Lawsuit alleges UAL cover-up of mid-air incident
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: In a Pineapple Under the Sea
Age: 61
Posts: 149
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Lawsuit alleges UAL cover-up of mid-air incident
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/laws...030536011.html
Lawsuit can be found here: https://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2019/0...0Complaint.pdf
Looks like the plaintiff wants to get paid because he is too afraid to fly . . .
Lawsuit alleges United cover-up windshield incident on UA 931 (ORD-LHR) - October 27, 2018
https://www.yahoo.com/lifestyle/laws...030536011.html
Lawsuit can be found here: https://ww1.prweb.com/prfiles/2019/0...0Complaint.pdf
Looks like the plaintiff wants to get paid because he is too afraid to fly . . .
Last edited by WillFlyForCheese; 25th Jan 2019 at 00:37.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,899
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
More here: UNITED FUBAR NEWFOUNDLAND
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Hampshire
Age: 76
Posts: 821
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Surrey
Age: 67
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Herts, UK
Posts: 748
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
Never pass up the chance to extort a few bucks from an airline.
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 ?
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 ?
A sideswindow is another issue where pilot could be popped out ( and has happened )
Join Date: Mar 2014
Location: WA STATE
Age: 78
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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"
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"
Last edited by CONSO; 26th Jan 2019 at 06:12. Reason: explain further
Also don’t forget Captain Tim Lancaster’s little event.
(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......)
(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......)
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
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
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.
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Potomac Heights
Posts: 470
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Texas, like a whole other country
Posts: 444
Likes: 0
Received 2 Likes
on
1 Post
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?
