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.