Travis Barker Blames Pilots, Equipment for Plane Crash

[flyguy75000]

Did they put out any flight data recorder or cvr info yet? How do you know they were past V1? Just curious.....didnt see anything come out, must have missed it.


***Never mind, I found it. I've been doing a great job at hiding underneath a rock for the past month.

 

[Fly91]

First off, I have never sued anyone, ever.

Secondly, if my family was killed on that airplane, I'm sure I would do the same as Barker, with the exception of Goodyear. Bombardier should be sued for that rediculous FADEC/ thrust reverser design. I'm sure that it has caused many more incidents/accidents that we haven't heard about

Yet, you and your family will continue to board airliners to travel that use the FADEC system. This is why this country is hilarious when it comes to lawsuits.

Also, you will continue to fly at your job and again travel on airliners with squat switches exposed to tire debris in the event a tire blows????? Which can disable the thrust reversers because the plane goes into air mode, just like what happened on the Barker Lear 60.

Makes no sense to be able to sue a company when you use their equipment willingly.

 

[fu69atacafyeah]

Did they put out any flight data recorder or cvr info yet? How do you know they were past V1? Just curious.....didnt see anything come out, must have missed it.

no fdr, not sure if the cvr info was put out yet...everyone has been saying this "tire blow" happened at or around v1, but i dont know where the info is coming from?

 

[Fly91]

Did they put out any flight data recorder or cvr info yet? How do you know they were past V1? Just curious.....didnt see anything come out, must have missed it.


***Never mind, I found it. I've been doing a great job at hiding underneath a rock for the past month.

This article has the official tower tapes. Its 25 minutes long and very boring with alot of dead air. Listen to the second one, its more clear. At 16:48 the tower has the first sign that something is wrong. The article says you can hear the co-pilot call, but I can't make it out.
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b69584_barker-am_crash_recordings_released.html

 

[Striptyler]

Honestly, what appalls me the most, is that a standing contract in this day and age means nothing.

When i was working charter, if you flew you Signed the LOL/LOD waivers. Even with signed consent, they would not hold up in court these days. Pretty much, as it SHOULD go, if you sign a piece of paper, that clearly states,"YOU MAY DIE" and then you do... guess what, you knew it could happen. This is why you are supposed to carry your own life and supplemental insurance.

 

[Fly91]

Honestly, what appalls me the most, is that a standing contract in this day and age means nothing.

When i was working charter, if you flew you Signed the LOL/LOD waivers. Even with signed consent, they would not hold up in court these days. Pretty much, as it SHOULD go, if you sign a piece of paper, that clearly states,"YOU MAY DIE" and then you do... guess what, you knew it could happen. This is why you are supposed to carry your own life and supplemental insurance.

You could probably make up a rock solid contract that would hold up in court, but I think that charter operator might get some bad press for doing it.

It starts out with the pathetic way this country operates and makes its laws. If you fly in planes, ride on carnival rides, drive cars, ride bikes, water ski, snow ski, parachute, etc..........and you die or get hurt doing it, you should not be able to sue anyone. Metal breaks, plastic breaks, bolts loosen and tires blow.

There is "assumption of risk" for alot of things we get hurt or killed doing, and that takes some of the blame off the manufacturers and companies. But this country is too hung up on liability. Americans talk about suing people and companies before things even happen, looking for the big pay day.

Funny.

 

[Striptyler]

as our lawyer said.. this day and age, you cannot sign away liability.

Suit will happen regardless of the contract. We were told that it pretty much wouldn't stand up, based on a claim of hardship/denial of services. If they were to show up to take, they would feel forced to sign for lack of an alternate means of transportation. Kinda like, if you wanted it to hold up, you would have to practically yell, YOU MAY DIE when they call for initial quote.

That aside, commercial airlines state limits of liability on your ticket and jacket.. most all rental contracts have an LoL statement, and i find it hard pressed to imagine that this wasn't under one.

If it was, i would hope the suit get's tossed... but it will not

 

[SansPlane]

People that get hit by a baseball at a baseball game have “assumed” risk as I understand it. I don’t know much about these rulings but found the following article that touches on the subject: Baseball Fan's Injury Lawsuit Strikes Out - [FONT=&quot]http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1133345112108[/FONT]

 

[Amish RakeFight]

People that get hit by a baseball at a baseball game have “assumed” risk as I understand it. I don’t know much about these rulings but found the following article that touches on the subject: Baseball Fan's Injury Lawsuit Strikes Out - [FONT=&quot][URL]http://www.law.com/jsp/article.jsp?id=1133345112108[/FONT][/URL]

The back of the ticket states such, I believe. Although there's a great difference between a potential injury at a ballpark and impending fatality in an airplane.

As far as assumed risk and the signing of a waiver, one should be well aware of the inherent risk involved with air travel. However, one should still be allowed to sue, as the operator may not have been operating under the agreed upon conditions set forth. If it's determined that the negligence falls on the operator or pilot, then the liability waiver is of little value as it's predicated upon the proper execution of procedures. The discovery phase of a lawsuit will permit the intrusion of legal scrutiny so as to ascertain whether the suit has merit or not based upon these circumstances.

 

[b707guy]

This whole thing, at least for Goodyear's involvement, reminds me of a great Bloom County strip where Steve Dallas was going to sue the "Nikolta" camera company for not putting stickers on their cameras warning of taking pictures of hot headed movie stars (Sean Penn in this case...) who savagely beat them up for taking their picture.

Although it does seem that the decision to reject was a poor one, we don't yet know the full story. Did the Captain feel the aircraft was incapable of flight? We may never know if the CVR didn't pick up any comments, and unfortunately, there simply isn't time for a "what was that?" conference among the crew in a case like this. We don't know what she heard, felt, or assumed. She chose to reject, with the given results. But if for some reason the aircraft was incapable of flight (maybe a determination of this has already been released?) but got airborne, everyone on board may have perished, along with any unlucky folk on the ground who may have been in the way. If that turns out to be the case, she may be lauded as a hero. All for a split second decision that none of us here were present to make.

 

[ILOVEBEER]

Yet, you and your family will continue to board airliners to travel that use the FADEC system.

Actually, I was not aware that the TR system on the Lear 60 operated the way it does, until this accident. Furthermore, I was unaware that all FADEC systems operate the TR's in the same way as the lear 60, as you infer.

squat switches exposed to tire debris in the event a tire blows????? Which can disable the thrust reversers because the plane goes into air mode, just like what happened on the Barker Lear 60.

How do you know this? Where did you read it?


.

 

[Coool Hand Luke]

"The urge to shift blame becomes even uglier when the accused has left feast."

Seems I remember that quote: Earnest Gann - The High and the Mighty?

 

[metrodriver]

If the Fadec / TR / squatswitch combination has the problem as discussed in a different thread, then the lawsuit is legit. If the tires of this series / production batch have an issue, same thing.
How worn were these tires, how were the pressures? Pilot's responsibility to inform maintenance. If one's pressure is low, which can be hard to see, there is a good chance the other one that's carrying the weight will blow. The remaining low pressure tire probably will blow too from friction, bending and heating.
Does this plane have tire pressure monitoring equipment? If not, why not?

Sometimes a lawsuit like this can lead to product improvements, something everybody will benefit from.

 

[snow-back]

It seems to me the question of whether the TRs worked or not is irrelevant. All accelerate stop data is computed giving no credit for TR use. There isn't even a takeoff penalty in the MEL (in any plane I've flown) for inop TRs. If proper SOP is followed, a go/no-go decision at V1 SHOULD result in a successful outcome.

 

[AbOvo]

As long as the brakes work and you have tires.

 

[b707guy]

Can reverse reverse thrust be selected (I presume with levers on the throttles) but not deployed in this situation, such that you get increased engine speed but with forward thrust? That's what happens in a CFM powered DC-8 anyway if you have no hydraulics.

If so, that would throw out all the runway analysis figures, as none of the analysis I'm aware of provide for any forward thrust beyond idle during a reject.

 

[CX880]

Before we all join the don't blame the pilots and screw everyone that sues band wagon, look at what he sued for. It wasn't 1.4 billion dollars for emotioinal distress. It was for 25K. Loss of pay and medical bills. You all would probably sue for more. I know I would.

 

[metrodriver]

This is from the Charter thread, posted by Basil. Read senario 3.

Quote:
Originally Posted by ~~~^~~~
What I'm really wondering, is can you get the TR handle up and in use, while the TR are actually stowed because the squat switch is damaged resulting in a false aircraft in flight signal.


If I read your question correctly, the answer is yes and no depending on the order of events. Keep in mind that the LR-60 requires that BOTH squat switches must be in the ground mode and both thrust levers must be at idle in order to ARM the T/Rs. When BOTH Thrust Reversers indicate that they are DEPLOYED, a solenoid actuated balk in the thrust lever quadrant is released and the piggybacks are free to move fullly aft beyond the idle position and command additional thrust from the FADEC.

Scenario #1 (all LR-60s)
-Aircraft on ground
-Squat Switch (either or both) damaged and now in air mode
-Thrust Levers to Idle
-No ARM for either T/R
-Piggybacks could be moved slightly aft to idle deploy position but no farther due to solenoid balk
-No movement of T/Rs and no thrust increase

Scenario #2 (pre s/n 276 and no SB 60-78-7)
-Aircraft on ground
-Thrust Levers to Idle
-Both T/Rs ARM
-Piggybacks to Idle Deploy
-FADEC moves N1 Bugs to limit available N1 based airspeed, etc
-T/Rs deploy
-Solenoid Balk released
-Squat Switch damaged=Air Mode
-T/Rs Autostow, FADEC commands Idle regardless of Thrust Lever or Piggyback position
-Solenoid Balk re-engaged
-after T/Rs stow, FADEC positions N1 bugs to Max Takeoff N1
-During the entire sequence, Thrust was at Idle because the piggybacks were never pulled aft of the idle deploy position

Scenario #3 (pre s/n 276 and no SB 60-78-7)
-Aircraft on ground
-Thrust Levers-Idle
-Both T/Rs ARM
-Piggybacks pulled to Idle Deploy
-FADEC repositions N1 bugs to Reverse schedule
-T/Rs Deploy
-Solenoid Balk Release
-Piggybacks pulled fully aft (beyond balk)
-Thrust increases to max reverse allowed by FADEC
-Squat Switch damaged=Air mode
-FADEC commands Idle and T/Rs autostow
-Engines reduce thrust to idle
-Solenoid Balk re-engages, but piggybacks are already aft of balk
-After T/Rs stow, FADEC repositions N1 bugs to computed Takeoff N1.
-Engines accelerate toward Takeoff N1, though may not actually achieve it. I suspect that you could expect around 90% N1. Note the the FADEC cannot distinguish between Thrust Lever versus Piggyback movement. The FADEC receives an input from a rotary switch in the thrust lever quadrant which is moved by both the thrust lever and piggybacks.

Scenario #4 (s/n 276-ish and up or aircraft with SB 60-78-7 [includes N999LJ based on s/n])
-Aircraft on ground
-Thrust Levers-Idle
-Both T/Rs ARM
-Piggybacks pulled to Idle Deploy
-FADEC repositions N1 bugs to Reverse schedule
-T/Rs Deploy
-Solenoid Balk Release
-Piggybacks pulled fully aft (beyond balk)
-Thrust increases to max reverse allowed by FADEC
-Squat Switch damaged=Air mode
-Thrust Reversers are receiving an input from wheel speed detect box (originally used for Autospoilers) and disregard the squat switch air mode input, thereby remaining deployed. This was a result of the N1DC accident in which the T/Rs stowed after the aircraft struck deer on rwy and damaged squat switch, creating a "scenario #3" event.

I think that what doomed N999LJ was that somehow the wheels locked up, thereby nullifying the protection that the wheel speed detect box provides to the T/Rs to prevent on-ground autostow when the wheels are spinning. This lockup could have been caused by the loss of antiskid associated with the failure of a squat switch or the loss of antiskid from use of emergency brakes. This would effectively make N999LJ a "Scenario #3" aircraft.

 

[Fly91]

It seems to me the question of whether the TRs worked or not is irrelevant. All accelerate stop data is computed giving no credit for TR use. There isn't even a takeoff penalty in the MEL (in any plane I've flown) for inop TRs. If proper SOP is followed, a go/no-go decision at V1 SHOULD result in a successful outcome.

But when you abort beyond V1......all the ACC/STOP numbers go out the window. If you're not on a 13,000 foot runway, you're going off the end with no tires, brakes or reversers and a max gross take-off situation.

 

[snow-back]

But when you abort beyond V1......all the ACC/STOP numbers go out the window. If you're not on a 13,000 foot runway, you're going off the end with no tires, brakes or reversers and a max gross take-off situation.

Exactly! Notice I mentioned "proper SOP".