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.