Secret settlements reached in 2005 crash of sheriff's helicopter

The surviving deputy in the crash of a Sacramento County Sheriff's Department helicopter three years ago and the families of two deputies who were killed have reached a confidential settlement of their civil lawsuit against the manufacturer of the craft's engine.

The settlement bars the parties and lawyers from publicly discussing its terms, and court papers refer to "Turbomeca's strong concern regarding confidentiality."

Turbomeca is a French manufacturer accused in the suit of supplying a defective part that caused the helicopter to slam into a hill near Lake Natoma.

In the early evening of July 13, 2005, Joseph Kievernagel was piloting the single-engine copter, with Kevin Blount in the seat beside him and Eric Henrikson in a jump seat. Kievernagel, 36, and Blount, 29, were ejected from the crushed cabin, even though they were wearing seatbelts, and were pronounced dead at the scene. Henrikson, now 30, was not ejected but suffered severe and lasting injuries.

The suit, and one filed later by Sacramento County against Turbomeca that is still pending, contain allegations of corporate greed and cover-up.

They say the company was aware of the mechanical problem that caused the crash 4 1/2 years earlier, but did nothing to warn those flying the craft.

The company's "game plan was to keep their fingers crossed and gamble with the lives of innocent people," the suits declare.

The crash, the suits say, was the result of a diaphragm in the engine's fuel control unit that had been installed "inside out." The diaphragm ruptured and "there was a sudden, massive flow of fuel to the engine," causing such an increase in engine speed the turbine's blades disintegrated, they say.

"The hot fragments of the turbine were spewed out of the exhaust," the suits claim. "The helicopter had no power to drive its tail or main rotors. The occupants were helpless inside and could not control the ... descent."

Turbomeca had known since December 2000 "there were more than 300 helicopters that may have the ... diaphragm installed incorrectly and subject to deterioration," the suits contend. There had been reports of emergency landings due to a sudden increase of fuel to the engine, causing a total loss of power, they allege. "In each instance, it was determined that the ... diaphragm had been installed incorrectly."

By May 2005, two months before the crash, Turbomeca was "aware of more than 10 instances of failure of the ... diaphragm because of an inadvertent inside out installation, causing ... total loss of power and requiring emergency landings" of at least six helicopters, and at least four incidents involving helicopters on the ground, the suits claim.

Yet, the company "chose not to alert and inform its customers" and regulatory agencies because it did not want to pay for a recall of over 300 engines, the suits say. If the diaphragms were replaced during the engines' 2,500-hour overhauls, customers paid for the parts and labor, they say.

In addition, the suits allege, Turbomeca "did not want their competitive position in the marketplace or their sales levels to drop."

The county bought the helicopter and related equipment in March 2000 for $1.3 million. The fuel control unit with the defective diaphragm was sent to the Sheriff's Department as a replacement part and installed on May 30, 2002, according to the suits.

At least a year and a half earlier, in late 2000, Turbomeca began to retrain assemblers to distinguish between the inside and outside of the diaphragms. In 2002, the company developed a diaphragm with a feature that made it easier to avoid faulty installment.

But no customers were warned about the risks associated with the older diaphragms, the suits allege.

Turbomeca USA had the engine of the sheriff's helicopter at its Texas facility to replace the compressor in April and May 2004. A redesigned diaphragm could have been installed then, but it wasn't, the suits say.

On July 20, 2004, the company issued a service bulletin recommending their newly designed diaphragm be installed during the next engine overhaul. It was not a recall, did not require prompt action, and did not alert customers to any risk or problem with the existing diaphragm, according to the suits.