Another frivolous lawsuit against Bombardier

KISS_MY_TCAS · Post by **KISS_MY_TCAS** » Tue Jan 10, 2006 11:48 pm

Remember the Pinnacle Airways pilots that were repositioning and decided to see what thier RJ could do? After hitting FL410, flaming out and having the engines core-lock which in turn caused them to plummet to thier deaths, lawsuits have been filed against Bombardier and General Electric. Keep in mind that while trying to make it to the "410 club", the stick shaker activated 3 times, and the stick pusher activated as well. They were showing 150ias when they finally made it to 410 after over-riding the stall warnings, and thier high angle of attack is what caused the engines to flame out when they attempted to level off. The lawsuit alleges the fatal crash was due to defective parts and a badly maintained aircraft. Also named in the suit are Honeywell International, Northwest Airlines, KGS Electronics and Parker Hannafin Corp.
http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/060110/b011070.html

WJflyer · Post by **WJflyer** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 1:57 am

And explain why were they flying at max operating altitude? They were goofing off?

KISS_MY_TCAS · Post by **KISS_MY_TCAS** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 7:41 am

Yes, they were goofing off. It is well known that both pilots were on a mission to see how well the plane could perform since they were repositioning an empty airplane, perfect opportunity. Interesting article published in Popular Mechanics about what happened during the climb and fall of the plane. 3 page article can be read here: http://www.popularmechanics.com/science ... 56137.html

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:00 am

The lawsuit is nothing but BS and American protectionism. Foreign built commuter airplanes arent up to airline standards - so if some airbus drivers had done it the lawyers wouldnt have filed?

and why the hell would you use autopilot, you know your gonna be on the limits wouldnt you want to feel the control inputs

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 11:15 am

I think it's a legit lawsuit, all manufacturers should have a self destruct mechanism, once you go over any limit it just explodes... =)

Bede · Post by **Bede** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:08 pm

CYYZ:

When you fly an aircraft outside of operating limits, the consitutes negligence. Min climb for the CRJ is M.70. When you're at M.50 at 410, you're asking for trouble.

P.S. I like your aviatar. As for WJFlyer's avitar, isn't that a bit ironic, being in Calgary, and all, no union, etc.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:15 pm

Bede wrote:P.S. I like your aviatar. As for WJFlyer's avitar, isn't that a bit ironic, being in Calgary, and all, no union, etc.

When you fly an aircraft outside of operating limits, the consitutes negligence.

Lol.. =)

No, I agree it's negligence, so it has a self destruct button to just blow up so the lawyers can't say "oh they died cause they crashed." The manufacturers will be able to state, "nope systems were working perfectly, they broke the rules and it exploded."

And pilots would be able to tell operators, I'm not going in an over weight plane cause it'll explode.. =)

So it's a win win situation for everyone... Well except for operators... Oh and lawyers...

Flying Low · Post by **Flying Low** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 12:35 pm

Wow...I'd like to say, after reading that article, that this lawsuit will get thrown out in the preliminary stages...but then I remember we are talking about the US where no one, apparently, is responsible for their own actions.

Localizer · Post by **Localizer** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 3:47 pm

Hey ...

If an old lady can spill hot coffee on herself and file against McDonalds for not having a "caution hot" lable on the cup .. anything is possible!

Awarded - $400,000.00

A couple sued Chrylser Corp because the pickup truck they purchased burnt out its motor trying to tow their trailers that were beyond the capacity of the truck, and because of that lost there postion in the travelling road show .. Their argument .. on the commercials Chrysler shows there truck pulling trees out of the ground and dragging boulders.

Awarded - $1.2 Million

skyhigh · Post by **skyhigh** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 4:03 pm

another reason that lawyers are doomed to an eternity in hell.

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 9:21 pm

Localizer wrote:Hey ...

If an old lady can spill hot coffee on herself and file against McDonalds for not having a "caution hot" lable on the cup .. anything is possible!

Awarded - $400,000.00

A couple sued Chrylser Corp because the pickup truck they purchased burnt out its motor trying to tow their trailers that were beyond the capacity of the truck, and because of that lost there postion in the travelling road show .. Their argument .. on the commercials Chrysler shows there truck pulling trees out of the ground and dragging boulders.

Awarded - $1.2 Million

Those are a bunch of hooey stories churned out by the media. First of all, even when these people win their cases, they rarely ever see a penny of their winnings due to the endless appeals, and legal fees involved to fight the battle. Secondly, I know for certain that the case of the woman spilling coffe on herself, the decision was overturned in appeal, and guess who is stuck with the lawyer fees. The woman was probably $400 000 in the hole when all was said and done.

It is true that the US is a very litigous society, however the only way to win anything is if you're a big player. One must have deep pockets to sue, and one must have deep pockets to loose. One cannot loose money they do not have.

ZLIN 142C · Post by **ZLIN 142C** » Wed Jan 11, 2006 10:52 pm

Good point, but since only the lottery-like windfall lawsuits seem to be newsworthy, plenty of people are willing to take the chance, reasoning that they don't have much to lose (blood from a stone, right?) and the payoff might just be huge. Lawsuits have done immeasurable damage to aviation. Perhaps flying should be deemed "inherently dangerous" despite all the statistical evidence to the contrary, and all airline passengers should be made to sign a liability waiver. As for suing Bombardier, that's ridiculous. But, as in all such actions, they will spend a fortune defending themselves and even if they get it dismissed outright, the lawyers will still profit. As they always do.

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 6:49 pm

i rember seeing a news sorty on a lawyer who insured his collection of cigars. The policy was really good and even included fire loss. He smkoed them then made a clain that the cigars were lost during "a series of small fires"

The insurance company rfused to pay and it went to court. The lawyer wow b/c the insurance company was dumb enough to carry fire loss and not specify what kind of fire he got like 40,000

Now the best part. As he was leaving the court the lawyer was arrested for 24 counts of arson.

plus destruction of property

ZLIN 142C · Post by **ZLIN 142C** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:23 pm

That's funny as hell!

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Thu Jan 12, 2006 11:34 pm

Edo wrote:The insurance company rfused to pay and it went to court. The lawyer wow b/c the insurance company was dumb enough to carry fire loss and not specify what kind of fire he got like 40,000

Now the best part. As he was leaving the court the lawyer was arrested for 24 counts of arson. plus destruction of property

That's an urban legend....

http://urbanlegends.about.com/library/blcigar.htm

http://www.snopes.com/crime/clever/cigarson.asp

Edo · Post by **Edo** » Fri Jan 13, 2006 1:02 am

well i guess that why everyone make you post CARS references, aviation has made us all into lawyers cite the source