Bombardier sued over Pinnacle CRJ crash
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bombardier sued over Pinnacle CRJ crash
GLOBEANDMAIL.COM
Bombardier sued over 2004 jet crash By BERTRAND MAROTTE
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 Page B5
MONTREAL -- Bombardier Inc. has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits seeking a total of $200-million (U.S.) in damages over the deaths of an airline pilot and co-pilot whose CRJ-200 jet crashed outside Jefferson City, Mo., in the fall of 2004.
Aviation litigation firm Motley Rice LLC said yesterday it has launched the suits -- alleging defective parts and poor maintenance -- against Montreal-based Bombardier as well as suppliers General Electric Co., Honeywell International Inc., Northwest Airlines Corp. and others.
The suit comes less than a year after Bombardier was cleared of any negligence in a high-profile lawsuit over the death of professional golfer Payne Stewart and five others in the crash of one of its Learjets.
In the world of aviation litigation, neatly proving that the negligence of a manufacturer or parts-supplier is what caused the crash of an aircraft is a tough, high-stakes game, said one veteran aviation lawyer.
"The plaintiff has got an uphill battle," said Phillip Kolczynski, of Santa Ana, Calif.
"That is a tough one to win. You've got to eliminate so many other factors and prove conclusively that a certain part had a design or manufacturing defect."
Bert Cruikshank, a spokesman for Bombardier Aerospace, said the company cannot comment on the two suits over the crash of Northwest subsidiary Pinnacle Airways Flight 708 because the incident is still being probed.
"The Pinnacle accident remains under investigation by the [U.S.] National Transportation Safety Board," he said.
"We have provided them with every co-operation and our expertise and we are fully involved with the investigation."
Bombardier's 50-seat CRJ-200 is the flagship aircraft of the company. Mr. Cruikshank said it has an impeccable safety record.
Motley Rice alleges that Flight 708 took off from Little Rock, Ark., at 9:21 p.m. en route to Minneapolis-St. Paul, a repositioning flight with no passengers aboard.
After reaching the manufacturer's authorized altitude ceiling of 41,000 feet, which offers greater fuel economy, the aircraft was unable to hold its altitude, according to allegations filed in Circuit Court in Broward County, Fla.
The plane then experienced failures of both engines and attempts to restart them were unsuccessful, according to the allegations.
A key part used in engine restarts failed and a GE-manufactured engine oil pump malfunctioned, according to the filing.
Prior to the incident, the flight had already been postponed once that morning because of maintenance problems, according to the allegations.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ery=bombardier
Bombardier sued over 2004 jet crash By BERTRAND MAROTTE
Wednesday, January 11, 2006 Page B5
MONTREAL -- Bombardier Inc. has been named as a defendant in two lawsuits seeking a total of $200-million (U.S.) in damages over the deaths of an airline pilot and co-pilot whose CRJ-200 jet crashed outside Jefferson City, Mo., in the fall of 2004.
Aviation litigation firm Motley Rice LLC said yesterday it has launched the suits -- alleging defective parts and poor maintenance -- against Montreal-based Bombardier as well as suppliers General Electric Co., Honeywell International Inc., Northwest Airlines Corp. and others.
The suit comes less than a year after Bombardier was cleared of any negligence in a high-profile lawsuit over the death of professional golfer Payne Stewart and five others in the crash of one of its Learjets.
In the world of aviation litigation, neatly proving that the negligence of a manufacturer or parts-supplier is what caused the crash of an aircraft is a tough, high-stakes game, said one veteran aviation lawyer.
"The plaintiff has got an uphill battle," said Phillip Kolczynski, of Santa Ana, Calif.
"That is a tough one to win. You've got to eliminate so many other factors and prove conclusively that a certain part had a design or manufacturing defect."
Bert Cruikshank, a spokesman for Bombardier Aerospace, said the company cannot comment on the two suits over the crash of Northwest subsidiary Pinnacle Airways Flight 708 because the incident is still being probed.
"The Pinnacle accident remains under investigation by the [U.S.] National Transportation Safety Board," he said.
"We have provided them with every co-operation and our expertise and we are fully involved with the investigation."
Bombardier's 50-seat CRJ-200 is the flagship aircraft of the company. Mr. Cruikshank said it has an impeccable safety record.
Motley Rice alleges that Flight 708 took off from Little Rock, Ark., at 9:21 p.m. en route to Minneapolis-St. Paul, a repositioning flight with no passengers aboard.
After reaching the manufacturer's authorized altitude ceiling of 41,000 feet, which offers greater fuel economy, the aircraft was unable to hold its altitude, according to allegations filed in Circuit Court in Broward County, Fla.
The plane then experienced failures of both engines and attempts to restart them were unsuccessful, according to the allegations.
A key part used in engine restarts failed and a GE-manufactured engine oil pump malfunctioned, according to the filing.
Prior to the incident, the flight had already been postponed once that morning because of maintenance problems, according to the allegations.
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl...ery=bombardier
Re: Bombardier sued over CRJ crash
There's just no way this lawsuit can be won.
Notwithstanding the manner in which accident aircraft arrived at FL410, ceilings are given as density altitude, not pressure altitude. It's just too bad that the Motley Rice lawyers don't understand this.
And fact that our two colleagues didn't understand it either proved to be tragic.
Notwithstanding the manner in which accident aircraft arrived at FL410, ceilings are given as density altitude, not pressure altitude. It's just too bad that the Motley Rice lawyers don't understand this.
And fact that our two colleagues didn't understand it either proved to be tragic.
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: blank
Posts: 46
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Bombardier sued over CRJ crash
Yes, but I don't know what it means... I even looked it up and think you mean 'chutzpah'; (Utter nerve; effrontery: “has the chutzpah to claim a lock on God and morality”)
Not having a go, as I had to look up the meaning. Thanks for expanding my vocabulary
Not having a go, as I had to look up the meaning. Thanks for expanding my vocabulary
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Bombardier sued over CRJ crash
My bad. Of course it is Chutzpah. 
The classic definition is the guy who murders his parents, then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.
The classic definition is the guy who murders his parents, then pleads for mercy because he is an orphan.
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Montreal
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Bombardier sued over CRJ crash
The father of one of the pilots actually apologized to the NTSB inquiry for the gross negligence of his son in the incident, and now he's suing for it!
Obviously some low life, ambulance chasing TV lawyer type came running in and told the bereaved that they'd just won the lottery and he'd get them a couple of mil in pocket if they would agree to sue for 100mil.
The sad part is that they will likely win on the premise that BBD should have anticipated two clowns might jump into a jet, take it to the edge of it's flight envelope at a speed that was truly comical, engage in some unusual attitudes and extreme aerobatics, fail to follow the checklist and still expect to have the poor rig restart just as happily as if it were sitting at the gate on the day of its delivery. And that notwithstanding the fact that the guys who picked it up on the day of its delivery likely rolled it on the way home!
Of course there's a rumour that the Chinese may sue because another one failed to fly with a huge layer of frozen slush on the wings about 5 months later.......
Obviously some low life, ambulance chasing TV lawyer type came running in and told the bereaved that they'd just won the lottery and he'd get them a couple of mil in pocket if they would agree to sue for 100mil.
The sad part is that they will likely win on the premise that BBD should have anticipated two clowns might jump into a jet, take it to the edge of it's flight envelope at a speed that was truly comical, engage in some unusual attitudes and extreme aerobatics, fail to follow the checklist and still expect to have the poor rig restart just as happily as if it were sitting at the gate on the day of its delivery. And that notwithstanding the fact that the guys who picked it up on the day of its delivery likely rolled it on the way home!
Of course there's a rumour that the Chinese may sue because another one failed to fly with a huge layer of frozen slush on the wings about 5 months later.......
Join Date: Apr 2002
Location: Nirvana South
Posts: 734
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Bombardier sued over CRJ crash
Originally Posted by Elliot Moose
Of course there's a rumour that the Chinese may sue because another one failed to fly with a huge layer of frozen slush on the wings about 5 months later.......
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 254
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Bombardier sued over CRJ crash
Lawyers try these things in the hope that the manufacturer will decide that rather than spend $50,000 defending themselves in court, they will just settle for the $50,000 without running any risk and make the problem go away.
Legally it made sense but it just encouraged more of the same behavior.
If they do go to court, they do run a risk. You never know what a jury will decide. I sat on a jury once in a medical liability lawsuit. The plaintiffs never even came close to proving their case, the defence buried them after that and yet, when we went to the jury room to decide, three of the jurors wanted to find for the plaintiffs. They felt sorry for her. We did find for the defendants but it took a few hours.
It is a shame this stuff goes on. There are certainly times when lawsuits are valid but the silly ambulance chaser stuff gives excuses for those who would like to close that avenue completely.
Legally it made sense but it just encouraged more of the same behavior.
If they do go to court, they do run a risk. You never know what a jury will decide. I sat on a jury once in a medical liability lawsuit. The plaintiffs never even came close to proving their case, the defence buried them after that and yet, when we went to the jury room to decide, three of the jurors wanted to find for the plaintiffs. They felt sorry for her. We did find for the defendants but it took a few hours.
It is a shame this stuff goes on. There are certainly times when lawsuits are valid but the silly ambulance chaser stuff gives excuses for those who would like to close that avenue completely.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Canada
Posts: 1,852
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Bombardier sued over CRJ crash
Popular Mechanics has an article on the crash:
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...n/2156137.html
http://www.popularmechanics.com/scie...n/2156137.html
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Montreal
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Bombardier sued over CRJ crash
I don't think that I have ever seriously flamed somebody on a board before, but......
Mr. O the S&L you should never have been flying the CRJ if you don't know
a)why the ceiling is 410
b)what the 500fpm climb thing means
c)the fact that the FMS does not work like that when giving available cruise altitudes
a) the ceiling is 410 due to the max dif on the pressurization and allowable cabin alts at max dif under the FAR's. Let me ask you: What altitude does a loaded 747 go to initially? It sure as hell ain't the published ceiling!!
To get there, you have to be light, and on a loooonnnnnggg leg. Guess what? The same goes for a CRJ! Funny that... I have been up there in a CRJ on a properly planned leg, and I got there as per the AFM. It sure wasn't on a leg the length those guys were flying! At their weight, 410 was attainable on the day of the crash, but they didn't maintain a safe airspeed because they didn't have the DISTANCE to get to 410 at a safe speed. How many times did you have a 172 to its max alt, or a Navaho? The only thing I ever took to max alt regularly was a Beech 1900D and that's because they made an aircraft with the wing and engines for FL350 and flat sides! Guess what? They could only get a very low max diff before those flat sides tried to become round, so they had to limit it....again based on cabin alt. But don't get me started on that lousy aircraft AGAIN!
b) Yes, ATC does generally expect 500fpm on a climb, and that's why the 500fpm chart is most often referred to. BUT, the 500fpm thing in the charts (as well as the 300 and 100 fpm charts which are included and also safe to fly if you know what you're doing) is based on flying the airspeed schedule posted at the bottom of the chart. In no case does it involve flying at less than .70 mach, or manoeuvring outside of certain limits. That's because at excessively slow speeds, one can easily end up behind the power curve and unable to accelerate to cruise speed. Check with any nearby private pilot and you will be told the various ramifications of flying in slow flight.... FAA CRJ's even have a neat little green line that is set at 1.27 times the stall speed (which is close enough to Vmd for me on most days) which they were flying well below.
c) the FMS climb capability is based on some really simple stuff and was never meant to replace the AFM/QRH/FPCCM etc. It's in the limitations, and only in there to prevent extreme goof ups like planning an 80 mile leg at FL 310.
It's a REGIONAL jet, not an A380! Its computer doesn't hold your hand at every turn. It does assume that people flying it have some clue as to how to manage a jet aircraft, or at least how to read the manual and find out.
My apologies if I have appeared condescending, but statements like these really grind my gears.
Mr. O the S&L you should never have been flying the CRJ if you don't know
a)why the ceiling is 410
b)what the 500fpm climb thing means
c)the fact that the FMS does not work like that when giving available cruise altitudes
a) the ceiling is 410 due to the max dif on the pressurization and allowable cabin alts at max dif under the FAR's. Let me ask you: What altitude does a loaded 747 go to initially? It sure as hell ain't the published ceiling!!
To get there, you have to be light, and on a loooonnnnnggg leg. Guess what? The same goes for a CRJ! Funny that... I have been up there in a CRJ on a properly planned leg, and I got there as per the AFM. It sure wasn't on a leg the length those guys were flying! At their weight, 410 was attainable on the day of the crash, but they didn't maintain a safe airspeed because they didn't have the DISTANCE to get to 410 at a safe speed. How many times did you have a 172 to its max alt, or a Navaho? The only thing I ever took to max alt regularly was a Beech 1900D and that's because they made an aircraft with the wing and engines for FL350 and flat sides! Guess what? They could only get a very low max diff before those flat sides tried to become round, so they had to limit it....again based on cabin alt. But don't get me started on that lousy aircraft AGAIN!b) Yes, ATC does generally expect 500fpm on a climb, and that's why the 500fpm chart is most often referred to. BUT, the 500fpm thing in the charts (as well as the 300 and 100 fpm charts which are included and also safe to fly if you know what you're doing) is based on flying the airspeed schedule posted at the bottom of the chart. In no case does it involve flying at less than .70 mach, or manoeuvring outside of certain limits. That's because at excessively slow speeds, one can easily end up behind the power curve and unable to accelerate to cruise speed. Check with any nearby private pilot and you will be told the various ramifications of flying in slow flight.... FAA CRJ's even have a neat little green line that is set at 1.27 times the stall speed (which is close enough to Vmd for me on most days) which they were flying well below.
c) the FMS climb capability is based on some really simple stuff and was never meant to replace the AFM/QRH/FPCCM etc. It's in the limitations, and only in there to prevent extreme goof ups like planning an 80 mile leg at FL 310.
It's a REGIONAL jet, not an A380! Its computer doesn't hold your hand at every turn. It does assume that people flying it have some clue as to how to manage a jet aircraft, or at least how to read the manual and find out.
My apologies if I have appeared condescending, but statements like these really grind my gears.
Trash du Blanc
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: KBHM
Posts: 1,185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Bombardier sued over CRJ crash
[...]proving that the negligence of a manufacturer or parts-supplier is what caused the crash of an aircraft is a tough, high-stakes game[....]
Product liability in the states is a strict liability area. Under this type of case, i.e. either manuacturing or design defect, ONLY causation needs to be proven. Bombardier's performance is not the issue. They could have done the absolute best job possible and still be held liable, if a part can be proven to have caused the accident.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Bombardier sued over CRJ crash
I agree with junior man...there are too many dodgy lawyers wanting to be the next DA or Attorney-General...we need common sense limitations on these suits, although common sense these days is a rare commodity to find!
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: flyover country USA
Age: 82
Posts: 4,579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Bombardier sued over CRJ crash
It all goes to show you: you get what you pay for.
This crew showed no appreciation for the fundamentals of aircraft performance - if they had done even a cursory check of the CRJ capability at an above-standard SAT they would be alive today. Those performance charts DO have meaning.
Or to put it another way: there are three kinds of people - those who learn from their own mistakes, those who learn from others' mistakes,
...and those who never learn.
Old thread on Pinnacle accident
This crew showed no appreciation for the fundamentals of aircraft performance - if they had done even a cursory check of the CRJ capability at an above-standard SAT they would be alive today. Those performance charts DO have meaning.
Or to put it another way: there are three kinds of people - those who learn from their own mistakes, those who learn from others' mistakes,
...and those who never learn.
Old thread on Pinnacle accident
Last edited by barit1; 16th Jan 2006 at 13:26.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: edge of reality
Posts: 792
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Bombardier sued over CRJ crash
Generally I'm extremely reluctant to criticize a crew..."There but for the grace of God etc..." and we all have off days...and which of us hasn't pushed a little too hard on occasion ? But from the CVR and FDR evidence it's difficult to have any empathy with these two guys....
Not only did they display a criminal lack of awareness of the basic principles of light but when some superbly designed technology gave them repeated 'wake-up' calls they chose not simply to ignore them but consciously attempted to over-ride them....
The one saving grace of this accident... and no thanks to the crew... was that no one else suffered in the final outcome....
Not only did they display a criminal lack of awareness of the basic principles of light but when some superbly designed technology gave them repeated 'wake-up' calls they chose not simply to ignore them but consciously attempted to over-ride them....
The one saving grace of this accident... and no thanks to the crew... was that no one else suffered in the final outcome....
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
a lot of talk about ''ceilings" here. back in the good old days there was service ceiling and absolute ceiling.
now a days there is maximum certified altitude. I don't have the book on the CRJ. I don't think its much of a plane in my view, but I have only flown in back and it shuddered while the pilot banked 30 degrees!
if the book says it can go to FL410 then it should have gotten there safely with the patience of the crew. as to density altitude vs pressure altitude the thing is it is so cold by the time you get up there, aren't they really pretty darn close...its not like taking off from a 6200'msl airport successfully on a cold day and falling out of the sky on a hot day.
I do know this. OFTEN manufacturers make claims that only test pilots can make happen. AND , I learned about how the portion of the engine can quit turning and make relight difficult.
So, if I were king I would limit the CRJ to 35000' lower if weight requires. AND all airplanes would have emergency glide procedures placarded on the instrument panel. AND, the AIRBUS 300 should have a placcard that says limit rudder movement to less than half throw above 150 knots.
AND
AND
AND :-)
jon
now a days there is maximum certified altitude. I don't have the book on the CRJ. I don't think its much of a plane in my view, but I have only flown in back and it shuddered while the pilot banked 30 degrees!
if the book says it can go to FL410 then it should have gotten there safely with the patience of the crew. as to density altitude vs pressure altitude the thing is it is so cold by the time you get up there, aren't they really pretty darn close...its not like taking off from a 6200'msl airport successfully on a cold day and falling out of the sky on a hot day.
I do know this. OFTEN manufacturers make claims that only test pilots can make happen. AND , I learned about how the portion of the engine can quit turning and make relight difficult.
So, if I were king I would limit the CRJ to 35000' lower if weight requires. AND all airplanes would have emergency glide procedures placarded on the instrument panel. AND, the AIRBUS 300 should have a placcard that says limit rudder movement to less than half throw above 150 knots.
AND
AND
AND :-)
jon
Read the manual dummy
In Chuck Yeager's book he mentioned how many hot shot test pilots ended up in a great smoking hole because they would not read the manual before flight. In one funny bit he describes how a buddy parked his shiny new jet in the wall of the hangar. Seems to still be happening.
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: USA
Posts: 563
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Placcards:
I once flew a deilghtful plane called the Sabreliner. Just wonderful. If I could afford a brand new one today, it would be my corporate jet of choice.
It had a placcard. "no more than half controlwheel throw above 30,000'".
I believed it and never ever went beyond half throw above 30k.
It didn't take up too much room on the instrument panel. I took it to FL450 once, autopilot inop. Very demanding but dooable. But it was like balancing a bubble on a pin.
Like I said before, I flew in the back of a CRJ and perhaps 3000'msl the pilot banked (no more than 30 degrees) and I could feel the plane shudder.
Oh well.
jon
I once flew a deilghtful plane called the Sabreliner. Just wonderful. If I could afford a brand new one today, it would be my corporate jet of choice.
It had a placcard. "no more than half controlwheel throw above 30,000'".
I believed it and never ever went beyond half throw above 30k.
It didn't take up too much room on the instrument panel. I took it to FL450 once, autopilot inop. Very demanding but dooable. But it was like balancing a bubble on a pin.
Like I said before, I flew in the back of a CRJ and perhaps 3000'msl the pilot banked (no more than 30 degrees) and I could feel the plane shudder.
Oh well.
jon