Cessna 185 $480 million seat-rail lawsuit!
Thread Starter
Cessna 185 $480 million seat-rail lawsuit!
Does anyone remember why Cessna got out of the single engine piston market for a decade? Maybe this current decision will remind them!
I don't know any particulars of this case, so cannot comment on the award and damages. But the seat rails are no better today than they were then (excepting the brand new machines)!
Florida jury awards $480 mln against Cessna-attorneys
NEW YORK, Aug 16 (Reuters) - A Florida jury on Thursday awarded $480 million in damages against Cessna Aircraft Company after plaintiffs injured in a 1989 crash sued the aircraft manufacturer.
The jury at Escambia County Circuit Court awarded the plaintiffs $80 million in compensation and $400 million in punitive damages against Cessna, a unit of manufacturer Textron Inc, said Wolk & Genter, attorney's for the plaintiffs.
Cessna Aircraft said that the lawsuit related to a crash involving a single-engine 185 Cessna plane which crashed and injured three people. No further details were immediately available.
Attorneys said that the verdict was the second punitive damages decision against Cessna related to defects in the seat latching system on some of its models. Textron could not confirm those details.
The aircraft maker said it would appeal the decision.
"Cessna is puzzled and disappointed by the jury verdict. We will aggressively pursue post-trial motions," the company said in a statement.
Textron manufactures jets, single and twin-engine civil aircraft through its Cessna unit and also makes Bell helicopters and golf carts among other businesses. Textron shares gained 43 cents to $56.37 at the end of Thursday trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
I don't know any particulars of this case, so cannot comment on the award and damages. But the seat rails are no better today than they were then (excepting the brand new machines)!
Florida jury awards $480 mln against Cessna-attorneys
NEW YORK, Aug 16 (Reuters) - A Florida jury on Thursday awarded $480 million in damages against Cessna Aircraft Company after plaintiffs injured in a 1989 crash sued the aircraft manufacturer.
The jury at Escambia County Circuit Court awarded the plaintiffs $80 million in compensation and $400 million in punitive damages against Cessna, a unit of manufacturer Textron Inc, said Wolk & Genter, attorney's for the plaintiffs.
Cessna Aircraft said that the lawsuit related to a crash involving a single-engine 185 Cessna plane which crashed and injured three people. No further details were immediately available.
Attorneys said that the verdict was the second punitive damages decision against Cessna related to defects in the seat latching system on some of its models. Textron could not confirm those details.
The aircraft maker said it would appeal the decision.
"Cessna is puzzled and disappointed by the jury verdict. We will aggressively pursue post-trial motions," the company said in a statement.
Textron manufactures jets, single and twin-engine civil aircraft through its Cessna unit and also makes Bell helicopters and golf carts among other businesses. Textron shares gained 43 cents to $56.37 at the end of Thursday trading on the New York Stock Exchange.
Safety First!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
12 years AFTER the event? 
Surely there are plenty of warnings regarding seat rails? Civil aviation authorities all over the world keep reminding us in various publications about these rails and the dangers of not making appropriate alterations to them.
It's amazing that it can still be found to be the responsibility of Cessna, probably some 30 to 40 years after they built the machine, to update all these problems, despite the owners being made aware of them?
I suppose anything goes in the USA, probably all comes down to the size of your wallet and the (lack of) integrity of your attorney.
Kermit
[ 17 August 2001: Message edited by: Kermit 180 ]
Surely there are plenty of warnings regarding seat rails? Civil aviation authorities all over the world keep reminding us in various publications about these rails and the dangers of not making appropriate alterations to them.
It's amazing that it can still be found to be the responsibility of Cessna, probably some 30 to 40 years after they built the machine, to update all these problems, despite the owners being made aware of them?
I suppose anything goes in the USA, probably all comes down to the size of your wallet and the (lack of) integrity of your attorney.
Kermit
[ 17 August 2001: Message edited by: Kermit 180 ]
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This is just cr*p. Just because some rich kid/doctor/banker can afford to buy a Cessna but not be bothered to read all the warnings about worn seat rails over the years , why should Mr Cessna's excellent company ( and I've no axe to grind- I fly a Piper) have to bail then out. Of course the real story is with the lawyers in the USA who operate the monstrous no-win no fee scheme (its here too folks - viz Claims Direct).
Its like a motorist trying to sue a tyre manufacturer when a worn tyre bursts with the inevitable consequences. Are worn tyres design defects?
Read the AIDs and fly happy
Its like a motorist trying to sue a tyre manufacturer when a worn tyre bursts with the inevitable consequences. Are worn tyres design defects?
Read the AIDs and fly happy
Thread Starter
The seat rail problem has been a around for a long time, although the AD was issued in 1987, the original Service Information letter was issued in 1983! The rails that are sold today are just as prone to cracking as the originals. They require regular replacement in working aircraft, where the seats are continually being moved. The cracks are ugly and we never ever run them to the limits that Cessna allows! I thought I would be smart and install the rails from the new model aircraft, but these are so beefy and big, that they won't work with the puny old seats. 
(If any manufacturer put most light aircraft seats in a car they would probably get sued as well)!
The change that is required to resolve this permanently is a material change away from this crappy 20xx series materials utilized by Cessna.
It is still hard to believe that this case eventually runs to Cessna (or their insurance company). As there was already an AD on the part, it would surely fall to the individual signing the last AD compliance or annual inspection. I would be very interested in any additional information anyone has on this case.
Out of interest, I tried to find the accident information on the NTSB website. This is the only related accident I found;
NTSB Identification: ATL89FA197 . The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 41199.
Accident occurred Monday, August 14, 1989 at MYRTLE GROVE, FL
Aircraft:CESSNA A185E, registration: N95KW
Injuries: 3 Serious.
A NORMAL APPROACH WAS MADE TO RUNWAY 36. THE FLAPS WERE FULLY EXTENDED & FULL NOSE UP TRIM WAS APPLIED PER THE OWNER'S HANDBOOK. THE WIND WAS FROM THE EAST AT 3-8 KTS. THICK SCRUB TREES BORDERED THE EAST SIDE OF THE RUNWAY. A THREE POINT LANDING WAS PLANNED & TOUCHDOWN OCCURRED ON THE TAIL & RIGHT MAIN WHEEL. THE RIGHT WING CAME UP AS THE LEFT WHEEL TOUCHED & THE PILOT INITIATED A BALKED LANDING. HE & HIS WIFE, ALSO A PRIVATE PILOT, SAID THE NOSE PITCHED UP ABRUPTLY, & A DEPARTURE STALL TO THE RIGHT WAS ENCOUNTERED. BOTH BELIEVED THAT THE PILOT'S SEAT SLID REARWARD. POST IMPACT FIRE DESTROYED THE SEAT RAILS. EXAM OF THE WRECKAGE SHOWED THAT THE FRONT SEATS APPEARED TO BE IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows.
THE PILOT IN COMMAND INADVERTENTLY STALLED THE AIRCRAFT DURING A BALKED LANDING.
I guess this makes it even stranger, if the parts were destroyed in the ensuing fire!!!
I am a strong believer in the overall goal of the US legal system and the protection it provides. I do however question something like this, if, for no other reason, that I do not know all the details of this case.
Hopefully the occupants of the aircraft were not too dramatically injured in this accident (may be the reason this award is so high), but if they are capable, they are probably considering what to buy to replace the 185.
Maybe a Citation X and an Amphib Caravan (covers every eventuality). Mind you, might want to avoid Cessna products now, so a G5 and a Sikorsky S76 might be a better choice!
(If any manufacturer put most light aircraft seats in a car they would probably get sued as well)! The change that is required to resolve this permanently is a material change away from this crappy 20xx series materials utilized by Cessna.
It is still hard to believe that this case eventually runs to Cessna (or their insurance company). As there was already an AD on the part, it would surely fall to the individual signing the last AD compliance or annual inspection. I would be very interested in any additional information anyone has on this case.
Out of interest, I tried to find the accident information on the NTSB website. This is the only related accident I found;
NTSB Identification: ATL89FA197 . The docket is stored on NTSB microfiche number 41199.
Accident occurred Monday, August 14, 1989 at MYRTLE GROVE, FL
Aircraft:CESSNA A185E, registration: N95KW
Injuries: 3 Serious.
A NORMAL APPROACH WAS MADE TO RUNWAY 36. THE FLAPS WERE FULLY EXTENDED & FULL NOSE UP TRIM WAS APPLIED PER THE OWNER'S HANDBOOK. THE WIND WAS FROM THE EAST AT 3-8 KTS. THICK SCRUB TREES BORDERED THE EAST SIDE OF THE RUNWAY. A THREE POINT LANDING WAS PLANNED & TOUCHDOWN OCCURRED ON THE TAIL & RIGHT MAIN WHEEL. THE RIGHT WING CAME UP AS THE LEFT WHEEL TOUCHED & THE PILOT INITIATED A BALKED LANDING. HE & HIS WIFE, ALSO A PRIVATE PILOT, SAID THE NOSE PITCHED UP ABRUPTLY, & A DEPARTURE STALL TO THE RIGHT WAS ENCOUNTERED. BOTH BELIEVED THAT THE PILOT'S SEAT SLID REARWARD. POST IMPACT FIRE DESTROYED THE SEAT RAILS. EXAM OF THE WRECKAGE SHOWED THAT THE FRONT SEATS APPEARED TO BE IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows.
THE PILOT IN COMMAND INADVERTENTLY STALLED THE AIRCRAFT DURING A BALKED LANDING.
I guess this makes it even stranger, if the parts were destroyed in the ensuing fire!!!
I am a strong believer in the overall goal of the US legal system and the protection it provides. I do however question something like this, if, for no other reason, that I do not know all the details of this case.
Hopefully the occupants of the aircraft were not too dramatically injured in this accident (may be the reason this award is so high), but if they are capable, they are probably considering what to buy to replace the 185.
Maybe a Citation X and an Amphib Caravan (covers every eventuality). Mind you, might want to avoid Cessna products now, so a G5 and a Sikorsky S76 might be a better choice!
Safety First!
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: New Zealand
Posts: 516
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Sounds like the wingdrop stall led to the crash which then led to the seat failing. Pilot should have considered popping the thing onto the mains with full power first before getting airborne. That would give more control over direction and get off the ground safely.
Nevertheless, my views haven't changed, the system is bollocks, I feel sorry for Cessna (and I usually despise large corporations).
Kermie
Nevertheless, my views haven't changed, the system is bollocks, I feel sorry for Cessna (and I usually despise large corporations).
Kermie
Thread Starter
Well, I guess that was the accident listed above. This story states that this is the largest payment in Aviation history!
If I recall from memory the Air France Concorde settlement was in the range of $100 million. Where has this figure come from and where is it the whole mess going?
Jury: Cessna Responsible for Crash
By BILL KACZOR, Associated Press Writer
PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) - Cessna Aircraft Co. was responsible for a fiery plane crash that injured three people in 1989, a jury ruled in returning a record $480 million verdict against the company.
Plaintiffs lawyers said the verdict - including $400 million in punitive damages and $80 million in compensatory damages - is the largest in aviation history.
Plaintiffs claimed the crash was caused by a defective seat latching mechanism. The suit alleged the pilot's seat suddenly slid back as he was attempting to land and caused the nose to pitch up because he had the control yoke in his grasp.
The single-engine Cessna 185 then crashed and burned in a small clearing amid thick woods 75 yards from the runway at Coastal Airport, a small Pensacola landing strip.
"Virtually everybody who's ever flown a Cessna at least has had a seat slip of their own or has heard of a friend who has had a seat slip,'' Arthur Alan Wolk, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said in an interview.
Cessna lawyers argued the seat did not slip and denied the locking mechanism was defective. They blamed the crash on pilot error, noting that James Cassoutt had little experience or instruction in flying the 185.
Wolk said no other aviation verdict comes close to this one, but that Cessna lawyers told him they would appeal the Wednesday verdict.
The plaintiffs were Cassoutt, his wife, Cindy, and passenger Judy Kealey.
Cindy Cassoutt suffered third-degree burns over half her body, according to the suit. Her husband and Kealey were burned less seriously but Kealey also suffered a broken back, Wolk said.
Cessna, based in Wichita, Kan., is a subsidiary of Textron Inc.
If I recall from memory the Air France Concorde settlement was in the range of $100 million. Where has this figure come from and where is it the whole mess going?
Jury: Cessna Responsible for Crash
By BILL KACZOR, Associated Press Writer
PENSACOLA, Fla. (AP) - Cessna Aircraft Co. was responsible for a fiery plane crash that injured three people in 1989, a jury ruled in returning a record $480 million verdict against the company.
Plaintiffs lawyers said the verdict - including $400 million in punitive damages and $80 million in compensatory damages - is the largest in aviation history.
Plaintiffs claimed the crash was caused by a defective seat latching mechanism. The suit alleged the pilot's seat suddenly slid back as he was attempting to land and caused the nose to pitch up because he had the control yoke in his grasp.
The single-engine Cessna 185 then crashed and burned in a small clearing amid thick woods 75 yards from the runway at Coastal Airport, a small Pensacola landing strip.
"Virtually everybody who's ever flown a Cessna at least has had a seat slip of their own or has heard of a friend who has had a seat slip,'' Arthur Alan Wolk, one of the plaintiffs' lawyers, said in an interview.
Cessna lawyers argued the seat did not slip and denied the locking mechanism was defective. They blamed the crash on pilot error, noting that James Cassoutt had little experience or instruction in flying the 185.
Wolk said no other aviation verdict comes close to this one, but that Cessna lawyers told him they would appeal the Wednesday verdict.
The plaintiffs were Cassoutt, his wife, Cindy, and passenger Judy Kealey.
Cindy Cassoutt suffered third-degree burns over half her body, according to the suit. Her husband and Kealey were burned less seriously but Kealey also suffered a broken back, Wolk said.
Cessna, based in Wichita, Kan., is a subsidiary of Textron Inc.
Victim of Blackmailing Scouser
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zürich, Switzerland (But a Brit)
Age: 59
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anybody else smell a rat?
"It wasn't my incompetent, ham-fisted flying that stalled the aircraft during the approach. My seat-runner simply must have failed, causing the seat to slide backwards, thereby contravening Newton's Law of Gravity. Can I have my cheque now, please".
Bollocks.
Cessna seat runners tend to fail during departure, as I can attest. I got away with it. Many other's haven't. Something should indeed be done to address this potentially fatal flaw. However, this sort of ambulance chasing makes me sodding sick.
Other than that, I don't really have any strong opinions on the matter.
TW
"It wasn't my incompetent, ham-fisted flying that stalled the aircraft during the approach. My seat-runner simply must have failed, causing the seat to slide backwards, thereby contravening Newton's Law of Gravity. Can I have my cheque now, please".
Bollocks.
Cessna seat runners tend to fail during departure, as I can attest. I got away with it. Many other's haven't. Something should indeed be done to address this potentially fatal flaw. However, this sort of ambulance chasing makes me sodding sick.
Other than that, I don't really have any strong opinions on the matter.
TW
Victim of Blackmailing Scouser
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zürich, Switzerland (But a Brit)
Age: 59
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Borrowed off AVWEB...
==========================================
...NTSB Says Pilot Error, Not Slipping Seats
Relatively aviation-illiterate juries can be swayed by emotional testimony, but to the NTSB, the facts in the case are cold and hard. In the months after the August 14, 1989 crash, safety board investigators made their determination on the cause of the crash. Following is the NTSB finding.
Accident occurred Monday, August 14, 1989 at MYRTLE GROVE, FL
Aircraft:CESSNA A185E, registration: N95KW
Injuries: 3 Serious
A NORMAL APPROACH WAS MADE TO RUNWAY 36. THE FLAPS WERE FULLY EXTENDED & FULL NOSE UP TRIM WAS APPLIED PER THE OWNER'S HANDBOOK. THE WIND WAS FROM THE EAST AT 3-8 KTS. THICK SCRUB TREES BORDERED THE EAST SIDE OF THE RUNWAY. A THREE POINT LANDING WAS PLANNED & TOUCHDOWN OCCURRED ON THE TAIL & RIGHT MAIN WHEEL. THE RIGHT WING CAME UP AS THE LEFT WHEEL TOUCHED & THE PILOT INITIATED A BALKED LANDING. HE & HIS WIFE, ALSO A PRIVATE PILOT, SAID THE NOSE PITCHED UP ABRUPTLY, & A DEPARTURE STALL TO THE RIGHT WAS ENCOUNTERED. BOTH BELIEVED THAT THE PILOT'S SEAT SLID REARWARD. POST IMPACT FIRE DESTROYED THE SEAT RAILS. EXAM OF THE WRECKAGE SHOWED THAT THE FRONT SEATS APPEARED TO BE IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows.
THE PILOT IN COMMAND INADVERTENTLY STALLED THE AIRCRAFT DURING A BALKED LANDING.
==========================================
Like I said: bollocks.
TW
==========================================
...NTSB Says Pilot Error, Not Slipping Seats
Relatively aviation-illiterate juries can be swayed by emotional testimony, but to the NTSB, the facts in the case are cold and hard. In the months after the August 14, 1989 crash, safety board investigators made their determination on the cause of the crash. Following is the NTSB finding.
Accident occurred Monday, August 14, 1989 at MYRTLE GROVE, FL
Aircraft:CESSNA A185E, registration: N95KW
Injuries: 3 Serious
A NORMAL APPROACH WAS MADE TO RUNWAY 36. THE FLAPS WERE FULLY EXTENDED & FULL NOSE UP TRIM WAS APPLIED PER THE OWNER'S HANDBOOK. THE WIND WAS FROM THE EAST AT 3-8 KTS. THICK SCRUB TREES BORDERED THE EAST SIDE OF THE RUNWAY. A THREE POINT LANDING WAS PLANNED & TOUCHDOWN OCCURRED ON THE TAIL & RIGHT MAIN WHEEL. THE RIGHT WING CAME UP AS THE LEFT WHEEL TOUCHED & THE PILOT INITIATED A BALKED LANDING. HE & HIS WIFE, ALSO A PRIVATE PILOT, SAID THE NOSE PITCHED UP ABRUPTLY, & A DEPARTURE STALL TO THE RIGHT WAS ENCOUNTERED. BOTH BELIEVED THAT THE PILOT'S SEAT SLID REARWARD. POST IMPACT FIRE DESTROYED THE SEAT RAILS. EXAM OF THE WRECKAGE SHOWED THAT THE FRONT SEATS APPEARED TO BE IN THE SAME RELATIVE POSITION.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows.
THE PILOT IN COMMAND INADVERTENTLY STALLED THE AIRCRAFT DURING A BALKED LANDING.
==========================================
Like I said: bollocks.
TW
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: PGWT
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why would a seat slide rearward when the aircraft is decelerating? surley it would slide forward if the latches failed. Now that does contravene Newtons laws of physics
As previously stated failures occur at, or shortly after departure.
BOTR
p.s. My employers have caused irreparable damage to my spine, any chance of me getting $480 million?? who were the lawyers again?
As previously stated failures occur at, or shortly after departure.
BOTR
p.s. My employers have caused irreparable damage to my spine, any chance of me getting $480 million?? who were the lawyers again?
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Pensacola, FL
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How nice is it when a Doctor can testify at his wife's trial as a medical expert for her case!. .I heard that Cessna was going to settle rather than appeal. Does anyone else know anything about this case? Please reply. .(where's the middle finger icon?)
When I read this, I have to confess that my first thought was that somebody was winding us all up. I was wrong, there's a fairly detailed write-up of the case at
<a href="http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZEJIY7HQC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=N ews&ExpIgnore=true&showsummary=0" target="_blank">http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZEJIY7HQC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=N ews&ExpIgnore=true&showsummary=0</A>
Evidently, the judge and jury in the case took the view that there had been so many problems with Cessna seat-rails that it was time the company was punished for not doing something about it. Well, yes, one can see their point, but $480m ??????!
Carefully disidentified let me tell a tale from the UK. I got dragged in after a moderately experienced pilot, with very few hours on a difficult type, crashed an aircraft and nearly killed himself - flying solo. The pilot, with encouragement of an ambulance chasing lawyer on legal aid, decided to sue the manufacturer.
I (largely independent but with the co-operation of both parties) arranged for the aircraft to be rebuilt in it's original settings, and flight tested by a qualified test pilot. My TP concluded that the aircraft could suffer problems, but only if flown OUTSIDE THE CLEARED ENVELOPE. This didn't stop the pilot and lawyer continuing to try and sue the manufacturer. When I challenged the lawyer on this, they had to admit to still drawing legal aid and withholding my report from the legal aid board. I had to threaten to go directly to the legal authorities with the report before they stopped playing silly ******s.
. .Now another story from a previous life. A colleague, working for our then mutual employer, was flying as observer on a flight trial in the USA. Things went wrong, his pilot was killed next to him and he spent some months in hospital. Neither our (UK) employer nor the American operator was prepared to offer any compensation. His only way to cover his personal losses and expenses was to go through one of these American lawyers to sue the US operator.
. .None of these cases is even faintly satisfactory. What's the conclusion? - frankly the whole legal and compensatory system stinks. It's worse in the USA, but not much better in the UK.
G
<a href="http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZEJIY7HQC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=N ews&ExpIgnore=true&showsummary=0" target="_blank">http://www.law.com/cgi-bin/gx.cgi/AppLogic+FTContentServer?pagename=law/View&c=Article&cid=ZZZEJIY7HQC&live=true&cst=1&pc=0&pa=0&s=N ews&ExpIgnore=true&showsummary=0</A>
Evidently, the judge and jury in the case took the view that there had been so many problems with Cessna seat-rails that it was time the company was punished for not doing something about it. Well, yes, one can see their point, but $480m ??????!
Carefully disidentified let me tell a tale from the UK. I got dragged in after a moderately experienced pilot, with very few hours on a difficult type, crashed an aircraft and nearly killed himself - flying solo. The pilot, with encouragement of an ambulance chasing lawyer on legal aid, decided to sue the manufacturer.
I (largely independent but with the co-operation of both parties) arranged for the aircraft to be rebuilt in it's original settings, and flight tested by a qualified test pilot. My TP concluded that the aircraft could suffer problems, but only if flown OUTSIDE THE CLEARED ENVELOPE. This didn't stop the pilot and lawyer continuing to try and sue the manufacturer. When I challenged the lawyer on this, they had to admit to still drawing legal aid and withholding my report from the legal aid board. I had to threaten to go directly to the legal authorities with the report before they stopped playing silly ******s.
. .Now another story from a previous life. A colleague, working for our then mutual employer, was flying as observer on a flight trial in the USA. Things went wrong, his pilot was killed next to him and he spent some months in hospital. Neither our (UK) employer nor the American operator was prepared to offer any compensation. His only way to cover his personal losses and expenses was to go through one of these American lawyers to sue the US operator.
. .None of these cases is even faintly satisfactory. What's the conclusion? - frankly the whole legal and compensatory system stinks. It's worse in the USA, but not much better in the UK.
G
Thread Starter
I was researching something a few months ago, and came across a very strange link in this site.. . <a href="http://www.overlawyered.com/" target="_blank">overlawyered.com</a>
It details this very thread (and indeed, this very update). Search "PPRuNe" and you'll see!
Words travel a long way and last a long time these days!
It is interesting to read that seat rails were determined to be separate "completed products"! I'm not sure were that would leave anyone in the future as a result of repair, overhaul or modification of a Type Certificated product. Maybe I should go back to school and become a lawyer? This should open up an entire new field!
As an aside, there is an interesting case running between Mr Wolk and Avweb. I would hasten to add, that no-one should pass any comments relating to this case, here on PPRuNe, but makes for some interesting reading!. . <a href="http://www.avweb.com/other/wolk_v_avweb/" target="_blank">AvWeb suit.</a>
It details this very thread (and indeed, this very update). Search "PPRuNe" and you'll see!
Words travel a long way and last a long time these days!
It is interesting to read that seat rails were determined to be separate "completed products"! I'm not sure were that would leave anyone in the future as a result of repair, overhaul or modification of a Type Certificated product. Maybe I should go back to school and become a lawyer? This should open up an entire new field!
As an aside, there is an interesting case running between Mr Wolk and Avweb. I would hasten to add, that no-one should pass any comments relating to this case, here on PPRuNe, but makes for some interesting reading!. . <a href="http://www.avweb.com/other/wolk_v_avweb/" target="_blank">AvWeb suit.</a>
Victim of Blackmailing Scouser
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Zürich, Switzerland (But a Brit)
Age: 59
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This stinks.
I wonder how this hypocritical sod can sleep at night. Read on Avweb that even the NTSB are somewhat sceptical that a failed runner could have caused an accident of that nature. Also, they were extremely sceptical that the runner could fail during the landing phase of the flight, rather than (personal experience) during the climb out.
Seem to remember that Avweb wrote that the owner had little tailwheel experience, and had very recently demonstrated his ineptness to a fellow aviator just days before the accident.
Crap pilot, crap landing, crap excuse.
TW
I wonder how this hypocritical sod can sleep at night. Read on Avweb that even the NTSB are somewhat sceptical that a failed runner could have caused an accident of that nature. Also, they were extremely sceptical that the runner could fail during the landing phase of the flight, rather than (personal experience) during the climb out.
Seem to remember that Avweb wrote that the owner had little tailwheel experience, and had very recently demonstrated his ineptness to a fellow aviator just days before the accident.
Crap pilot, crap landing, crap excuse.
TW
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: Texas, USA
Posts: 263
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Apologies if this stretches the topic, but if this aircraft flies anything like a 172, then ...
initiating a go-around (full throttle) from a balked landing with full flaps and full nose up trim, will make the bloody thing basically try to go straight up, slowing down ...
My instructor put me through this really early on and in this configuration it took most of my strength to hold the nose down, after application of full power.
Points:. .1. This is an easy way to crash... departure stall. .2. holding the nose down is the effort most likely to disengage a dodgy seat lock ... also crash
initiating a go-around (full throttle) from a balked landing with full flaps and full nose up trim, will make the bloody thing basically try to go straight up, slowing down ...
My instructor put me through this really early on and in this configuration it took most of my strength to hold the nose down, after application of full power.
Points:. .1. This is an easy way to crash... departure stall. .2. holding the nose down is the effort most likely to disengage a dodgy seat lock ... also crash
Join Date: Sep 2001
Location: Lyon, France
Posts: 10
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
As mentioned above, the NTSB says the accident was caused by pilot error.
Unfortunately for Cessna, the rules of the NTSB preclude its reports from being used in court.
. . [quote]
TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION. . . . CHAPTER VIII--NATIONAL . .TRANSPORTATION. . SAFETY BOARD. . . .PART 835--TESTIMONY OF BOARD EMPLOYEES--. . . .Sec. 835.3 Scope of permissible testimony.
(a) Section 701(e) of the FA Act and section 304(c) of the Safety . .Act preclude the use or admission into evidence of Board accident . .reports in any suit or action for damages arising from accidents.
<hr></blockquote>
I'm sure Mr. Wolk's aim in this case was to try to improve aviation safety, and not to try to get a significant percentage of $480 million in fees... but one has to wonder if the jury would have made the same choice if they'd been given access to the facts.
On this side of the Atlantic, there is a tendency to see this kind of obscene award as an American problem. Not for long, I am sure. UK lawyers have won their battle to allow "no win, no fee" representation. They are now allowed to advertise. They will doubtless soon succeed in either raising statutory accident compensation to massively higher levels, or allowing courts to decide the awards.
If there were as many pilots in parliament as there are lawyers, we would have tax-free avgas, mostly uncontrolled airspace, no planning-permission required for airfields and lots more!
<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
Unfortunately for Cessna, the rules of the NTSB preclude its reports from being used in court.
. . [quote]
TITLE 49--TRANSPORTATION. . . . CHAPTER VIII--NATIONAL . .TRANSPORTATION. . SAFETY BOARD. . . .PART 835--TESTIMONY OF BOARD EMPLOYEES--. . . .Sec. 835.3 Scope of permissible testimony.
(a) Section 701(e) of the FA Act and section 304(c) of the Safety . .Act preclude the use or admission into evidence of Board accident . .reports in any suit or action for damages arising from accidents.
<hr></blockquote>
I'm sure Mr. Wolk's aim in this case was to try to improve aviation safety, and not to try to get a significant percentage of $480 million in fees... but one has to wonder if the jury would have made the same choice if they'd been given access to the facts.
On this side of the Atlantic, there is a tendency to see this kind of obscene award as an American problem. Not for long, I am sure. UK lawyers have won their battle to allow "no win, no fee" representation. They are now allowed to advertise. They will doubtless soon succeed in either raising statutory accident compensation to massively higher levels, or allowing courts to decide the awards.
If there were as many pilots in parliament as there are lawyers, we would have tax-free avgas, mostly uncontrolled airspace, no planning-permission required for airfields and lots more!
<img src="smile.gif" border="0"> <img src="smile.gif" border="0">
