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 . . . |
|
that's a large opening alright.
|
That chap would make an excellent Daily Mail writer.
|
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? |
Originally Posted by KelvinD
(Post 10370240)
So what aircraft was this bloke really on?
That's the aircraft in the cockpit photo - United fleet number 6460, Selcal CF-AR. |
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"!
|
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?
|
Originally Posted by BoostTheBoost
(Post 10370366)
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?
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 ? |
Well, those are quite the bombastic accusations. :rolleyes: Never pass up the chance to extort a few bucks from an airline.
|
Originally Posted by HarryMann
(Post 10370417)
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 ? A sideswindow is another issue where pilot could be popped out ( and has happened ) |
Originally Posted by CONSO
(Post 10370847)
of course there is the outside air Pressure pushing inward due to a speed of several hundred miles/hour
|
Originally Posted by DaveReidUK
(Post 10370874)
That's one of the terms in the calculation that you quoted from.
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" |
|
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......) |
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
|
Originally Posted by homonculus
(Post 10371210)
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
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. |
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.
|
Originally Posted by rotornut
(Post 10372008)
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.
|
Originally Posted by rotornut
(Post 10372008)
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.
|
All times are GMT. The time now is 23:48. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.