Travis Barker Blames Pilots, Equipment for Plane Crash

[siucavflight]

Fly, they do not know the cause yet, what if it turns out that the tires were to blame, along with Lear, and the crew?

 

[Fly91]

Fly, they do not know the cause yet, what if it turns out that the tires were to blame, along with Lear, and the crew?

You're right, we don't know.

Its gonna be kind of hard to prove defective tires, thery're melted in the fire and there's millions of pieces of them all over the runway. To blame Bombardier/Lear for a bad design or a flaw is not worth talking about, its just ridiculous. They have half a century of success with that landing gear/brake set-up already.

I suppose any attorney can simply say that squat switch wires should have titanium shielding around them, and bang, give Travis and the others who are suing millions of dollars. Great! This country will become worse than it was before the crash, certainly not better.

Oh well, guess we'll see.

 

[siucavflight]

Our countrys condition will not change one bit regardless of the outcome of the suit.

 

[Freight Dog]

Fly, I don't disagree with you on any point, but I was just making an observation that most attorneys would probably tell you to sue everybody - spray and pray... and if you said no... just the crew - they'd tell you to pound sand because now you, non-lawyer, are telling them how to do their job.

 

[Fly91]

Our countrys condition will not change one bit regardless of the outcome of the suit.

Thats not true. And this is perhaps the best example of how lawsuits can bring an industry down. Why do you think everything in aviation is so expensive? Because of the liability attached to it, every aircraft part costs 10-20-30 times more than it should cost. Lawsuits 100% DIRECTLY effect aviation every time there's a lawsuit and some person gets $20 million because they survived an airline accident but got hurt, or some family collects $20 million because a loved one died. Pathetic. We ordered a windshield for a Lear 35 about 6 months ago, the damn thing was like $24,000, one side!!!! 15 years ago, that same exact windshield was $5,000. Why? Certainly not from inflation, its all from the built-in insurance liability insurance premiums that keep rising every year. And don't tell me I'm wrong, the pilot that owns that Lear with the windshield has been in the aviation insurance business and 135 charter business for 40 years, he knows what he's talking about. He's the same one that had a Lear operating out of Indonesia. I personally flew a part for the Concord from MIA to JFK back in 1999, the damn part was for the landing gear. It fit in a cigar box and weighed about 1 pound. It cost $30,000. I could fabricate that part in my friends workshop at his house in about 2 hours and it would do the same job. Its LIABILITY. If that part broke and caused an accident, everyone on that plane would be looking for a payday, YET every one of those poeple, YOU INCLUDED, continue to board airliners knowing full well that any one of the thousands of fixed parts and/or moving parts can fail and you will be dead in a smoking hole in the ground. Then when something happens, everyone boo-hoos and cries and runs to their attorneys. Sue, sue, sue. Pathetic x 100!!! Other countries around the world limit the amount someone can collect when someone dies because it will not change the outcome of that death or injury. If $50 million could bring that person back, great, lets do it.

Bottom line: Human negligence or stupidity should certainly be persued via lawsuits though. Humans can change outcomes by their actions. A metal part, a rubber tire, a wire, a light bulb, a brake line, an entire wing.....these things WILL continue to fail forever and ever, period. If you can't except the consequences in doing something that humans were not meant to do (fly up in the air at 500 mph), then don't do it. If a person, who has an operating brain does something that disfigures me or kills me, they should be held responsible. Man made things fail, man can fail, but when man screws up by doing something they know is wrong or deviates from procedure.....they need to be held accountable.

You're right, the final report is not out yet. But we all know what happened.

 

[Fly91]

Fly, I don't disagree with you on any point, but I was just making an observation that most attorneys would probably tell you to sue everybody - spray and pray... and if you said no... just the crew - they'd tell you to pound sand because now you, non-lawyer, are telling them how to do their job.

Attorneys work for you and me, you tell them what to do. There's not an attorney in the country that would turn this case down if you said you just want to go after the insurance companies of the charter companies. Those companies are probably covered to at least $100 million combined...Travis WILL collect money from them. ((Hopefully the jury only awards him according to his injuries though, if he can still play drums and have a normal life, he better not get millions)) You think an attorney is going to pass up 30%-40% of that settlement. Its guaranteed money. Guaranteed!!!!!!! There attorneys know, right now today, that in about a year or so, they will be depositing a load of cash into their bank accounts. You think their going to pass and hope a better case walks through their door with a better case, no way. The Travis case is an open and shut case, it should never go to trial and very well could be over a couple weeks after the final report and cause comes out.

 

[AviateYou]

How about Tort Reform and liability limits on personal injury and medical malpractice lawsuits?

Some interesting comments here but wouldn't we all be better served by presenting this argument to our elected officials and creating a bill and getting it passed. Seriously.

 

[Fly91]

How about Tort Reform and liability limits on personal injury and medical malpractice lawsuits?

Some interesting comments here but wouldn't we all be better served by presenting this argument to our elected officials and creating a bill and getting it passed. Seriously.

Oh, thats right, our government, which works for the people.....thats the most hilarious thing I've heard in my life.

Yeah, I'll shoot an email off tonight to my congressman, all should be wonderful next week.

C'mon, I'm actually too tired tonight to laugh.

 

[AviateYou]

Oh, thats right, our government, which works for the people.....thats the most hilarious thing I've heard in my life.

Yeah, I'll shoot an email off tonight to my congressman, all should be wonderful next week.

C'mon, I'm actually too tired tonight to laugh.

Than quit whining. Nobody expects anything constructive from you anyway FLY91.

 

[Fly91]

Than quit whining. Nobody expects anything constructive from you anyway FLY91.

Who's whining, we're talking about lawsuits.

I think you telling us to write our elected corrupt officials is pretty useless information. Not too constructive.

 

[LJ45]

he will get millions!!! for the pain of burns, all the surgery's required to correct the skin and permanent scarring and pain. If there ever was an open and shut case this is one.
If you think it will settle in a couple of weeks you are kidding yourself. The lawyers will drag it out right before trial to rack up fees and continue the constant negotiation between parties.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Ford Pinto

We should adopt laws from other countries regarding accidental death. $500 maximum award per person, like they have in some Indonesian countries.

This comment reminds me of the Ford Pinto from years ago. Their insurance actuaries calculated that it would be cheaper (more profitable) to let people die, sue and pay out than announce a recall to retrofit the vehicle with an $11 part. Yep. $11 dollars. Much cheaper to have passengers perish due to a minor oversight and sue than it was to replace this part. The actuaries figured that the likelihood of a specific type crash (rear end - fuel bladder too close to the bumper) where the occupants were trapped and perished was less expensive than preventing imminent death due to their own design flaws.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

Through early production of the model, it became a focus of a major scandal when it was alleged that the car's design allowed its fuel tank to be easily damaged in the event of a rear-end collision which sometimes resulted in deadly fires and explosions. Critics argued that the vehicle's lack of a true rear bumper as well as any reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank, meant that in certain collisions, the tank would be thrust forward into the differential, which had a number of protruding bolts that could puncture the tank. This, and the fact that the doors could potentially jam during an accident (due to poor reinforcing) made the car a potential deathtrap.

Ford was aware of this design flaw but allegedly refused to pay what was characterized as the minimal expense of a redesign. Instead, it was argued, Ford decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. Mother Jones magazine obtained the cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of an $11 ($57 today, allowing for inflation) repair against the cost of paying off potential law suits, in what became known as the Ford Pinto memo.[4][5] The characterization of Ford's design decision as gross disregard for human lives in favor of profits led to major lawsuits, criminal charges, and a costly recall of all affected Pintos. While Ford was acquitted of criminal charges, it lost several million dollars and gained a reputation for manufacturing "the barbecue that seats four."[6] Nevertheless, as a result of this identified problem, Ford initiated a recall which provided a dealer installable "safety kit" that installed some plastic protective material over the offending sharp objects, negating the risk of tank puncture."[7]

 

[Fly91]

This comment reminds me of the Ford Pinto from years ago. Their insurance actuaries calculated that it would be cheaper (more profitable) to let people die, sue and pay out than announce a recall to retrofit the vehicle with an $11 part. Yep. $11 dollars. Much cheaper to have passengers perish due to a minor oversight and sue than it was to replace this part. The actuaries figured that the likelihood of a specific type crash (rear end - fuel bladder too close to the bumper) where the occupants were trapped and perished was less expensive than preventing imminent death due to their own design flaws.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Pinto

That is a design flaw and gross negligence, AGAIN, on the part of HUMANS by NOT recalling the car.

They are responsible for the Pinto problem.

But to say the Lear has a design flaw is pretty stupid for anyone with half a brain to say. There's no way they will prove a design flaw in that 50 year old landing gear system.

 

[Fly91]

he will get millions!!! for the pain of burns, all the surgery's required to correct the skin and permanent scarring and pain. If there ever was an open and shut case this is one.
If you think it will settle in a couple of weeks you are kidding yourself. The lawyers will drag it out right before trial to rack up fees and continue the constant negotiation between parties.

Thats what I'm thinking....millions!!! Many settlements have happened in 2-3 weeks after final reports of accidents come out, if the settlement offers are big enough or fair enough from the insurance companies, and excepted by the plaintiffs, they're done.

But not from GY or Bombardier, at least I sure as hell hope not.

 

[LJ45]

If I had to guess the lawyers will say...

1. operator liable for not maintain and inspecting tires properly (contributing factor in accident) I am sure Goodyear will get some of this blame due to the deep pockets.

2. Bombardier and Pratt Whitney liable for a system which can allow forward thrust when the pilots are trying to use the piggybacks and the TR self stow. ( contributing factor in another Lear 60 landing accident, changes made but seems to have allowed for the same situation)

3. operator liable for inexperience captain which did recognize condition stated in # 2 and aborted too late.

JMHO

 

[Amish RakeFight]

That is a design flaw and gross negligence, AGAIN, on the part of HUMANS by NOT recalling the car.

They are responsible for the Pinto problem.

But to say the Lear has a design flaw is pretty stupid for anyone with half a brain to say. There's no way they will prove a design flaw in that 50 year old landing gear system.

I'm not saying that there's a design flaw. Just remarking on your $500 assessment of human life. Agreeably, one has to draw the line on human compensation, but $500? Reminded me of the Pinto actuaries.

 

[b707guy]

This comment reminds me of the Ford Pinto from years ago.

And a great scene from the movie "Top Secret" involving use of an exploding Pinto to escape the bad guys.

Apparently the litigation (or the loss of face in the industry...) resulted in some improvements for the last generation of Pintos. I got rear-ended while sitting at a red light in a 1980 Pinto wagon delivery car for the pharmacy where I worked at the time. I hit the car in front of me, and he hit the truck in front of him. The car that hit me, an early '70s Chevelle, hit the bumper first, bounced up and tore into the car above the bumper. You could tell where it hit the bumper, but it did it's job! The car was practically new, so it wasn't totaled, but it was out of commission for a few weeks for repair.

Don't think that history will help Lear or Goodyear in this case, though.

 

[Fly91]

If I had to guess the lawyers will say...

1. operator liable for not maintain and inspecting tires properly (contributing factor in accident) I am sure Goodyear will get some of this blame due to the deep pockets.

2. Bombardier and Pratt Whitney liable for a system which can allow forward thrust when the pilots are trying to use the piggybacks and the TR self stow. ( contributing factor in another Lear 60 landing accident, changes made but seems to have allowed for the same situation)

3. operator liable for inexperience captain which did recognize condition stated in # 2 and aborted too late.

JMHO

I agree.

But for #1 above, its going to be impossible to prove the crew DID NOT properly inspect/pre-flight the plane and its tires prior to flight. A piece of debris on the runway could have caused the tire to blow. If I was a juror, I would need 100% proof that the tires were defective to award them a dime from GY. I would also need 100% proof that the crew DID NOT visually inspect the tires, but if we had that proof it goes to more pilot error, not a GY issue. All thats required from an operator to maintain and inspect tires is to buy them, bolt them on, and have the pilot(s) visually look at them prior to each flight. Until the FAA requires x-ray inspection of aircraft tires before each flight, visual walk-arounds and making sure the tire is not flat before flight is proper.

As for #2, they should hit Travis with at least an 85% "assumption of risk" for getting on a plane to fly it into the air. So whatever the award might be from Bombardier, he gets 15% only. Anyone that boards a plane knows they can die minutes later. And any fool that knows just a little bit about planes, also knows that there can be many improvements for safety to every plane out there. Economics and the quest for profits keeps those improvements from happening.

#3, 100% liability there, no way around it.

 

[SansPlane]

In a case like this, no defendant gets out for free if the plaintiffs attorneys are doing their jobs. Additionally I would argue that if the case settles to far ahead of the court date, they are not doing their job. If the case settles while they are picking a jury, all the better. Of course this is simplistic but I am sure you get the idea.

 

[av8orboy]

What a loser...and the lawyer too.

 

[Fly91]

In a case like this, no defendant gets out for free if the plaintiffs attorneys are doing their jobs.

Thats ridiculous to say. That would mean everyone that sues a company for anything, gets money from them, as long as the attorney does his job.

Companies get released from being liable every day in this country. I don;t care what dream team you have, there isn't always 100% fault to be found. Scumbag attorneys will try and make up things and have expert witnesses lie and/or say to the jury what they tell them to say, but it does not always work.

I just hope like hell GY gets released from this suit, they really should. Bombardier, yeah, an attorney can probably get a few people on the jury to see something could have been designed better. The same jurors that will continue to fly on planes with the same exact set-ups and with the same exact exposed squat switches.

Its going to be a sh11ty day in this country if Travis gets a dime from either GY or Bombardier. Every pilot and aviation company will be effected by it, in the long run.

 

[Fly91]

What a loser...and the lawyer too.

Yup, Travis is nothing but a gutter trash loser with talent to play the drums. And attorneys are just the scumbags that take advantage of perhaps the worst judicial system in the world.

(for the internet nuthuggers): I know some countries have much worse judicial systems, the system we have here though, is a hilarious joke in many many ways. Definitely one of the worst in allot of ways.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Well said!
:0

 

[SansPlane]

Fly91 or should I say FlyOffTheHandle? First off, I said a case like this. Second, like it or not a burn victim is a sympathetic plaintiff weather you like him or not. And third, yes defendants are released from suits every day but I would not wager any defendants getting off in this one. Litigious cases/issues are more often settled than tried.

My comment ridiculous? Well KMA. JK Why don’t you sign Travis up for Mona Vie? Doesn’t that stuff have healing properties or enable one to turn back time once fully imbibed so they can change the course of the future and past simultaneously? [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Fly91]

Fly91 or should I say FlyOffTheHandle? First off, I said a case like this. Second, like it or not a burn victim is a sympathetic plaintiff weather you like him or not. And third, yes defendants are released from suits every day but I would not wager any defendants getting off in this one. Litigious cases/issues are more often settled than tried.

My comment ridiculous? Well KMA. JK Why don’t you sign Travis up for Mona Vie? Doesn’t that stuff have healing properties or enable one to turn back time once fully imbibed so they can change the course of the future and past simultaneously? [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

GY should get a pass. But since they're so big, they'll probably just cut a check and not give a damn. Bombardier might not get a pass, but it would be bullsh1t if they had to pay anything. If they settle out of court it will shoot out a big neon sign, world-wide, saying "our planes are designed poorly, don't fly on them." I'm a big believer in "assumption of risk". If you go to a carnival and a ride comes apart and you break your neck, too bad. You went on a friggin carnival ride!!!!! A ride run by a bunch of toothless, high school drop-out bearded freaks with three tits, that can't add or subtract. Why should someone get millions???? Something, yes, just because....but certainly don't set people up for life and set up their children and their children, all in one lawsuit, thats bullsh1t. Same thing with planes, if you don't want to "assume the risk" of what can happen, take a car or a bus. After all, a bus is really the safest form of travel. If someone doesn't like machines, walk! Don't make this country worse than it is and sue for millions just because you think they'll settle out of court.

Look, its the American way, lawsuits will continue as the nations favorite pass time until laws are changed. So Travis, thanks for weakening a country one lawsuit at a time.

I think Mona-Vie will actually remove 3rd degree burn scars, overnight. But you have to sign up with me to get that special juice.

 

[Basil]

If I had to guess the lawyers will say...

1. operator liable for not maintain and inspecting tires properly (contributing factor in accident) I am sure Goodyear will get some of this blame due to the deep pockets.

2. Bombardier and Pratt Whitney liable for a system which can allow forward thrust when the pilots are trying to use the piggybacks and the TR self stow. ( contributing factor in another Lear 60 landing accident, changes made but seems to have allowed for the same situation)

3. operator liable for inexperience captain which did recognize condition stated in # 2 and aborted too late.

JMHO

Lots of attention has been focused on Bombardier and Goodyear...anybody think that the Training Provider (be it FlightSafety, Simuflight, etc) might have some liability in this? Bombardier and Goodyear may be liable for the event happening as it did due to system or component design, but the crew and their training is responsible for the handling of the event.

"Mr. Sim Instructor....Your company motto is The Best Safety Device is a Well-Trained Crew. I see from the training records that you never trained nor evaluated a Tire Failure/Squat Switch Failure/Loss of Antiskid/TR Autostow sequence at V1...tell the jury why you overlooked this known flaw in the Lear-60, blah blah blah..."

Also, does anybody know if the survivors say that they received a safety-briefing from the crew prior to the flight? I imagine that the CVR may have captured it if it happened.

"Mr Director of Ops, why did your crew fail to give a safety-briefing? My client would not have been burned as badly had he known the location of the fire extinguishers and how to open the door quickly."

I imagine that there will be more parties named in this suit, right or wrong.

 

[Fly91]

Lots of attention has been focused on Bombardier and Goodyear...anybody think that the Training Provider (be it FlightSafety, Simuflight, etc) might have some liability in this? Bombardier and Goodyear may be liable for the event happening as it did due to system or component design, but the crew and their training is responsible for the handling of the event.

"Mr. Sim Instructor....Your company motto is The Best Safety Device is a Well-Trained Crew. I see from the training records that you never trained nor evaluated a Tire Failure/Squat Switch Failure/Loss of Antiskid/TR Autostow sequence at V1...tell the jury why you overlooked this known flaw in the Lear-60, blah blah blah..."

Also, does anybody know if the survivors say that they received a safety-briefing from the crew prior to the flight? I imagine that the CVR may have captured it if it happened.

"Mr Director of Ops, why did your crew fail to give a safety-briefing? My client would not have been burned as badly had he known the location of the fire extinguishers and how to open the door quickly."

I imagine that there will be more parties named in this suit, right or wrong.

I suppose. And thats my point, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. LIke I said earlier in this thread, Travis and the other plaintiffs can sue many different people or entities, its just how far should this lawsuit sport go. How much money is enough for these plaintiffs. Why not just let them own GY and Bombardier, give them ownership in FSI or Simu and give them $100 million. Pathetic.

MORE BULLSH1T:
How about the news today on FOX. Some girl at a bar somewhere drinking it up, stands right next to the bar as a bartender takes a mouthful of Bacardi 151 and blows a flame across 4-5 other glasses with a Bacardi 151 floater on top of each. As he blows it the 151 bottle falls over and the lady get sprayed with flaming 151 on her face, hands and arms. 3rd dergree burns. Again, "assumption of risk" is there, this bar does this 20 times a night, every night, its known by everyone that goes there. Plus, she stood there with a stupid drunk smile on her face watching him do it. Well, she can sue the bartender, HUMAN NEGLIGENCE, and the bar itself for allowing their bartenders to do it. But......this stupid biatch is filing a lawsuit against Bacardi...hahahahahahahahaha.
What a scumbag. Assumption of risk is written all over her burnt face and she was drinking, and she stood right there to watch. She says the Bacardi should not be flammable, yet the dumb azz has been drinking it forever.
I guess if a gas station has an explosion because they didn't keep their wiring in good condition and it sparked somewhere, and you got burned real bad, we can sue whoever sold that "flammable" gas to them and get $1 billion from the Kuwaiti government.