Boeing 737 Max Recertification Testing - Finally.

[WillowRun 6-3]

Thank you, MechEngr, for de facto inviting further writing here (after a day of CLE programming I could use something fun). I'll address your points above in reverse order (without implication thereby on their merits).

Boeing insolvency is not something I would cheer, encourage, welcome or otherwise be associated with positively. If you've read even one of ten posts I've written on this forum taking the OEM to task for its various and sundry failures, that would be clear. I haven't ever urged the company to bite the dust (while a good number of very knowledgeable posters have wished for that result here). About the most strident post I've written decrying the state of corporate affairs was one which wished for a return of William "Wimpy" Winpisinger, described (iirc) as aggressive, blunt, radical, flamboyant, and outspoken (according to some biography). I'll say something I couldn't support factually - I never had the honor of meeting the great union leader - but I believe anyway: Winpisinger would want to see the company get back to engineering excellence and the basics of building quality airplanes - paying the price for its misdeeds but not insolvency. (Okay, it's a lawyer thing - don't even think about putting words in my mouth.)

And the tort cases in Chicago aren't aimed at insolvency, won't result in insolvency, and couldn't in any rational calculus lead to insolvency. (I'll save for another day a subpoint about what you might say to the plaintiffs in the case about their losses, how you might give the back of the hand to their claims. Perhaps I've misread your approach.)

As it happens, the recertification thread was simply the most recently active. Did I say the case has a bearing on recertification? - of course not. The other most active thread recently, iirc, involved the criminal case againist Boeing in Texas, and (again iirc) was topically pointed at the case against Forkner. These seem less ongoing, with the exception of the DPA matter pending in federal appellate court, which is even more legalistic and thus not germane to pro pilots even insofar as such aviators do take note of legal matters and affairs. Maybe the tort case in Chicago, which may proceed to trial as soon as June 20, will impact ongoing certification matters, but if so, I don't know that.

Second, perhaps you do know the difference between wrongful death actions, and Survival Act actions. It matters here because you've conflated two different types of claims, both at issue in the case in Chicago and both changed by this recent ruling. The wrongful death claim is one brought by the decedent's surviving spouse, children, other beneficiaries. The ruling says that these claims can include damages for the suffering these individuals experienced as a result of the pre-death suffering their decedents experienced. On the other hand, a Survival Act claim is for the legal wrongs and resulting damages suffered by the decedent himself or herself, which claims survive after the death and thus can be brought by the personal representative of the decedent. These involve the pre-death suffering of the doomed passengers, and not anything suffered by the surviving family and beneficiaries. So neat little references to psychics are not at all relevant. And besides, the court ruled that no speculative evidence could be admitted - and that the basic facts of the descent and other manuevers or gyrations of the aircraft in its fatal plunge would be sufficient to state facts for a jury to consider. And not least, this is not an outlier ruling; there are other courts in other states which have reached similar results.

Third, I think one of us misunderstands how to use Pacer, or how others use it. All you need is enough info about the case, whether names of parties or something other, and the specific court where it is pending, and you can run a docket report listing all the court file contents. Each has a number and is described briefly. The docket report is only a handful of pages. They don't download or print automatically - you pick what you want to review. True, an individual unschooled in court processes especially federal civil procedure (or criminal procedure, but that's a world in which I have not practiced law, so . .. .) might not know which document to download. But the picture you have painted about Pacer usage leading to escalating and unreasonable, even unbelievable or astronomical monetary charges, is just entirely contrary to actual experience.

(I'd gladly email the ruling by the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to a moderator, if there really are forum people who want to read it for themselves. It appears that access to Pacer documents includes personally identifiable information, and, you understand, anonymous callsign and all that....)