NHTSA Asked To Investigate Impala Airbags, GM May Compensate Recall Victims

Cameron Aubernon
by Cameron Aubernon

Bloomberg reports the Center for Auto Safety, citing a government petition from former General Motors researcher Donald Friedman, is asking the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration to open a defect investigation into 2003 – 2010 Chevrolet Impalas over a glitch in the car’s software that could “misread a passenger’s weight,” preventing frontal airbags from deploying. The agency has 143 records of fatalities linked to failed airbags in the Impala, 98 of which noted the occupants were wearing seat belts at time of death.

The request reflects growing concern over the algorithms used in advanced airbags, designed to meet strengthened U.S. regulations in 2003 after previous airbags were found in 300 cases to prove fatal to small adults and children due to excessive force upon deployment, and where improvements could be made.

Going in-depth regarding the April 2006 sign-off of the improved version of the out-of-spec ignition switch linked to the ongoing 2014 GM recall crisis, Automotive News found that while midlevel engineer Ray DeGiorgio put his signature upon what turned out to be the validation sign-off presented before the Senate hearing last week, former engineers have noted that said document was merely placing “a bow” on a package built upon by several engineers before presentation to GM. The resulting paper trail could shed more light on how the decision came to be made, as the anonymous engineers told the publication said decision to change the part would need to go through several checks and balances before signing-off on the upgraded part.

As for out-of-spec parts in general, Automotive Industry Action Group senior program manager for quality Scott Gray says that while a part may be “out of tolerance,” it may not be “the root cause of a failure” unless said part “affects a component’s fit, form or function.”

At that point, the part would go through two industry-standard protocols: Failure Mode Effects Analysis, and Production Part Approval Process. The first is a constantly updated document that gives engineers the tools needed to evaluate the out-of-spec part and related components in determining where problems could arise prior to approving a design. The second, used by suppliers, determines whether or not the part can be built, with automakers paying for tooling only upon successful completion. Further, if even a single tiny change occurs with the part, the entire part must undergo the protocol again.

CNN Money reports GM is debating on whether or not to compensate affected customers whose relatives were either injured or killed in recall-related accidents prior to the automaker’s emergence from Chapter 11 bankruptcy in 2009. Should GM do so, the liability shield established in the bankruptcy would fall, opening itself to 2,500 lawsuits left behind with “Old GM” in so doing.

Finally, Autoblog Green reports Chevrolet will make an announcement today regarding the next-gen Volt involving a boost of 1,400 jobs and $450 million spent in preparing both the Detroit-Hamtramck Assembly and Brownstown Township battery plant for the updated EV. Speculation of what will be announced include a new platform for the 2016 Volt to an all-new unnamed EV, as well as Opel receiving a vehicle priced lower than the Ampera.

Cameron Aubernon
Cameron Aubernon

Seattle-based writer, blogger, and photographer for many a publication. Born in Louisville. Raised in Kansas. Where I lay my head is home.

More by Cameron Aubernon

Comments
Join the conversation
2 of 14 comments
  • Ajla Ajla on Apr 08, 2014

    W-body gonna W-body.

  • CJinSD CJinSD on Apr 09, 2014

    One model from GM causing more deaths than the most rabid shill can blame on Toyota pedal misapplication? Crickets...

  • Tassos Jong-iL Not all martyrs see divinity, but at least you tried.
  • ChristianWimmer My girlfriend has a BMW i3S. She has no garage. Her car parks on the street in front of her apartment throughout the year. The closest charging station in her neighborhood is about 1 kilometer away. She has no EV-charging at work.When her charge is low and she’s on the way home, she will visit that closest 1 km away charger (which can charge two cars) , park her car there (if it’s not occupied) and then she has two hours time to charge her car before she is by law required to move. After hooking up her car to the charger, she has to walk that 1 km home and go back in 2 hours. It’s not practical for sure and she does find it annoying.Her daily trip to work is about 8 km. The 225 km range of her BMW i3S will last her for a week or two and that’s fine for her. I would never be able to handle this “stress”. I prefer pulling up to a gas station, spend barely 2 minutes filling up my small 53 liter fuel tank, pay for the gas and then manage almost 720 km range in my 25-35% thermal efficient internal combustion engine vehicle.
  • Tassos Jong-iL Here in North Korea we are lucky to have any tires.
  • Drnoose Tim, perhaps you should prepare for a conversation like that BEFORE you go on. The reality is, range and charging is everything, and you know that. Better luck next time!
  • Buickman burn that oil!
Next