cabaniss out of
the presence of the jury:
I N D E X of E X H I B I T S
DEFENDANT'S EXHIBITS
VVV Chart
PLAINTIFFS' EXHIBITS
235 Chart
236 Chart
237 Chart
(Note: Direct Examination by Mr. DelHagen
reported but not transcribed herein.)
MR. DelHAGEN: Thank you. That's all I
have, your Honor.
MR. CABANISS: May I approach the bench,
your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
(Note: The following conference was held at
the bench.)
MR. CABANISS: Judge, I just wanted to
advise you I'm probably going to be about an hour and a
half with this witness, so I don't know whether -- I'm
worried about getting started, getting right in the
middle of it and having to break for lunch.
THE COURT: Let's get started, and then
we will break. I'll let you go 15 minutes and we will
take a break.
MR. CABANISS: Okay.
THE COURT: I'm worried about taking a
break earlier, because I have some things to attend to
right after lunch, and it's just too long for them to
be out.
(Note: Bench conference concluded.)
THE COURT: We will begin with your
questions, Mr. Cabaniss, and then we will take a break.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CABANISS
Q. Mr. Marwill, you've designed breakaway fittings
into helicopters, haven't you?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And is there anything in the federal regulations
that would have precluded Cessna from attempting to
certify crash-resistant technology in any of its aircraft?
A. Well, you just said design these into systems
into helicopters. We only do it on secondary fuel
systems, not primary fuel systems. There needs to be a
distinction about that.
Q. Can you answer the question I just asked?
A. Would you repeat?
Q. Sure.
Would you read it back.
(Note: The following question was read
by the reporter.)
"Question: And is there anything in the
federal regulations that would have precluded
Cessna from attempting to certify
crash-resistant technology in any of its
aircraft?
A. You mean as I did in 1979?
Q. Is there anything to have prohibited Cessna, in
the federal regulations, from doing testing to attempt to
certify the crash-resistant technology?
A. No. Just as I did in 1979.
Q. And the only time Cessna ever attempted to
certify breakaway fittings or crash-resistant technology
was with the T-41B; correct?
A. I don't know what testing they did. I mean, I'm
not aware of all the testing they may have done.
Q. Now, part of the work you've done, you've also
designed special fuel tanks for military airplanes at
Beech; isn't that correct?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. And, in fact, you designed a tank that you could
shoot a 50-caliber machine gun through.
A. That's correct.
Q. And it would self-seal.
A. That's correct.
Q. With respect to your reliability report --
And do you have that in front of you?
A. Yes.
Q. With respect to your report, you used supply
data for your failures, didn't you?
A. You mean the number of failures?
Q. Correct. You used supply data, didn't you?
A. I used the data that is issued in order to order
new valves to replace the ones that had failed in the
field. Not the ones that are purchased but the ones that
have failed.
Q. How many QDRs, in total, did you find for the
helicopters in the Army?
A. I didn't ask for them. I have some, but I
didn't ask for them specifically.
Q. Do you know for what time period those QDRs
exist?
A. Most of them are about 1982 through '89.
Q. How many helicopters does the Army have this
technology in?
A. There's about 2,941 helicopters, UH-l models.
That's all this report covers.
Q. Does the Army put the breakaway valves in other
helicopters; for example, the Blackhawk?
A. Yes, they do.
Q. What other helicopters does the Army put these
valves in?
A. The UH-60, and the -47. I'm familiar with those
two.
Q. Any others that you're aware of?
A. There may be. That's the only ones I'm familiar
with right now.
Q. In the 22 years those valves have been used in
Army helicopters, are you aware of any crashes
that have resulted to Army helicopters as a result of
the failure of breakaway fittings?
A. That's indicated in the QDRs, yes.
Q. How many?
A. Well, I only have a few. I have maybe 10
or 12 that I asked for.
Q. How many crashes?
A. Well, you can't always tell if they all
crash. Are you going to define "failure" by crash?
Q. My question is: Do you know whether any
of the breakaway fittings failed and caused a crash?
A. Yes.
Q. How many?
A. I have one report of that.
Q. One report in 22 years?
A. No, that's not true.
Q. How many other crashes are you aware of in
the last 22 years --
A. I'm aware --
Q. -- that resulted from the failure of a
breakaway fitting?
A. I'm aware there have been instances.
They don't always crash and people are killed, but there's cases
where the helicopters have to make emergency
landings, auto-rotations.
Q. Are you aware of any other crashes in 22 years,
other than the one?
A. I only have one QDR that says that. But that
was not the basis of my report.
Q. Now, how many flight hours are we looking at for
all the Army's helicopters for 22 years?
A. I don't have that information. My report only
covered the UH-l.
Q. And if you had gotten that information, you
could make a calculation, couldn't you, in terms of the
reliability.
A. I concentrated on one helicopter and what
happened with the valves in the helicopter, and the number
of flight hours on that.
Q. And that's it?
A. Yeah. That was the subject of all this, yes.
Q. Now, what's your understanding with respect to
how this crash-resistant technology has performed in
preventing burn injuries and deaths in the helicopters?
A. It has significantly reduced the number of
deaths in helicopter accidents, particularly in Vietnam.
Q. How about since Vietnam? How about when that
Blackhawk crashed in Mogadishu, recently. Was there a
post-crash fire there?
A. No. But there was one in Germany -- Panama six
months ago. A Uh-60 crashed there and everyone was killed
by a post-crash fire. So the systems don't always work as
they are designed.
Q. But do they work well?
A. Generally, they work well.
Q. When you were at Beech designing fuel Systems
for airplanes, how did you account for the value of a
human life in the cost analysis that you did in the design
of airplanes?
A. I didn't get into that.
Q. That wasn't done in the design?
A. No. No, I said that wasn't my job. My job was
to design the fuel system.
Q. And that wasn't part of that?
A. Pardon me?
Q. And using the -- you didn't put a value on human
life for purposes of your work in designing fuel systems?
A. Not me. I wouldn't do that.
Q. The definition that you used for failure and you
told the jury about, where did you get that?
A. From the -- There's a couple of reports that
tell you how to calculate reliability. The definition is
in that document.
Q. Do you know whether or not the FAA has a
definition that it uses for failure?
A. I'm sure they do.
Q. What is the FAA definition of a failure?
A. The definition the FAA uses for anything, in
general, it's when the component fails to perform its
intended function or if it creates some significant
hazard.
Q. Anything else?
A. I'm sure there are other details. That's a
pretty broad definition.
MR. CABANISS: May I approach the witness,
your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Mr. Marwill, I'm going to
hand you what be has been marked as Plaintiff's Exhibit 23, which is U.S. Department of Transportation Glossary of
Aeronautical Terms.
Have you seen that before?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you read to the jury what the definition
of a failure is from that particular publication.
A. On page 29, the definition of a failure here
is: "The inability of an item to perform an expected
or predicted function within previously specified
limits. Failure should not been
used in reporting broken, distorted,
separated airframe structures, or components
that were damaged as a result of loading
imposed beyond design limitations."
Q. So, for example, if a mechanic happened to hit a
breakaway fitting with a wrench and broke it, and it was
replaced, would that be included within the definition of
"failure" as you evaluate it for liability?
A. It could be. You'd have to look into the
details of that. If it was done strictly as a maintenance
item, I would say no.
Q. But, for example, your data that you used to do
your reliability study would include such instances, because
what you did is you took the data that showed how
many of these valves were purchased.
A. No, I did not.
Q. What exactly was the data, then?
A. You may recall in my deposition you made that
same mistake and I tried to clarify that. I did not use
the number of valves that were purchased, I used the
number of valves that were requested to replace the valves
in the field that had failed.
There's a big difference there.
Q. Just so I understand it now, if the helicopter
mechanic, in changing one of the -- in working around the
helicopter happened to inadvertently hit it or caused
damage to it and had to order a new one, that would show
up in your reliability study; isn't that correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. Even though it had nothing to do with the
operation of the helicopter.
A. That's true.
Q. And in terms of the data that you used, did all
of the things that you called "failures," were they incidents
that caused the engine to stop?
A. No. They don't have to be. A failure does not actually have
to cause the engine to stop. For example, leaking fuel in the
cockpit, that doesn't cause the engine to stop, but certainly
that's a hazard to the personnel nearby.
Q. And do you know, or is there any information
available that would indicate what percent of these valves that
you called failures were replaced because of something that
occurred in the air, as opposed to damage that may have occurred
on the ground, inadvertently?
A. No. There's no information to that effect.
However, I did do a study in which I examined and said: Let's
say 50 percent of all the failures were inadvertent. Let's say
they were due to maintenance or something else. Now, it's highly
unlikely that half of those failures would occur there, and still
the failure rate was more than three times what is acceptable by
the FAA.
Q. Now, let's talk about that for a minute, if we can.
What failure rate did you come up with based on your study of the
data you used? Wasn't it something like 2.17 times 10 to the
negative 3? Was that the rate that you came up with, sir?
A. Well, to state that in a different way, that says
that a valve would fail once every 460.59 hours.
Q. In your report, did you use the number that I
put up there, 2.17 times
A. Yes, I did. I was just trying to use something
that was a little bit easier to work with.
Q. You also indicated in the report that you
allowable limit was 1 times 10 to the negative 9.
A. No.
Q. You didn't?
THE COURT: And speaking -- we will stop
there.
Speaking to the jury panel: Ladies and
gentlemen, we are going to take our noon
recess at this time. I have these
instructions for you. First of all, I need to
have you back at 1:30 p.m. and we will begin
with the continuation of the evidence at that
time. In the meantime, though, don't make up
your minds about this case until it is
submitted to you for your deliberations.
Don't discuss it with anyone; don't allow
anyone to discuss it with you. Don't listen
to anything that may be broadcast or read
anything that may be printed about it.
And, with those instructions, you're free
to go. I'll see you at 1:30 p.m. this
afternoon.
Please remain seated while the jury retires.
(Note: The jury exited.)
THE COURT: Have a seat, please.
Court will be in recess until 1:30 p.m. Sir,
you may step down.
(Note: The lunch recess was taken at 11:56
a.m. and court reconvened out of the presence of
the jury at 1:48 p.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
Mr. Cabaniss, are you ready with your
questions, sir?
MR. CABANISS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. DelHagen, are you ready, sir?
MR. DelHAGEN: Ready.
THE COURT: Bring in the jury, please.
(Note: The jury entered.)
THE COURT: Mr. Cabaniss, proceed with
your questions, sir.
MR. CABANISS: Thank you, your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CABANISS-continued
Q. Before we get back into the technical stuff, Mr.
Marwill, I'd like to clarify a couple of things about your
background.
I understand from your deposition that you
graduated from high school in 1963.
A. Yes.
Q. And after you graduated from high school,
you went to a school, the University of Missouri, Columbia?
A. Yes.
Q. And that was for a year and a half.
A. Yes.
Q. What did you study while you were at the
University of Missouri, Columbia?
A. Mechanical engineering.
Q. And why did you leave?
A. That was at the height of the Vietnam war, and
we were going to be -- at that particular time, they were
drafting people into the military, so I went into the Air
Force.
Q. And that's why you left school, to go into the
Air Force?
A. Yes.
Q. Then you did six months in the reserves; is that
correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. You went into the Air Force and you did six
months active duty?
A. That was training, aircraft maintenance school.
Q. Okay. As an enlisted person?
A. Yes.
Q. And then after your six months in the Air Force,
what did you do next?
A. I went back to college and attended Air Force
reserve meetings and summer camps.
Q. And that college, I believe you told me at
deposition, was Mississippi State University.
A. That's correct.
Q. And you spent a year there?
A. Yes.
Q. And you studied, I believe you said, aerospace
engineering.
A. Aeronautical engineering.
Q. I'm sorry. Aeronautical.
When you were there -- And after you had been
there a year, what did you do next?
A. I went to California for a summer job to work
with Lockheed Missile and Space Corporation.
Q. And they hired you -- Lockheed. Is that
h-e-e-d at the end?
A. Yes.
Q. I believe you indicated during direct that you
were hired by Lockheed as an engineer; is that correct?
A. That was as a design draftsman.
Q. But did you indicate you were actually designing
rockets when you were at Lockheed?
A. No. What I said was I was designing the fuel
system for a rocket. It was a rocket we used for
installation of satellites into space.
Q. So you were designing the fuel system for a
rocket; is that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And Lockheed hired you based on your education
at the University of Missouri, Columbia, and your
education at Mississippi State?
A. Yes.
Q. Okay. Now, how long were you at Lockheed,
approximately?
A. I think less than a year. Because of the build
up in Vietnam, they activated a large number of Air Force
reserve units, and my unit was activated at that time.
Q. So approximately a year?
A. Less than a year.
Q. Okay. Let's see. And then you next got called up by
the reserves and did a year and a half active duty?
A. That's correct.
Q. And that was as an enlisted man for about a year and a
half?
A. That's right.
Q. And, as I understand it, you did mechanic-type
work with aircraft?
A. I was an aircraft mechanic for a period of time,
then I became a crew chief, which means I was
responsible for the maintenance on a particular
aircraft.
Q. Okay. So aircraft mechanic. Is that okay?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, when you got done with the Air Force, what
did you do?
A. I went to work for Beech Aircraft in Wichita,
Kansas.
Q. Okay. And Beech hired you as a design engineer?
A. I don't know the exact terminology. I was a design
draftsman working under an engineer at that
particular time.
Q. Have you indicated in your resume that you
worked at Beech as a design engineer since you went to
work for Beech?
A. Yes. Not too long after I worked at Beech I received
the title of design engineer.
Q. And that was based on the college grade point at
Missouri and Mississippi State and your time in the Air
Force as a mechanic that they decided to make you a design
engineer?
A. No. Immediately when I came to Wichita I
enrolled at Wichita State University. So I was attending
classes at Wichita State University during the early period of
time I was working at Beech Aircraft.
Q. So they made you a design engineer because you
were in school for engineering.
A. No.
Q. Why did they make you a design engineer? What was
the background that, to your understanding, Beech used in making
the determination to make you a design engineer?
A. Well, you're now talking about different
designations of hiring people in a company. There are different
levels of design engineers, A, B grades. Also, sometime during
my junior to senior year it looked like to them I was going to
graduate within a short period of time. So I assume that all
came together about the same time.
Q. Well, let's see. You started at Beech, what, 1960?
A. 1969.
Q. What year did you actually get your degree from Wichita
state?
A. 1977.
Q. And that was a Bachelor of Science in mechanical
engineering?
A. Yes.
Q. And you went at night while you were working for
Beech?
A. Daytime and night.
Q. And Beech paid for that?
A. No. They paid a portion of it.
Q. Okay. Now, after you graduated in 1977, you
also did some graduate work?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And that, again, was at Wichita State?
A. That's correct.
Q. Okay. Now, going back to your earlier work, you
well in your classes at Mississippi State; is that correct?
A. I don't know exactly the grade point average.
Q. Did you tell us at deposition that you did well?
A. Yes.
Q. And did you do well in your classes at the
University of Missouri, Columbia?
A. I don't know the grade point average. In other
words, I don't know what the grades were. That's over 30
years ago.
Q. Are these all the colleges that you went to?
A. There was a summer class. I took a single class
in Memphis, Tennessee, while I was working there during
the summer.
Q. Okay. What school was that?
A. Christian Brothers College.
Q. And you just took one course there?
A. I took a summer class there, yes.
Q. Okay.
MR. CABANISS: Judge, may I approach the
witness?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Mr. Marwill, I'm handing you
Plaintiffs' Exhibit 225. Could you tell the jury what it
is.
A. That appears to be a transcript of my grades.
Q. Okay. First of all, grades are typically
confidential with a school, aren't they?
A. Yes.
Q. Have you ever released those publicly?
A. No, I haven't.
Q. Okay. So you have no idea how I would have
gotten those grades.
A. No, I wouldn't.
Q. Okay.
MR. DelHAGEN: Do you have another copy?
MR. CABANISS: Yes, I do. There you go.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Mr. Marwill, I'm going to
hand you now what is Plaintiffs' Exhibit 226, which I'll
represent to you is a certified copy of your application
to become a professional engineer. And I'll ask you, sir,
if your grades are attached to that information, which is
your application to be a professional engineer.
A. Yes, looks like they are.
Q. So, having had the benefit of looking at that,
do you now recall that you, in fact, submitted those to
the Texas licensing?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. Now, directing your attention to the classes
that you took, and in particular your work at the
University of Missouri, Columbia, in the first term isn't
it true that you flunked College Algebra?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you got a D in Trigonometry?
A. Yes.
Q. And you got a D in American History?
A. Yes.
Q. And then you were placed on probation?
A. That's correct.
Q. And second semester, as well, it indicates you
were on probation?
A. Yes. I had C's during the semester.
Q. And then in the summer you took the one course
at Christian Brothers College; isn't that correct?
A. Yes, the one I got a B in.
Q. Correct. In Econ. Then you went back to the
University of Missouri, Columbia for the first semester in
1964, '65.
Isn't it true that you flunked calculus?
A. Yes.
Q. And doesn't it indicate you were dismissed from
school?
A. That's correct.
Q. And then in the second semester of 1964, '65,
you took a Math Analysis course at Christian Brothers
College, didn't you.
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And you withdrew from that class in March of
'65, didn't you?
A. No. You'll notice it says audit.
Q. Down below -- I'm sorry. Go ahead.
A. It says "audited." That was a class I audited
until I went into the Air Force. I withdrew at the point
where I went into the Air Force.
Q. And then did you go back, sir, second semester
of 1965-'66 to Christian Brothers College in Memphis?
A. I'm sorry, I lost you. Where are you?
Q. Bottom of the left-hand column there, second
semester, 1964-'65.
A. Okay.
Q. You went back to Christian Brothers College
in Memphis; isn't that true?
A. Yes.
Q. And you withdrew from two of the classes you
were taking that term, did you not?
A. That's right. I withdrew passing.
Q. Then in the fall of 1966-'67 you went to
Mississippi State; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And you flunked Calculus that first term?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you got a D in General Physics?
A. Right.
Q. And then you got your first A in school that
term, did you not --
A. Physical education.
Q. -- in college. In Bowling?
A. Yes.
Q. And spring semester 1966-1967, you got your
second A in college, and that was in Principles of
Insurance?
A. Yes.
Q. But the same semester you flunked the computer
course you were taking?
A. I'm sorry?
Q. You flunked the course called IE 423, Digital
Comp Fundamentals?
A. Yes. Yeah, that was a period of time when I
found out my father had cancer.
Q. And you flunked that computer course?
A. Yes.
Q. And you flunked Calculus?
A. Yes.
Q. And you got a D in Physics?
A. Yes. That was a bad time.
Q. And you got a D in European Literature?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, let me ask you, Mr. Marwill, have you ever
been criticized by the FAA for violating any of the
practices and procedures that pertain to DERs?
A. Early in my career I received one letter having
to do with a procedure about witnessing a test. However,
it was found that they were in mistake or in error,
because there was a letter authorizing me to witness the
test.
That's the only time that a letter has ever
been written, or a reprimand.
Q. But you do recall the FAA sending you a letter,
and you would not disagree that that letter is in your
public file, indicating that you had violated the
practices and procedures of the FAA?
A. No. No, that's not true. After I found out
that you pulled all my records from the FAA, I wrote a
letter to the FAA to clear that matter up, because the
people involved remember that I called them, and they
found out they had authorized me to witness the test. I
was to be absent from the test scene that particular day,
so they authorized Mr. Ken Yeoman to witness the test.
The test came and it went, he didn't witness the test1 so
I went back and witnessed the test, originally. But the
first letter was still on file.
The person who wrote the letter didn't know
that. So a simple phone call cleared that up.
Q. And that was after you found out I had gotten
those records from the FAA?
A. It was a case where it wasn't worth anybody's
time to follow up with such trivial information, but since
you made an issue, I decided to go ahead and write the
letter so it wouldn't happen again.
Q. But, February of 1985, you didn't think it was
important whether or not that particular situation was
clarified?
A. I did. I called immediately. I just said -- If
you will notice about the third paragraph, it says: Please
call if you wish to discuss this further. I called
immediately, gave them the information, they checked it
out, found Out it was true, and the matter was closed.
Q. Do you have a copy of your FAA DER file with
you?
A. Yes, because after you asked for it the FAA
contacted me and sent me the complete file.
Q. Okay.
A. At least they sent me what they sent you.
Q. So you've had an opportunity to take a look at
that?
A. Yes, I have.
Q. Okay. Let's see. Mr. Marwill, you indicated in
deposition in this case, and I believe in testimony here
earlier today, that you've written some 200 papers; is
that correct?
A. I've written over 200 reports involving
certification of helicopters and airplanes.
Q. But you've never published anything?
A. Published? You mean to the public?
Q. Right.
A. No, these are all published internally to the
FAA and to the client companies I work for.
MR. CABANISS: May I approach the witness,
your Honor?
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) I'm going to hand you, Mr.
Marwill, what is Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 28. First of
all, would you tell the jury what that is?
Did I say 228 or 28?
A. 228.
Q. Okay.
A. This is a Statement of Qualifications for an
application to become a DER.
Q. And on the cover sheet you signed and indicated
that all the information contained was true and accurate
to the best of your belief?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, referring to page 2 of that exhibit, which
is the resume that you submitted to the FAA to get that
DER certification, you did not tell the FAA, did you, sir,
that you had gone to the University of Missouri, Columbia.
A. No. What it's asking, or what I stated on here
is I graduated from Wichita State University with a
Bachelor of Science degree in Mechanical Engineering.
Q. But you didn't tell the FAA that you had gone to
the University of Missouri at Columbia, did you, sir.
A. No, it wasn't necessary. They asked me
specifically: What was your education? What degree do
you have, if you have a degree?
Q. And you didn't tell the FAA that you had gone
to Christian Brothers College or Mississippi State
University, did you?
A. I didn't graduate from those schools.
Q. So you didn't --
A. I only graduated from Wichita State University.
Q. Let me ask you this, sir. You also indicated
on the resume, Master's of Science, Engineering
Management, degree work is 25 percent complete.
A. Yes.
Q. Isn't it true that when you put that down you
had only taken two graduate courses?
A. I already had -- that's true, two courses, but I
had other credit hours that were applicable towards the
degree.
Q. You had only taken two graduate courses by that
point, had you not?
A. What is your definition of graduate courses?
Any 500 or 600 level course is a graduate-level course.
Q. Looking at page 2 of your courses on the course
schedules that we have, it indicates you were admitted to
graduate school the spring of 1978, does it not?
A. You're on the second page?
Q. Correct.
A. Yes.
Q. And it indicates in the spring of '78 you took
Decision Making and Organizational Behavior. Correct?
A. Right. For the Master's program.
Q. I'm sorry?
A. For the Master's program. Yes.
Q. I'm sorry. I didn't mean to keep cutting you
off.
A. I'm sorry. We cut each other off. Would you
repeat the question?
Q. And that particular copy or course work
indicates that it was correct as of May 9, 1984, when you
submitted that to Texas Licensing Bureau; isn't that true?
A. Well, actually I didn't submit this to them
directly. That came from the school.
Q. Well, let me ask you this: As of May 9, 1984,
had you taken any other graduate courses other than the
two that are listed in this particular transcript?
A. The two graduate courses I took, I think which I
got an A, both of those are were at the graduate level,
specifically for management. Remember, this degree was
for management of engineers, not technical aspects of
engineering. But some of the other courses, 600 or 700
level courses could be or would be applicable to that
degree.
Q. Let me also ask you this while we are talking
about your A's. Isn't it true that your first A at
Wichita State was in Basic Public Speaking?
A. My first?
Q. The first A that you got in a class was in
public speaking?
A. Well, that was a required course.
Q. Did you get an A on that?
A. I haven't found it on here. Do you want me to
look for it?
Q. It's spring semester, 1974.
A. Yes, I see it.
Q. And you also got an A in the spring of 1977 in a
Products Liability course?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, going back to your resume, which is
attached, or which is part of Exhibit 228, you told the
FAA that you had 18 hours of elective credits in the
College of Aeronautical Engineering, including airflow
theory and propulsion systems design theory.
We can tell the aeronautical engineering
courses based on the AE, can we not?
A. Not always, no.
Q. What courses, aeronautical engineering courses
are on here that aren't AE?
A. Well, the colleges, different colleges in
engineering shared the courses. The only way I could tell
is go back and get the college catalog from that year and
determine that.
Q. But you were telling the FAA back in 1982 that
you had 18 hours of electives in airflow theory and
propulsion Systems design theory?
A. In propulsion systems, yes. My major turned out
to be propulsion Systems design. Mechanical Engineering
at Wichita State, since Wichita State is where most
aircraft companies are located, that caters to people in
the aircraft business, so that the courses are tailor-made
for people who are in the aircraft industry.
Q. And what course related to propulsion, other
than the propulsion course your term, did you ever believe
fell within this 18 hours of electives?
Maybe I should just ask that. Where do the
18 hours come from? You tell me, sir.
A. You're asking me to go back about 20 years to
figure this out. I could if I had a college catalog,
which I did at the time I made out this application, but
right now I couldn't tell you that.
Q. And you dropped that in subsequent resumes, did
you not?
A. Dropped what?
Q. The indication that you had taken 18 hours of
electives in the College of Aeronautical Engineering.
A. I don't think it was significant.
Q. Well, you did drop it, sir?
A. Are you talking about the resumes I use today?
Q. Correct.
A. The resumes I use today are really based upon
the experience of 25 years of designing airplanes. I
didn't go back to 1970 to try to emphasize. It wasn't
important. Once your license says a DER, or once you're
licensed as a Registered Professional Engineer by the
State of Texas, I don't need to do that.
Q. Now, you also indicated in there that you had
authored a book on the Design of Wing Tip Fuel Tanks,
published by Stanford University.
A. Yes. And I no longer list that, because the
book did not get published. At the time I made this out
it was planned to be published, but it never was.
Q. That was never published. So that was an error?
A. No, that wasn't an error. The book -- all
right. Let's go into some details, then.
The book was being edited by some book firm
that was going to publish the book, but for some financial
reason the book was not published. Now, that had nothing
to do with my experience or what I did with the book or
what I wrote in the book. That was a financial problem.
Q. But you told had FAA in that resume, quote, "I
authored a book on Design of Wing Tip Fuel Tanks,
published by Stanford University"?
A. That was the publisher, and I was the author.
Q. Was it ever published?
A. No, it did not get published because of
financial problems.
Q. But you told the FAA that you had published it?
A. What I'm saying is, the book -- I wrote the
book; it didn't get published.
Q. Why did you put on here, "Published by..."
A. I'm telling you who the company is that's
publishing it, that's all.
Q. Did they publish it?
A. It did not get into print, but they are the
publishers. I understand the term "publisher" meaning the
company that manufactures books. And what I'm saying is
that is the company that was going to publish the book.
Q. And when you sought your certification from the
FAA to be a DER, you indicated to them you had been
designing fuel systems and propulsion systems since you
began at Beech back in 1969; isn't that correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And the only education you had to that point was
your education at Mississippi State and the University of
Missouri, Columbia, and the Christian Brothers College in
Memphis; correct?
A. And what I had learned from working at Lockheed
Q. But you were not a degreed engineer, were you,
sir?
A. No. I was working under a degreed engineer
there.
Q. And you were not a degreed engineer until 1978?
A. That is when I received a degree; that's
correct.
Q. But Beech put you to work designing fuel
systems for its King Air Aircraft?
A. I worked under a design engineer at that
time, but that was my supervisor.
Q. Now, with respect to the reliability report
that's at issue in this case, you actually did that for
use in another lawsuit, did you not?
A. I was hired by a company to see if we could
design an auxiliary fuel system for the Bell 212, 412
helicopters. At the same time there was a lawsuit going
on against a Cessna Airplane, and an attorney asked me to
review that information. We decided to do a joint effort
to see how the data would turn out, because I needed that
kind of data to certify the Bell 212 fuel system.
Q. Cessna paid, in connection with that lawsuit,
for that liability report?
A. Yes.
Q. And up to that point in time, to your knowledge,
had there been any such reliability studies done?
A. I had not found any. I had looked for them, but
I didn't find any.
Q. Let me get my copy of that report. Do you have
that?
I believe before lunch we were talking
about some reliability numbers that you used and
calculated. Let's see if I can find them here.
First of all, I put the number up on the
board, 2.17 times 10 to the negative 3. Could you
explain to the jury what the number means, as used in your
report on page 1.
A. On page what?
Q. 1, under the Conclusions section, where you say:
"The data indicates the average
self-sealing fuel valve on these aircraft
has a probability of failure of 2.17 times 10
to the negative 3 occurrences per flight
hour."
A. Yes. That is a mathematical term for how
reliable a valve is. In other words, what is the
probability of failure.
Q. And then in the next sentence you say:
"This is a failure rate far in excess of
the allowable 1 times 10 to the negative 9 or
less for a critical system requiring an
improbable failure category."
Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Where does that 1 times 10 to the negative 9
come from?
A. That is an FAA definition of what's highly
improbable. It's the goal that we design to to get
components and systems to meet.
Q. And is that the goal that if a breakaway fitting
were going to be used that your opinion should be used?
A. Well, the FAA has said that they would
probably accept 1 times 10 to the minus 6 or 1 times 10 to
the minus 7 power if we could show that the engine had
that same reliability.
Q. What do you think it ought to be, given your
knowledge of breakaway fittings and your criticism of
them?
A. I would agree that that failure mode is probably
appropriate.
Q. Now, with respect to the 1 times 10 to the
negative 9th, would you tell the jury how many years the
Army UH-l fleet would have to fly to prove the reliability
for the value you think it ought to meet with no failures,
as you define them?
A. You said to prove?
Q. Correct. In other words, how many years would
the Army Huey helicopter fleet have to fly without having
any problems with a valve in order to prove reliability to
1 times 10 to the negative 9?
A. That depends upon a lot of other factors.
Q. And you have those factors, do you not?
A. I have the factors for two years.
Q. Well, you know how many hours per year the Hueys
fly, do you not?
A. Yes, I do.
Q. You know how big the fleet size is, don't you?
A. Yes.
Q. Can't you calculate for me how long that
fleet would have to fly with no failures?
A. Well, that depends on how the valves are
installed.
Q. Would it surprise just mathematically to
reach the reliability of 1 times 10 to the negative 9,
how many years would that fleet have to fly at the
average monthly hours that it flies to prove Out the
reliability that you say it ought to meet?
A. I didn't say it had to meet that.
Q. Well, let's just use that, and we will go back
and talk about that a little further.
A. What is the basis for using the number?
Q. It comes out of your report, sir.
A. I said that was the design goal, but the FAA
said they would accept whatever the reliability is of the
engine.
Q. To meet this design goal that's set forth in
your report, how many years would that fleet have to fly?
A. I don't know.
Q. Would it surprise you that it would have to fly
1,430 years with no failures to meet that level of
reliability?
A. Could I see your calculations?
Q. Would that surprise you?
A. I'd like to see your calculations, please.
Q. Could you calculate it? Because we have got --
A. I'd like to know how you did it.
Q. How would you do it? Let's do it. You do it
for the jury right now.
A. I don't have the data available right now to do
that.
Q. What data do you need, sir?
THE COURT: Approach the bench, please,
gentleman.
(Note: The following conference was held at
the bench.)
THE COURT: I don't know if this has been
done in deposition or otherwise, but this is not a
time when I'm going to let you get down with this witness this
way. He's made a request to see your data, the data
you're basing your statement on this was 1000 and some
years. This is a legitimate request under those
circumstances. If you want to produce it so he can take a
look at it and proceed to question him, I'll give you an
opportunity to do so at this point.
MR. CABANISS: Okay.
(Note: Bench conference concluded.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, I think
we will take a ten-minute break before we proceed with
this witness.
(Note: The jury exited.)
THE COURT: I'm going to give you
considerable leeway in the cross-examination of the
witness to be able to ask him about things that provide
for some reasonable conclusions. The question was made
about -- a question was asked whether or not this witness
knew that the fleet of Army helicopters would have to
operate for a period of some 1,000 years in order to meet
the design criteria that was set forth here. The witness
said, "Let me see your calculations so I can determine
their reliability." That is a legitimate request under
those circumstances, so if you can let him see the
calculations on which you based that, I'll let you pursue
that questioning at that point.
MR. CABANISS: Will --
THE COURT: But take a look and let him
see those calculations so he knows what you're talking
about.
(Note: A recess was taken at 2:31 p.m. and
court reconvened at 2:45 p.m.)
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CABANISS-continued
THE COURT: Mr. Cabaniss, proceed with your
questions, please.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Mr. Marwill, you've had an
opportunity to look at the formulae I gave you during the
break. Having had an opportunity to look at that, do you
now have an understanding as to how one would calculate
the numbers of years that it would take for the Huey
helicopter fleet to fly with no failures before it would
meet the design call of 1 times 10 to the negative 9?
A. Yes.
Q. And would you tell the jury how many years that
would take.
A. First of all, you've done that incorrectly.
Your math is not correct, in that the way you've done it,
that the information you must have received on this talks
about events that are not in hours basis.
Q. I'm sorry? Excuse me?
A. And you've mixed units with hours, which is not
appropriate. So that method is not correct.
But what I did say was it was 1 times 10 to
the minus 6 power is what the FAA would accept, and that
comes out to be being 1.42 years, which is a very
reasonable number.
Q. Did you calculate it for 1 times 10 to the
negative 9, which is the design goal in your report?
A. What I'm saying, the way you calculated it, this
is not right.
Q. Would you calculate it right for me, given
the thought you used to get the 1.4 years for the 1 times
10 to the negative 6.
A. Don't have enough information to do that. What
I'm saying is, you can't do that without knowing something
about the fleet size, the number of units, number of units
on board each helicopter.
Q. Well, you've made certain assumptions to make
that calculation for 1.42 years, have you not, that you
just shared with us, with the jury?
A. No. I just followed your method. What I'm
saying, that's not a valid thought. If you were going to
do it that way, that is not a valid method.
Q. Why isn't it valid?
A. Because you're mixing events with hours, and
events and hours cannot be mixed, the units are not
correct.
Q. What events are we mixing incorrectly?
A. An event would be when one frangible fitting
would fail.
Q. But what you're trying to figure out is how many
years you'd have to go without that happening?
A. That's right. And you can't do it this way.
Q. And why not?
A. What I just said, that you have mixed these
units, events in units with hours. That's not a proper
way of doing this.
Q. But you also told me, did you not, that to reach
the level of reliability of 1 times 10 to the negative 6
that it would take 1.42 years for the entire fleet?
A. I said -- that's the number of hours if you were
going to do it along those lines, but I don't agree that
is a valid way of doing it.
Q. Well, doing it that way, sir, how many years
would it take to reach the design goal of 1 times 10 to
the negative 9?
A. I wouldn't to do it that way.
Q. It's in your report, sir.
A. No, my report didn't say that at all. You're
misquoting it.
Q. Would you read for the jury, please, the last
sentence on your conclusions of page 1.
A. What my report is doing is figuring out failure
rates, and you're mixing information that's not
appropriate. That's not what this report did at all.
Q. Would you read to the jury what it says, sir.
A. Yes. Yes, I will. Be glad to.
Q. Last sentence under "Conclusions."
A. On page 1 under Section 3?
Q. Correct.
A. Titled "Conclusion." It says:
"This is a failure rates far in excess
of the allowable 1 times 10 to the minus 3 or
less for a critical system requiring
improbable failure category.
Q. Now, you're saying today that that is 1 times
10 to the negative 3? At your deposition, sir, didn't you
say that was 1 times 10 to the negative 9 in your report?
A. You'll recall in my deposition I said the FAA
would accept 1 times 10 to the minus 6 or 7, whatever the
engine is equal to, and I said 1 times 10 to the minus 9
was the goal.
Q. And that last sentence, that's 1 times 10 to
the negative 9 in your report; correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, you've told the jury, as I understand it,
that based on your analysis of the supply data, you would
expect a valve failure once every 460 hours of operation.
Is that correct?
A. If you had a single valve in a critical
application.
Q. And would you explain to the jury, the method
you used to calculate that failure rate? You took the
supply data and what did you do with it?
A. It wasn't the supply data. Remember we talked
about that?
Q. The purchase data.
A. It's not the purchase data, either.
Q. It's how many parts went out to people?
A. It's how many parts failed. Excuse me. It1s
how many parts failed in the field.
Q. Every one of those parts failed?
A. Parts are being replaced all right, and they are
being replaced for a particular reason, probably because
they are leaking or they have closed off and shut off the
fuel supply.
Q. But you don't know why all those parts are
replaced, do you, sir?
A. I have a list of them.
Q. You know why every valve that's in your data was
replaced?
A. No. But if you throw in a safety factor, let's
say 50 percent, you're still more than three times greater
than what's acceptable.
Q. Let's go to your failure data. We will use
your term --
A. All right.
Q. -- so we can avoid quibbling about what it is.
And you've got a bunch of part numbers at
the end of your report; correct?
A. Yes. Those were -- that's a photocopy of what
the Army sent to me.
Q. Now, what is the method that you used to
calculate failure rate?
A. What's the method?
Q. Correct.
A. I took the number of failures and divided by the
number of flight hours.
Q. Now, what was the worst valve that you found in
terms of the failure rate? Was that 209-060-692-1 was the
worst one?
A. Would you give me the part number again, please.
Q. Sure. The one on of the left 209-060-692-1.
Is that the worst one in terms of replacement?
A. That is at the bottom of the page A-2, that is
correct.
Q. Yes.
A. Yes.
Q. And do you know where that particular part is
located?
A. No. Some of these parts are in the fuel system,
some in the oil system. The oil system could be just as
critical as the fuel system.
Q. Do you know whether that particular part is in a location
where it's frequently stepped on by mechanics
that service the helicopter?
MR. DelHAGEN: Objection: no foundation
any mechanic stepped on it.
THE COURT: The objection is overruled.
Give us an answer.
THE WITNESS: Would you repeat?
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Do you know whether that
particular part is in a location on the helicopter where
it's frequently stepped on by mechanics that are working
on the aircraft?
A. No. I assume if it occurred a few times they
would eventually correct that problem, since the
helicopter has been out there for 25 years.
Q. Well, using your method of calculation for
failure rate, let's just do it for this one valve, which
is the worst one.
And if I understand your method, what he we
do is we take the 34.03 times 12 for 12 months. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. And then we divide that, if I am reading your
formula right -- let's see. We divide that by 699,180;
correct?
A. Yes.
Q. Could you calculate that out for me?
A. Okay.
Q. What is that?
A. That is .0015835.
Q. 35. Now, if I want to do that in 5.8 times 10
to the negative something, what is that?
A. That would be 5.835 times 10 to the minus 4.
Q. Okay. Now, how does that compare to the rate
you gave the jury, which is the 2.17 times 10 to the
negative 3. Is that worse or better?
A. It's a little bit better.
Q. Can you explain to the jury how it is that the
worst valve out of all the ones we looked at has a better
reliability figure than the number you gave the jury?
A. Yes.
Q. Tell them why that is.
A. Because there are a number of helicopters out
there that have partial systems installed, and others have
total systems installed. In other words, some of the
helicopters would have fewer valves than other
helicopters. So what I did was take a sampling of the
whole group, or whole family of frangible fittings.
Q. What you, in effect, did, sir, did you not, is
add up the failure rates?
A. I wouldn't say I added them.
Q. Well, you've told this jury there is a
probability that a valve will fail once every 460
hours of flight?
A. Yes.
Q. But wouldn't you agree that the worst valve,
based on this data, isn't going to fail that often?
A. Yeah. But you have a family of valves here of
different designs5 so you have to survey the whole group.
It's not appropriate to look at only one.
Q. But talking -- I'm sorry?
A. Because in 1971 you wouldn't know which one was
the good valve or the bad valve.
Q. But we are looking at the worst here, are we
not?
A. You're looking at a number that's worse in this
particular case, yes.
Q. And can you tell the jury, based on looking at
this one valve, which is the worst one, what the failure
would be in terms of one out of so many hours?
For just this valve.
A. Well, that itself is -- just a minute and I'll
tell you.
Your question was what is the failure rate?
Q. In hours, one every so many hours of flight
time.
A. That number would be every 1715 hours.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) 1750?
A. 15. 1715.
Q. I'm sorry. Thank you, Judge.
Judge, may I approach the witness, briefly?
THE COURT: If you are going to hand him a
document, that would be all right.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) I'm going to hand you
Plaintiffs' Exhibit No. 227.
THE COURT: I just don't want you to try
to hit him, the way things are going.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Is that the letter, Mr.
Marwill, from your DER file we were talking about?
A. Yes, it is.
Q. And Exhibit No. 224 is a copy of your resume?
A. Yes.
MR. CABANISS: Judge, I'd like to pass
plaintiff's Exhibit 226, which is the application for the
professional engineering license, the resume, as well as
the letter that we referenced.
THE COURT: Yes, sir.
MR. CABANISS: And just to clean up the
charts here and put some stickers on them, the chart we
have just been referencing I'm going to mark as plaintiffs
Exhibit 235, and the two pages of charts that relate to
the background information -- -is the two -- I'm going to
mark as 236 and 237 for the record.
THE COURT: All right. They will be
marked. Do you wish them admitted, Mr. Cabaniss?
MR. CABANISS: Yes, thank you, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Any objection, Mr. Delhagen?
MR. DelHAGEN: No.
THE COURT: They are admitted.
(Note: Exhibits 235, 236 and 237 were
admitted into evidence.)
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Now, Mr. Marwill, how many
engine failures does the Cessna T-210 experience in a
given year of use?
A. I don't have that information.
Q. Are you familiar with Aviation Safety?
A. Yes, I am.
Q. And I'm --
MR. DelHAGEN: Your Honor, may we approach
the bench?
THE COURT: Yes.
(Note: The following conference was held
at the bench.)
MR. DelHAGEN: I'd like to know how this is
going to be used.
THE COURT: I agree. What is your - -
MR. CABANISS: The point is that this gives
engine failure rates in terms of the vehicle, and what I'm
going to use this to show is that reliability is in
contrast to the valves, because it's --
THE COURT: I'm going to reject the tender
if that is the basis for the tender. The reason is this:
If you are talking about engine failures, that is a
difference between an engine failure that maybe relates to
some failure of the fuel system, which is the relevant
issue that we are dealing with in this case. If you have
some information that deals with his knowledge about
engine failure related to the fuel system, so that you may
be able to deal with some other terms of reliability, I
might be inclined to let you do it, but just engine
failures itself is not sufficient for the relevancy of
this lawsuit.
MR. CABANISS: I'll go back and try to
establish that foundation. I believe he testified earlier
that that is what he would look to, but I'll ask him.
THE COURT: I'm a little shaky about your
doing that in front of the jury at this point, because I'm
not sure exactly where you're going in terms of engine
failures. This was not an engine failure case, and I
think what we are talking about is some relationship -- if
there is any relevance to what you're dealing with it's a
relationship between the failure rate of the fuel systems
in helicopters and failure rates of the systems involving
Cessnas. I'll have the jury go out and have you make a
tender before I rule.
(Note: Bench conference concluded.)
THE COURT: Speaking to the jury panel, we
have a matter of evidence we must discuss outside of your
presence, so I will ask you to retire to the jury room.
We are going to take a five-minute break
after that, just so you know.
(Note: The jury exited.)
(Note: The following proceedings were held
out of the presence of the jury.)
THE COURT: I needed to have a tender, Mr.
Cabaniss. And you can do so by questioning the witness,
if you wish, but I wasn't sure what you had and what
document you were talking about. But if you have a
document that deals with the engine failure rates of
Cessna T-210L engines, which is what you had requested,
that is simply not relevant to this lawsuit. This is not
an engine failure case. An engine didn't fail. It went
into the grounds at either partial or full throttle,
depending on who you talk to.
There may be some relevance if
you're talking about some statistic about failures of a
fuel system that would have resulted in some kind of engine
failure of some kind.
Now, before we went any farther, I wanted
to make sure what we had and where you were going before
we dealt with those questions. So what is it you want to
do?
MR. CABANISS: What I'd like to do, Judge,
is compare the engine failure rates to the reliability
rates that Mr. Marwill has come up with for breakaway
fittings, and ask questions about the relationship
between.
THE COURT: Okay. Go ahead, then.
EXAMINATION BY MR. CABANISS
Q. Mr. Marwill, with respect to the reliability
rate that you have come up with, 2.17 times 10 to the
negative 3 for breakaway fittings, do you have an opinion
as to whether or not the breakaway fittings to be used
should be more or less reliable than the engines that are
used in the aircraft?
A. I'll tell you what the FAA has said, not
necessarily my opinion. The FAA has said that if the
reliability of the valve is the same as the engine -- I
should say valve system, not the valve itself, because if
you put these valves in series the reliability goes down
tremendously --
THE COURT: All right. Look, I mean his
question is pretty simple. Can you relate the failure
rates of the valves you're talking about to the failure
rates of engines? You've said the FAA says they will
accept a failure rate similar to the failure rates of
engines.
THE WITNESS: That's correct.
THE COURT: I see your point, Mr. Cabaniss.
So I guess that's why -- the question is pretty simple
under those circumstances.
Do you have any information about the
failure rate of, what is it, a Continental, Teledyne 1.0.,
whatever engine is in a Cessna T-210 aircraft?
MR. CABANISS: Correct, your Honor.
THE COURT: Do you have any information
about the engine failure rates of those?
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Do you, Mr. Marwill?
A. Yes I do -- I don't have any exact numbers, no.
I've asked for it, but up fortunately when I found out
about the fact that you were going to ask questions about
this the FAA has a lead time of two to three weeks, so I
haven't received the information yet.
MR. CABANISS: Can I ask a couple of
questions?
THE COURT: Yes.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Did you review the Aviation
Safety article?
A. Yes, I did.
Q. And have you used Aviation Safety in the past
for statistics in other lawsuits?
A. Never.
MR. CABANISS: I would just like a moment
on that, Judge.
THE COURT: Yes, sir. And while you're
there, I guess I do have a question.
When you say engine failure rates, are you
talking about what specific failures of an engine, or what
is the FAA talking about when we talk about "engine
failures?" Do you know?
THE WITNESS: No. That's a very broad
definition.
MR. FLORES: (Something in Spanish.)
Excuse me, your Honor.
MR. DelHAGEN: His culture took over, your
Honor. I can't help it.
THE COURT: Everyone is getting a little
punchy, I guess.
All right. Mr. Cabaniss.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Let me ask this, Mr.
Marwill. Have you ever referred to Aviation Safety in
testimony for information regarding the advantages or
disadvantages of bladder cells?
A. I have my own opinions about that. I don't
recall if I referred to them as an authoritative source.
That's what you were asking me a minute
ago about statistical data. That is not an authoritative
source for statistical data.
Q. Have you ever referred to that magazine in
testimony with respect to the issue of water contamination
in fuel cells?
MR. DelHAGEN: I object. It's irrelevant
whether he ever referred to a magazine.
THE COURT: Give an answer, please. This
is a tender.
THE WITNESS: I have my own opinions about
water contamination in fuel systems, where it comes from.
It's possible the magazine may have agreed or disagreed,
but that was not my source of information. I do not use
that magazine as a source of authoritative information.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Do you subscribe to it?
A. No.
Q. Have you ever?
A. I may have.
Q. Do you recall being deposed in the case of Leon
v. Cessna on April 22 and April 23 of 1986?
A. I was deposed in that case.
Q. Directing your attention -- and I'll show you.
Make sure I've got the right one.
Directing your attention to page 310 of
that transcript -- it's right here. I'm sorry. This is
so voluminous. Beginning on line 7 there's a question.
"All right. The next page, 54 and 55" --
A. Excuse me. Let me back up and read 309.
Q. Sure. Right here. Here. I'm sorry.
A. Let me see what the context is we're talking
about.
Q. Sure. (Pause.)
Have you had a chance to review that?
A. No, I'm still reading.
Q. I'm sorry.
A. Okay. What was your question again?
Q. My question is, were you asked the question at
line 7:
"All right. The next page, 54 and 55, what
is that?"
And did you give this answer?
"I subscribe to the magazine called
Aviation Safety and this article was in
here about water contamination in fuel cells due to
wrinkles. And I sent this to Mr. Schalbothom
just as background information. One of the
problems with bladder-type cells is that they
get wrinkles in them and tend to trap water.
"Question: Is this a good example of
what you were talking about yesterday in
terms of disadvantages of the bladder cells?
"Answer: Yes, this is a distinct
disadvantage, and as the wall thickness of
the cell gets thicker, the problem gets
worse.
Then the question is, just in completeness:
"Is this article one of the articles that
you relied upon in forming your opinions?
"Answer: No."
Anything else you want to add?
A. No, you answered my question. I didn't have to
say anything.
THE COURT: Okay. So where are we?
MR. CABANISS: So where are we? I'd like
to use it, Judge.
THE COURT: A party in a lawsuit has the
ability to question a witness when there is a learned
treatise or some authoritative document that they would
rely on for the purpose of information about
their opinion. The question is -- and I'm not even
sure what Aviation Safety does. Do they have a figure
for engine failures for Cessna T-210s? What are we
talking about?
MR. CABANISS: What they have are total
accidents, and what they do is break them down by category
and say that engine failures account for 21.1 percent of
the total accidents, and those are further broken down by
subcategories.
THE COURT: These are engine failures in
accidents?
MR. CABANISS: Correct.
THE COURT: Okay. Let's let it go,
counsel. If Aviation Safety has a number of accidents and
are breaking it down, that's just fine, but that isn't
what we are talking about or what the FAA is talking about
when it says engine failures. I may or may not be
involved in an accident. I had an engine fail on a
Bonanza 836 and managed to glide on in. It wasn't an
accident. Somebody came in, put in a new cylinder, and we
flew it away. And those things happen in an airplane,
too.
I just -- this man says he doesn't use it
as reliable, he said that on two occasions, one in 1986
and one now. And so let's just let it go.
The tender is denied. If what you wish to
do is ask this witness about engine failure, we really are
mixing apples and oranges at this point.
And now that we raised that issue, how long
do you anticipate your examination to take?
MR. CABANISS: I should be done pretty
soon, your Honor.
THE COURT: All right. Let's take five
minutes before we proceed and let you kind of re-assert
your thoughts after the Court's ruling about that
particular item.
Sir, step down for a moment. Court will be
in recess.
(Note: A recess was taken at 3:18 p.m. and
court reconvened at 3:25 p.m.)
THE COURT: Please be seated.
Mr. Cabaniss, are you ready to proceed with
your examination, sir?
MR. CABANISS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Delhagen, are you ready?
MR. DelHAGEN: I'm ready, your Honor.
THE COURT: Bring in the jury,
please.
(Note: Jury entered.)
THE COURT: Mr. Cabaniss, proceed
with your questions, sir.
MR. CABANISS: Thank you, your Honor.
CROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CABANISS - continued
Q. Mr. Marwill, I'm going to hand you what has been
marked as Plaintiffs Exhibit No. 57, which is the T-41B
report. And if you would, sir, would you read the summary
on Page 179 to the jury.
A. You know that there's about nine sections to
this report and this isn't the end of the report?
Q. Would you read that, please, sir.
A. I'm just pointing out this is incomplete. I
only have one section of the last page.
Q. Would you read that, sir.
A. Sure. Did you mean out loud?
Q. Please.
A. "The design and test effort reported herein
has resulted in a crash-resistant fuel
system fully compatible with the T-41B
aircraft. The high-strength, flexible fuel
cell, breakaway valves, breakaway attachments
and structural modifications have
considerably lessened danger of fire from
fuel spillage in a survivable crash
environment. The results of further testing
to confirm the compatibility of the new
crash-resistant fuel systems is reported in
Section VII.
Q. Thank you. Would you tell the jury what the
fuel quantity transmitter jobbies are in the wing?
A. What are they?
Q. What are they? These fuel quantity
transmitter probes that are in the wing on Defendant's
Exhibit J.
A. The purpose of the probe is to determine how
much fuel is on board the aircraft. It's a fuel quantity
gauge.
Q. Where were the probes found from the right wing
of this plane?
A. One of the probes was found somewhere back along
the wreckage -- excuse me, back along the flight path.
Q. Do you know where the other one was found?
A. No.
Q. And is it your opinion that the one that was
found somewhere back up along the wreckage, that it came
out of that wing tank during flight?
A. Mostly came out of the right wing tank, yes.
The left the wing tank was totally intact, the right
wing was ruptured.
Q. Now, Mr. Marwill, Plaintiff's Exhibit No. 231,
those are your bills in this case; is that correct?
A. Yes, they are.
Q. And those total, through January 31, 1994,
approximately $33,793.33?
A. I don't see a total here.
Q. Do you have any reason to believe that's not an
accurate amount?
A. You mean should I trust you? I will.
Q. Do you want to add them up?
A. No. If it's real significant, I will. But I'll
take your word for it.
Q. How much are you going to charge Cessna for the
additional work you've done since January 31?
A. My rate is $100 per hour.
Q. How much additional time have you put in since
the end of January?
A. I don't know.
Q. More than $20,000 worth?
A. I don't -- I don't want to guess or speculate.
I don't really know. I don't think so.
MR. CABANISS: Judge, I'd like to pass
Plaintiff's Exhibit 231.
A. Yes, sir.
Q. Now, Mr. Marwill, you indicated during direct
that you now believe the selector valve was in the
left-hand position. Correct?
A. Yes.
Q. But you were confident when you gave your
deposition in this case in January that it was in the
right position, were you not?
A. When I looked at the records in September, I
looked inside the aircraft, and it appeared to be an arrow
on the forward side, which would indicate that the fuel
selector valve was in the right-hand position.
Q. When I deposed you on January 8, 1994, you told
me it was in the right position; correct?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you didn't indicate you had any doubts about
that, did you?
A. No. Not from that observation, no.
Q. And, in fact, at the deposition you brought out
drawings and pictures and everything else and showed me
why it was in that position, did you not?
A. Well, you asked me to explain how I arrived at
that decision, and the difference here is they were marks
on the valve; it was hard to determine where the arrow was
pointing. There was no problem with the drawings or
determining which way it was pointing as far as the
drawings were concerned, it was a matter of looking and
observing an aircraft that had burned.
Q. But you didn't indicate to me when I took your
testimony that you had any doubts about that, did you?
A. No. You asked my opinion, and I told you at
that time my opinion was, in September when I looked at
that valve, that it was in the right-hand position.
Q. And it was your opinion on January 8, 1994, it
was in the right position. Correct?
A. That's the same time.
Q. September and January are the same time?
A. No, September is when I looked at it. You're
talking about when you took my deposition.
Q. And you decided when, this morning, it's now in
the left position?
A. No.
Q. Yesterday?
A. What I said is I examined my photographs. I had
some very close-up photographs of the valve, and it
appeared there was a small mark on the valve. It was the
arrowhead that I showed the jury. And this morning I told
Mr. Flores that I wanted to confirm that before I said
anything about it. So this morning was the first
opportunity I had to see the valve again.
Q. Would you be critical of a manufacturer for
using stainless steel fuel lines in the cabin of a
single-engine airplane?
A. The use of stainless steel is somewhat
restricted, but it may have special applications. There
are lots of cases where stainless steel may be appropriate
in the cabin of the aircraft for a particular reason.
Q. Does stainless steel have greater integrity than
aluminum?
A. You'd have to define that. Integrity means a
lot of different things. I explained how aluminum reacts
in a crash. Stainless steel reacts differently. That's
all.
Q. Do you have any data with you, Mr. Marwill,
about whether the Army has ever experienced any problems
with breakaway valves freezing in Alaska or in Antartica?
A. I don't know if I have any data on that or
not.
Q. You are aware that the Army operates its
helicopters in cold environments?
A. Yes.
Q. You've worked on other post fire crash cases --
A. Yes.
Q. -- involving the Cessna T-210?
A. Yes.
Q. And are you aware, in this case, that Mr.
Alvares, who testified yesterday, concedes that it's
possible underbody fuel lines failed in this crash?
A. I'm not aware of that. I wasn't here.
Q. Do you agree that that is possible?
MR. DelHAGEN: I object. There's no
foundation for that.
THE COURT: Objection sustained. Ask
another question, please.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Do you have any
understanding, Mr. Marwill, of whether or not there was
any fire in this cabin before the people who survived the
fire got out of the airplane?
MR. DelHAGEN: I object as to what "fire in
the cabin" means.
THE COURT: One moment, please.
The objection is overruled. Give an
answer, if you can, sir.
A. I know there was fire in the cabin, because the
right-hand door was missing, and the fire came in from the
right-hand side.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) And was that fire in there
before the three that were in the plane had a chance to
get out totally? In other words, Mr. Vincent Abeyta, Hal
Kissinger, and Jo-Jo Rodarte.
A. I didn't look at that aspect of this case. My
job in this case was to examine the fuel system and
determine its crash-resistant characteristics.
Q. In connection with your work in the Leon
case, that case also involved a Cessna T-210?
A. Yes, it did.
Q. And you had an opportunity to review testimony
from other cases?
A. I may have. That was 1985 or -6, I guess.
Q. Do you have any recollection of having reviewed
testimony of Harry Robertson from a case entitled Smith v.
Cessna?
MR. DelHAGEN: Your Honor, could I object?
THE COURT: One moment, please. Approach
the bench, please, counsel.
(Note: The following conference was held
at the bench.)
THE COURT: What is your tender again?
MR. CABANISS: Well, he testified in the_
Leon case he reviewed Harry Robertson's testimony, as well
as the testimony of one other individual, with respect to
the availability-of-fittings issue back in the early '70s,
so I wanted to ask him about that and his analysis of that
and the opinions that were expressed in that case, based
on his review, which is in the transcript that I have.
MR. DelHAGEN: Something about nine or ten
years ago. I suspect this is simply an effort to name
other lawsuits and raise specters that I can't handle and
issues I shouldn't have to deal with. I mean, whether he
reviewed some depo in 1984, I don't see would be relevant.
THE COURT: The relevance is the
consistency or inconsistency of his opinions. Under
those circumstances, it has some relevance. I will
note that so far as the collateral proof doctrine is
concerned, you're going to be stuck with his answers.
But what is it you're specifically going to
ask him?
MR. CABANISS: I'm going to ask him --
well, first of all, he did review the testimony. That is
in the transcript I have. I'm going to ask him whether he
is aware Mr. Robertson testified in that case about his
ability to procure breakaway fittings back in 1972, and,
in fact, he testified -- Mr. Marwill is aware that he
testified he was able to purchase 200 breakaway fittings
and they were generally available in that time period.
THE COURT: Well, do you have any testimony
in that case that this man relied on that opinion for any
opinion that he made?
MR. CABANISS: I don't know if I have
testimony where he said he relied upon it.
THE COURT: In that event, here is what I'm
going to do. I'll send the jury out if you want to make a
better tender on that. And this may be important enough
to be able to do it.
MR. CABANISS: Thank you, Judge.
(Note: Bench conference concluded.)
THE COURT: Ladies and gentlemen, we have a
matter we must discuss outside your presence. Would you
please retire to the jury room.
(Note: The following proceedings were held
out of the presence and hearing of the
jury.)
THE COURT: All right. Make your tender,
please, Mr. Cabaniss.
EXAMINATION BY MR. CABANISS
Q. Mr. Marwill, do you have a recollection, as you
sit here today, of whether or not in connection with your
work on behalf of Cessna in the Leon case back in 1986 you
reviewed any testimony from the case of Smith and French
v. Cessna?
A. No, not specifically.
Q. What I'd like to do, Mr. Marwill, is -- again
referring back to your deposition in that case.
A. In which case? Smith?
Q. Leon v. Cessna.
A. All right.
Q. Directing your attention to page 61, line 8 --
and that was trial testimony from the 1972 case of Smith
and French against Cessna.
"Answer: That is correct.
"Question: All right. When was it you
were given the mission of determining whether
it was practicable to put a frangible fitting
or frangible fittings into the fuel system
for the Cessna T-210?"
"You said when?
"Yes, sir.
"Probably this year. And it was
probably the January/February timeframe.
"Question: What was the purpose for
having you review the testimony, the
testimony in Smith and French against Cessna?
"Answer: There was a witness for the
Plaintiff, and I believe his name was
Robertson, who had testified about flexible
hoses and fuel system components in a case
in the past, and I believe the reason for
sending it to me was to be familiar with what
Mr. Robertson had to say about these
components.
"Question: And did. .
MR. CABANISS: There was an
interruption. That was a question, "And did . .
All right. Then continuing the answer:
"At that time, I believe they thought
that maybe that lawyer, that particular
lawyer may be involved in this case. That
was just general information I had on the
subject."
Were you asked those questions and did you
give those answers?
A. According to that, I did.
Q. Do you remember now having reviewed the
testimony of Mr. Robertson?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any recollection regarding Mr.
Robertson's testimony regarding the availability of
breakaway fittings in the early 1970s?
A. No.
Q. Do you have any recollection of having testified
about that?
A. That I testified about what?
Q. Mr. Robertson's
A. About what he said?
Q. Correct.
A. I may or may not have. That was eight or nine
years ago. I haven't reviewed those documents for this
case, though.
MR. CABANISS: Just one second, please,
your Honor. (Pause.)
Judge, that's all I have on the tender.
THE COURT: So maybe you can tell me what
the relevance was of that tender, then, Mr. Cabaniss.
MR. CABANISS: I think the relevance is,
your Honor, that he indicates he did review that
testimony, and I believe he ought to be able to read some
of that testimony to and from the Smith case to try to
refresh his recollection about the items that he
acknowledged in Leon he reviewed.
THE COURT: For what purpose?
MR. CABANISS: For the purpose of exploring
his opinions he expressed in this trial that breakaway
fittings were not available.
THE COURT: Again you get into this issue
that here is a man named Robertson, I never heard from,
never showed up here, gave any testimony at all, and you
want to have his opinion that breakaway fittings were
available at that time through the guise of asking this
man whether or not he reviewed that opinion at some time
in the past? That isn't what we are talking about. If
there's some relevance to his opinion here, it would be
that he was aware of some statement that he relied upon
for the purpose of his opinion.
I have heard nowhere this man has said
he relied upon what Mr. Robertson had to say in any
way for the purpose of formulating any opinion that he
had.
If that were true and if that report might have been
available, I'd let you ask him about that, but you're
doing just the opposite. You're trying to get Mr.
Robertson's opinion in here to show there's some truth
to it.
It's hearsay.
MR. CABANISS: Okay. Thank you, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Yes, sir. The tender is
denied.
MR. DelHAGEN: Thank you.
THE COURT: The objection is sustained.
Are you ready to proceed, Mr. Cabaniss?
MR. CABANISS: Yes, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Delhagen, are you ready
to proceed?
MR. DelHAGEN: More than ready, your
Honor.
THE COURT: I wanted to ask if you were
ready. More than ready is more than I asked for.
Bring in the jury.
(Note: The following proceedings were held
in the presence and hearing of the jury.)
THE COURT: The objection is
sustained. Proceed with your questions.
MR. CABANISS: That is all I have, your
Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. DelHagen, do you have
any redirect?
MR. DelHAGEN: I do, your Honor.
REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. DelHAGEN
Q. Mr. Marwill, you were asked a lot of
questions about your grades and transcripts. Were you
aware that the Wright brothers weren't engineers?
A. Yes. Most people weren't.
Q. And that Thomas Edison never finished grade
school?
A. Yes.
Q. Do you think what grades you got in 1965 have
much to do with whether or not your opinions in this
case are correct or not?
A. No. Primarily, because I was single at the
time and having a good time in life, and after I got
married and moved to Wichita, things changed.
Q. Let's go through some of the questions Mr.
Cabaniss asked on more technical issues.
First of all, he asked you early on in
the cross-examination whether you had evaluated
the
possibility that a mechanic might hit one of those
breakaway fittings, causing it to fail, and
therefore
have it the show up in the failure mechanism.
A. Yes. I thought of that.
Q. Well, if these are so fragile that a
mechanic
can just sort of hit a valve and it breaks, do you
think that is a very good concept to put into an
airplane?
A. No. These valves need to be much more
durable than that, obviously. But I don't think
those
failures were caused by that. There may have been a
few, but we are talking about thousands of valves
here
failing, not just two or three or five.
Q. So it doesn't seem likely that a mechanic
could just casually hit a valve and have it break?
A. No, I don't think so. If it is, it
shouldn't be on a helicopter.
Q. Now, you were asked about reliability and
these numbers, with the 10 to the minus 3 and 10 to
the
minus 9 and all that. How did the FAA go about
establishing reliability, other than taking one
airplane and flying it for 10 million hours, which
seems to be what we have suggested here?
A. That's not the way it's done.
Q. Okay. How is it really done?
A. What we do, or what the FAA asks us to do is
go out and take surveys with operators who are using
that particular device, or a device which is similar.
Now, there can be a transfer of technology from,
let's
say, an airplane company to a small company by using
airplane statistical data. In this particular case,
nobody was using these valves except the Army,
because
the Army does not have to have their vehicles FAA
certified; they have a different set of standards, a
different mission in life. So the best way to get
the
information was just to go to the Army and obtain
that
directly from them.
Q. Now, let's take some of your numbers here.
For example, I think it's in your report and it as
just used in the cross-examination that there's
669,180
hours per year. Is that right?
A. That's correct.
Q. And you got your calculator. Let's figure
out what that is per month. How many hours are these
Huey helicopters flying per month?
A. That's 55,765 hours per month.
Q. You better 9ive that to me again.
A. 55,765.
Q. Now, if that one valve that you were asked
about fails every, what is it, 1715 hours --
A. Yes.
Q. -- how many valves, just this one kind of
valve did the Army have to replace every month to keep
these Hueys flying?
A. 32.5.
Q. Valves per month?
A. Right. That's just one part.
Q. Right. Now, how many helicopters were in the
fleet for the period of your calculation?
A. 2,941.
Q. And how many valves of this type are in each
helicopter?
It's one, isn't it?
A. There may be two of that. Let me look at
that parts number. One or two. Some are one. Yes,
it's one. You're correct.
Q. The last -- One?
A. One.
Q. Okay. So there is 2,941 valves in operation
at any given time?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, if the Army buys 32 valves per month and
they have 2,941 helicopters, what is the ratio there
that indicates how many helicopters -- what are the
chances that any given helicopter is going to use a
valve in a month?
we could divide these two numbers,
couldn't we?
A. Yes.
Q. And that is?
A. That would be 705.8.
Q. You better try that one again.
A. Oh, excuse me.
Q. 2,941 divided by 32 and 1/2.
A. 90.5, rounding off to that last decimal
point.
Q. 90.5?
A. 90.5.
Q. Okay. So that means on the average, and
every month, one helicopter out of 90 has one of these
valves go out of service?
A. That's correct.
Q. And, of course, each of these helicopters has
a number of valves of different types and sizes; right?
A. Yes.
Q. Now, for general aviation aircraft, would it
be acceptable if one airplane out of 90 suffered a
valve failure in ordinary civilian service?
A. If you were on the airplane, I'd say no. But
the FAA obviously agrees that we would not want to have
that kind of failure rate.
Q. And, for that reason alone, would such a
valve be unacceptable for civilian aviation aircraft?
A. That is their current status right now.
MR. DelHAGEN: That's all I have. Thank
you, your Honor.
THE COURT: Mr. Cabaniss.
MR. CABANISS: Just --
MR. DelHAGEN: Oh, could I mark that?
It would be fair to do that.
THE COURT: Yes. What is that marked
as, please?
MR. FLORES: VVV.
MR. DelHAGEN: Thank you.
THE COURT: Do you move for its
admission?
MR. DelHAGEN. I do.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. CABANISS: No.
THE COURT: It is admitted.
(Note: Exhibit VVV admitted into evidence.)
RECROSS EXAMINATION BY MR. CABANISS
Q. How many QDRs do you actually have for the
Huey?
A. Do I actually have?
Q. That you actually have with you right now
that shows there was some kind of failure for the
breakaway valve for a Huey?
A. I have several.
Q. How many? Would you count them, please?
A. I'll be glad to count them.
Do you want just the Army's or the FAA,
also?
Q. First let me ask: Were they marked as an
exhibit? I thought the defense had those marked. If
not, I would like to have them marked, but I don't want
to have them marked again.
MR. DelHAGEN: Do you mean the QDRs?
They may be up there. I think they are LL.
THE COURT: Hold on just a second. Take
a look, counsel, and see if you have what you need. If
they are not marked, we can mark them.
MR. CABANISS: I'm going to pull out
what the trial exhibits are.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) Is that them?
A. That's some of them, yes. That's not all of
them.
Q. All right. What other ones do you have?
A. All of these. Those sheets you have.
Q. Defendant's Exhibit LL is what, again?
A. This is a number -- this is a group of a
number of Quality Deficiency Reports from the Army
indicating failures of breakaway valves.
Q. How many different reports are there in
Defendant's Exhibit LL?
A. Well, this isn't all of them, I have more
here, but in LL there's a total of seven.
And your exhibit has only seven.
Q. My exhibit? That's the exhibit that was
marked between you and Mr. DelHagen; correct?
A. Right, LL.
Q. And those are QDRs that you gathered in
connection with your work on this case?
A. Yes. No, I'm sorry. Not in this case.
Q. On another case?
A. This is the data that supported, or actually
was obtained at the same time the report originally was
done in 1989, the '88-'89 timeframe. But since that
time there are more.
Q. But at that time, in 1989, you only had
seven reports of actual failures of these valves?
A. No. Remember, I said I didn't use QDRs at
all, that they weren't used in my report or analysis
whatsoever?
Q. That's because what you looked at was the
data regarding products resupply?
A. No. I used the Army system. It wasn't my
system.
THE COURT: Hold on a moment. You don't
need to answer that again. Ask another question, Mr.
Cabaniss.
Q. (BY MR. CABANISS) What were the QDRs?
A. I explained to you the QDRs are used to
report unusual failure or multiple failures for
documentation purposes. But the Army does not file one
of these on every failure that occurs, so if you add
these up you would come up with the information that
indicates the valve was better than it really was.
Q. Have you ever talked to the Army people at
the center in Fort Rucker about what they use those
for?
A. Yes. They referred me to ASCOM.
Q. Did they give you any information, in terms
of the QDRs on the valves and how they compared to
other components at Fort Rucker?
A. No. I said they referred me to St. Louis.
Fort Rucker did not answer my question, they referred
me to the St. Louis office.
MR. CABANISS: That is all I have.
THE COURT: May this witness be
permanently excused?
MR. DelHAGEN: Yes, sir.
THE COURT: Any objection?
MR. CABANISS: No, your Honor.
THE COURT: Sir, you may step down
and go about your business.
Your next witness, Mr. DelHagen.
MR. DelHAGEN: Your Honor, the
Defendant
rests.
THE COURT: Sir, you may step down.
THE WITNESS: Thank you.
(Note: Further proceedings reported but
not
transcribed herein.)
OFFICIAL REPORTER'S CERTIFICATE
STATE OF NEW MEXICO
COUNTY OF TAOS
I, MARY THERESE MACFARLANE, Official Court
Reporter for the Eighth Judicial District of New
Mexico, hereby certify that to the best of my
ability,
the proceedings 91-284 CV; that the pages numbered 1
through 176, inclusive, are a true and correct partial
transcript of my stenographic notes from the date of March 8,
1994, and were reduced to typewritten transcript by me; that on
the date I reported these proceedings, I was a New Mexico
Certified Court Reporter.
Dated at Taos, New Mexico, this 10th day of March, 1994.
MARY THERESE MACFARLANE
New Mexico CCR NO. 122
Expires: December 31, 1994
Back to Article