The widow of a U.S. Army aviator who died when his AH-64 Apache attack helicopter crashed on a training mission claims her husband would still be alive if Boeing had simply been honest about the chopper’s purported “‘enhanced’ and ‘unmatched’ survivability features.”
In a gut-wrenching product liability lawsuit obtained by The Independent, Kiara Sotelo Wayment accuses Boeing of overselling the Apache to the military as perfectly safe, when in fact it “lack[s] adequate crashworthiness.”
Specifically, Sotelo Wayment’s complaint says whoever is in the forward gunner’s position — where 32-year-old Warrant Officer 1 Stewart Duane Wayment was seated during the fateful 2023 exercise — becomes especially vulnerable in an accident.
In the Apache, which is operated by a two-person crew, the pilot sits behind the gunner.
“[T]he crash at issue was survivable, and the pilot in the back in fact survived,” the complaint continues. “[Wayment] perished because the Helicopter at issue and its components were defective and dangerous.”
Among other things, the layout of the front cockpit is particularly dangerous in a frontal impact crash, according to Sotelo Wayment’s complaint, which also places a portion of the blame for her husband’s death on the Apache’s seat belts and the flight helmet he was wearing.
Attorney Joshua Haffner, who is representing Sotelo Wayment, said the front-seat issue came to light after a “very elaborate process with the military to get access to the helicopter” in which Wayment went down.
“I don’t think these guys know how much more dangerous it is up there for them,” Haffner told The Independent.
Two years later, Wayment’s family remains “devastated,” according to Haffner.
“It changed their life completely,” Haffner said. “Stewart was a great guy.”
Boeing said on Wednesday that the company “does not comment on pending litigation.”
In an email to The Independent, a spokesperson for co-defendant BAE Systems, which supplies the Apache’s seating and safety harnesses, said “we offer our deepest sympathies to the families impacted by this tragedy” but declined to comment further, citing ongoing litigation.
A spokeswoman for helmet maker Elbit Systems, which is also named as a defendant in the suit, cited a “standing policy where we don’t comment on pending litigation.”
The Army, which is not named as a defendant in the suit, also declined to comment to The Independent amid an active court case.
