Eagle Pilot Sues Boeing

[AlbieF15]

My solution would be for Congress and the AF to take up this case...not individual lawyers. A Congressional hearing (closed door) could probably get the same effect, while at the same time preventing a host of frivolous claims in the future.

I've got 2300 hours in the jet...of course I want them to do it right. I'm on your side on that one...

 

[SIG600]

BTW SIG, Details of the ejection...

I wasn't speaking in direct reference to him, just a previous post, and commenting that the Navy actually makes us sign a waiver if you're out of MB seat limits. Thats all.

 

[bagasticks]

nor was I stating that said eagle driver wasn't a "red blooded american" my point was that he must have had reason to file suit against the manufacturer of his steed (aside from ejection being dangerous in and of itself). . .If the plane was bought off substandard than absolutely someone should be held accountable. .

 

[JungleJett]

There are a lot of guys in Viet Nam whose families should have a pretty good case against Colt (Armalite)for the poor design of the original M-16.

I too feel for the guy and pray for a full recovery. I too think this will open up a host of other potential suits.

What if this were a commercial airliner? What would the FAA do? Maybe the answer should be to park them all...indefinitely.

 

[AdlerDriver]

What if this were a commercial airliner? What would the FAA do? Maybe the answer should be to park them all...indefinitely.

Huh??

 

[JungleJett]

Huh??

What is your answer to the manufacturing flaw in the airplane? Should we allow them to continue flying and maybe not be so lucky with the next pilot. (And by saying not so lucky, I mean being killed).

If there is something wrong with the airplane, then park it until they are ALL fixed. Why risk another life?

If the FAA were to find a design flaw with a certified airplane, they would give the owner/operator a certain amount of time to fix it or ground the airplane. If it were severe enough, they would ground a fleet. It if were not serious enough and could be controlled by a limit being placed on the operation of the airplane, that would be an answer as well. Should we limit the airplanes capabilities? Say..maybe no more than 2 or 3 g's? What if Boeing were to come out with such a limitation until a solution could be had. Would that be acceptable to both the USAF and the crews that fly the airplane?

 

[AdlerDriver]

What is your answer to the manufacturing flaw in the airplane? Should we allow them to continue flying and maybe not be so lucky with the next pilot. (And by saying not so lucky, I mean being killed).

If there is something wrong with the airplane, then park it until they are ALL fixed. Why risk another life?

If the FAA were to find a design flaw with a certified airplane, they would give the owner/operator a certain amount of time to fix it or ground the airplane. If it were severe enough, they would ground a fleet. It if were not serious enough and could be controlled by a limit being placed on the operation of the airplane, that would be an answer as well. Should we limit the airplanes capabilities? Say..maybe no more than 2 or 3 g's? What if Boeing were to come out with such a limitation until a solution could be had. Would that be acceptable to both the USAF and the crews that fly the airplane?

I think you're confused about what is going on with the F-15s. They did ground them. Then they checked and found the ones with sub-standard longerons. The ones that actually cracked are not flying. The ones that haven't cracked were evaluated and put on various levels of enhanced inspection. Now that the problem is identified, no more lives will be at risk. I'd fly any of the aircraft that have been cleared to fly. The solution that was arrived at was obviously acceptable to the USAF and the pilots because the aircraft are flying again.
I'm not really sure how much this particular point relates to the original discussion.

 

[SIG600]

What if this were a commercial airliner? What would the FAA do? Maybe the answer should be to park them all...indefinitely.

Grounding a fleet of (insert airliner model here) doesn't have a direct effect on National Security.

 

[JungleJett]

Grounding a fleet of (insert airliner model here) doesn't have a direct effect on National Security.

I agree 100%...but a law suit might.

 

[coho92]

I guess if he is suing for his injury while on a military status, than of course DOD should have the right to charge him for the use of the ejection seat, helicopter transport to the hospital, and definitely ask for any pay and benefits provided while recovering from said mishap. I wasn't aware that an officer on military duty could randomly sue contractors, the SPOs, might as well go after the logistics center that did the the overhauls, defiantly local maintenance was faulty in not realizing this, if this goes through I'm hoping to make millions in pain and suffering caused by TACC but really - we're all officers who took a frick'n oath and know the risks involved flying in todays military - everybody who has been in this business for a few years knows someone who has flown west so to go and sue the aircraft manufacturer is chicken ****, that's the USAF's job not some pilots - sounds like conduct unbecoming to me so flame on

my two cents

 

[jdlilfan]

The plaintiff might have a case really. Government Contractors are shielded from liability for injuries and death to not only military personal but civilians while using their products if a design defect is found. They are not protected by the Us Gov't for manufacturing defects.

my 2 cents...

 

[atomicmatt]

Should have known he was ANG

I knew I'd get your attention. Come on, people. This jet was 27 years old and had lived most of her life in the BFM arena. I've lost several friends to accidents involving maintenance and the word "sue" has never entered into a conversation in the post mortem.

Those of us with gold wings accept the fact that this is a very dangerous business and we are much more likely to kill ourselves in the air than some engineer that designed this plane more than three decades ago. If airframe fatigue is a problem, it should have been discovered years ago during the many routine inspections that our precious Sailors, Marines, and Airmen (OK, Soldiers too, but we are talking about fighters here) make oh so many times.

 

[milky]

I am all for him getting taken care of for any long-term injuries that hinder his career earnings potential. I would hope for the same for me if it happened to me.

I am curious how Boeing is really the target of the lawsuit. The US Government bought the product. If they have an issue with a default in the contract, they should be seeking damages. As a user of the equipment, it seems to me that a pilot would only have the right to sue the owner of the equipment. The lawsuit should be against the AF for allowing pilots to fly unsafe airplanes (if that is actually the case). I don't agree with this lawsuit as the facts have been discussed here. I know he can't sue the AF, so he may be looking for somebody else to sue. I actually hope that the case is thrown out on the technicality of who is doing the suing. Then, he needs to write a letter to his congressman telling of the unsafe practices/airframes that he has experienced so that they can fix the problem. We all know how efficient that will be, but that seems to be the right process. I agree with the sentiment of most of the posters to this thread, while I do hope/pray for the most expeditious and fullest recovery of my brother in arms.

 

[Deuce130]

I.

Those of us with gold wings accept the fact that this is a very dangerous business and we are much more likely to kill ourselves in the air than some engineer that designed this plane more than three decades ago.

But guys with silver wings don't accept this? Whatever.

 

[AdlerDriver]

I knew I'd get your attention. Come on, people. This jet was 27 years old and had lived most of her life in the BFM arena.

If airframe fatigue is a problem, it should have been discovered years ago during the many routine inspections .......

Gold wings - yah... whatever.

You're entitled to your opinion but at least form it with actual facts.

The unit converted to C-models about 3 years ago and the jet lived most of "her" life on active duty. That means it's got plenty of Saudi sand in the nooks and crannies and boocoo hours in the 1990's capathon over Iraq. So your BFM theory is out.

It wasn't simple airframe fatigue. A major structural member was improperly fabricated during the initial construction of the jet. "Routine inspection" schedules are established using the specs of the aircraft. If it ain't built to those specs, how can you be so sure it would have gone the full distance between inspection cycles and have been discovered? Not to mention, the failure point is not at the "normal" high stress areas typically scrutinized during "routine inspections".