Lawsuit alleges UAL cover-up of mid-air incident

[WillFlyForCheese]

Seems like something out of the twilight zone . . .

Lawsuit alleges United cover-up windshield incident on UA 931 (ORD-LHR) - October 27, 2018

https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/lawsuit-alleges-united-covered-terrifying-mid-air-incident-resulted-pilots-sucked-plane-030536011.html

Lawsuit can be found here: https://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2019/01/23/16052088/United%20Complaint.pdf

Looks like the plaintiff wants to get paid because he is too afraid to fly . . .

[Airbubba]

More here: https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/617499-united-fubar-newfoundland.html#post10368902

[CodyBlade]

that's a large opening alright.

[Ronaldsway Radar]

That chap would make an excellent Daily Mail writer.

[KelvinD]

The photos in both the above links show what seems to be the left side window. The accompanying words claim the co-pilot pushed his weight against the remaining, unharmed, 3rd layer of glass. Was he sitting on the pilot's knee? The same photo shows an ID plate on the instrument panel with what appears to be the reg: N560UA. My info (Planebase) shows this belongs to a United 757, which went into storage at San Bernadino October 2016 and was last seen there 12th November 2018, a couple of weeks after this incident.
The law suit says the flight was UAL931 on 17th October 2018. Records show this flight was carried out by N653UA, departing Chicago at approx 00:55 GMT. Looking at the track of this flight on Planefinder, it showed it passed over Gander, going nowhere near Goose Bay and it landed at Heathrow at 07:04 GMT.
So what aircraft was this bloke really on?

[DaveReidUK]

So what aircraft was this bloke really on?

N660UA was the aircraft that diverted to Goose. The date was October 27th, not the 17th.

That's the aircraft in the cockpit photo - United fleet number 6460, Selcal CF-AR.

[KelvinD]

Dave: Many thanks for that. Maybe I put my son's glasses on this morning! I think I should go and "have a lie down"!

[BoostTheBoost]

Isn't there a flaw in the Plaintiff's case? If the aircraft was pressurized, his extraordinary allegation that the co-pilot pushed on the broken glass to stop it breaking would actually be making things worse, as the glass would have popped out rather than in?

[HarryMann]

Isn't there a flaw in the Plaintiff's case? If the aircraft was pressurized, his extraordinary allegation that the co-pilot pushed on the broken glass to stop it breaking would actually be making things worse, as the glass would have popped out rather than in?
Maybe Plaintiffy thought dynamic head pressure outside was of an order to warrant such a concern ?
Which it wasn't...of course... I think... or think I do :)
A crude calculation at altitude says Pdyn ~ 2.1 psi
+ about 4.4 psi static at 30,000'
=6.5
Pressure in cabin ? 8.5 psi ?

[bafanguy]

Well, those are quite the bombastic accusations. :rolleyes: Never pass up the chance to extort a few bucks from an airline.

[CONSO]

Maybe Plaintiffy thought dynamic head pressure outside was of an order to warrant such a concern ?
Which it wasn't...of course... I think... or think I do :)
A crude calculation at altitude says Pdyn ~ 2.1 psi
+ about 4.4 psi static at 30,000'
=6.5
Pressure in cabin ? 8.5 psi ?

of course there is the outside air Pressure pushing inward due to a speed of several hundred miles/hour PLUS pilots being ( or supposed to being ) strapped in.

A sideswindow is another issue where pilot could be popped out ( and has happened )

[DaveReidUK]

of course there is the outside air Pressure pushing inward due to a speed of several hundred miles/hour

That's one of the terms in the calculation that you quoted from.

[CONSO]

That's one of the terms in the calculation that you quoted from.

I know- I was trying to make it obvious that the so called bit about both pilots being pushed out forward was bpucky-for several reasons AND that if it was a side window, at most ONE pilot might have been swept out ABSENT a proper seat belt.

I guess its poor word construction on my part which seems to be more important nowdays them simple physics. Then there is the issue of the cockpit door being blown inward ? I dont think so !

Of course to more fully explain- IF repeat IF front window blew out- then to get a sufficient amount of high volume air into the cockpit to blow a pilot/copilot out, the cockpit door would have to seriously fail within less than a minute or so as the passenger side of the door air control/pressure valves would be going open to 'maintain' the cabin pressure, etc- AND it is probable the pilot still in control would be slowing the plane, and dropping altitude fairly rapidly. etc.

AFIK the cockpit doors in most airplanes nowdays are much more stronger than two or three decades ago ..

And then there is the issue of said pilot/copilot being squeezed thru the window opening- it can be done if someone wants to- but otherwise almost any attempt to spread out would stop the ejection.

That lawsuit IMHO is a figment of watching too many disaster movies or hal in ' 2001"

[megan]

And if it does blow.

https://www.pprune.org/rumours-news/608822-a319-fo-windshield-blowout.html

[wiggy]

Also don’t forget Captain Tim Lancaster’s little event. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_Airways_Flight_5390)

(BAC 111, Forward Windscreen but not of a plug type....Tim L was wearing the lap strap portion of his harness when the windows went......)

[homonculus]

This is an initial submission. In most countries anyone can make a claim. The Court will consider the facts, backed up by evidence and expert witnesses, and lacking colourful language. I would not sell my United shares at this stage, if I had any

[Carbon Bootprint]

This is an initial submission. In most countries anyone can make a claim. The Court will consider the facts, backed up by evidence and expert witnesses, and lacking colourful language. I would not sell my United shares at this stage, if I had any
Correct, everyone can come in off the ledge now. :)

While I can't predict the outcome with any certainty, there's a reasonably good chance that this -- like most "nuisance" lawsuits -- will be quietly settled out of court once the initial flurry of headlines has died down.

[rotornut]

In Canada, if you file a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit and you lose you will be responsible for the defendant's costs which can be substantial.

[SeenItAll]

In Canada, if you file a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit and you lose you will be responsible for the defendant's costs which can be substantial.

That is probably why he filed the suit in the U.S.

[Carbon Bootprint]

In Canada, if you file a frivolous and vexatious lawsuit and you lose you will be responsible for the defendant's costs which can be substantial.
The same is true in much of the US, but again, most of these cases never make it to the courtroom. Do “opportunities” to settle not occur in Canada?

[matkat]

My question would simply be how does he know the torque values that he alleges were wrong and even if they were wrong how could that compromise the integrity of the glass?

[homonculus]

It isnt frivolous - a significant event occurred that was not normal and the claimant states he suffered mental and physical injury

It isnt vexatious - as above, and in many countries courts apply it to litigants who repeatedly claim or continue to claim unreasonably. This is an initial claim with no evidence of previous claims

That still leaves the Courts to decide whether to make a judgement in his favour, or the defendants to decide they want to settle before a hearing....

[DaveReidUK]

It isnt vexatious - as above, and in many countries courts apply it to litigants who repeatedly claim or continue to claim unreasonably. This is an initial claim with no evidence of previous claims.

No, it's not vexatious in that specific sense, but more generally the term can be understood as "denoting an action or the bringer of an action that is brought without sufficient grounds for winning, purely to cause annoyance to the defendant".

That sums it up pretty well IMHO.

[tdracer]

It isnt frivolous - a significant event occurred that was not normal and the claimant states he suffered mental and physical injury


I find it rather telling that he didn't become 'injured' until after the event was over. He was safely on the ground before he found out what had happened and suffered the 'injury'...

[homonculus]

That is quite possible

I have been commenting on the system. I think it unwise to make comments on the individual parties based on press reports and one document. That is for the Courts