Travis Barker Blames Pilots, Equipment for Plane Crash

[regionalcap]

Travis Barker Blames Pilots, Equipment for Plane Crash

By Mike Fleeman
Originally posted Friday November 21, 2008 08:00 PM EST


tiiQuigoWriteAd(757767, 1348086, 240, 190, -1);
Travis Barker has filed a lawsuit blaming the pilots and defective equipment for a plane crash that severely injured the rocker and DJ AM and killed four others.

The L.A. Superior Court lawsuit, also filed Friday by the mother of Barker's bodyguard, Charles "Che" Still, who died in the crash, alleges the pilots "negligently decided to abort" the takeoff when the Learjet's tires failed in September at an airport in Columbia, S.C.

"The pilots were either poorly trained and/or failed to follow their training," the suit says. "The pilots' decision was a breach of their duty owed to the passengers onboard and was a substantial factor in causing the crash and resultant injuries and deaths."

Pilot Sarah Lemmon, 31, and co-pilot James Bland, 52, were killed in the crash, as were Barker's assistant Chris Baker, 29, and Still, 25.

The lawsuit also alleges that one or more of the tires failed, "leaving tire debris and portions of airplane components along the 8,600-foot runaway" and that the plane's landing gear, tires, wheels, brakes, reverse thrust system, and squat switches "were not airworthy."

Barker, who is recovering from severe burns, is claiming the crash caused him pain and suffering, mental anguish, psychological and emotional distress, disfigurement, loss of earnings capacity and medical expenses.

Federal aviation officials are focusing on bare tires and debris on the runway as the causes of the crash. The National Transportation Safety Board says the wheels had very little rubber remaining and its brakes were severely damaged.

The lawsuit names as defendants Clay Lacy Aviation, Global Executive Aviation, Inter Travel and Services, Goodyear Tire and Rubber and Bombardier Inc.

 

[Bobkat0001]

Di%k!!!

 

[Spoolingbyu]

Way to go Barker you are a class act.

 

[say again]

Idiots!! Atleast wait until the final report comes out about the crash, instead of making accusations that can't be proven yet.

 

[HalinTexas]

Well, that is their right. They don't need to wait, don't have to wait. They just need enough evidence.

Now, if the defendants are declared liable by a jury, are they still idiots?

Of course, there's no way that pilots make errors.

 

[Fly91]

Well, that is their right. They don't need to wait, don't have to wait. They just need enough evidence.

Now, if the defendants are declared liable by a jury, are they still idiots?

Of course, there's no way that pilots make errors.

Agreed.

As much as I HATE people in this country who just get "sue" happy, lawsuits do have their place. Any of you guys here would have a team of lawyers assembled if your mother, father, daughter, son, etc were killed on that plane. Tell me differently and you're a liar. However, them suing Goodyear and Bombardier is a joke, but to sue the pilot(s) who made the bad decision and the company(s) who employed them is perfectly legit. Even suing the companies is a stretch, they're not in the cockpit making decisions and they send their pilots to school to learn proper procedures. But you know Americans, "Sue Everybody." If it turns out, from the official report, that they made a bad decision to abort at that speed, ((which it will)), they will settle out of court with whoever they choose to sue. Except Goodyear and Bombardier, they did nothing wrong. If I was on that jury I would vote that they don't get a red cent from those two companies. If they think Goodyear and Bombardier are to partially blame for an accident, they should never step on a Bombardier plane or a plane that uses Goodyear products. Its after an accident when people claim products are to blame, but they use them for decades before the accident. To sue a person for negligence is much more appropriate.

You can bet your azz that the lawyers already have statements from whichever sim schools they attended and were told that they should have continued the take-off into the air. If the lawyers are real good they also have a few expert aviation witnesses that have told them the same thing. Done deal, the lawsuit was filed.

Its been long enough to figure out that the captain made a bad decision to abort when she did. People are dead and a couple are disfigured for life because of her bad decision.

Just because we're a bunch of pilots here should not automatically mean because the dead people and the disfigured people "are not" pilots, that they are the idiots. There are hundreds of incompetent, idiot pilots flying out there every day. Why is everyone so fast to just simply back pilots when an accident happens? Pilot error is what, the cause of 85% of accidents? Call it like it is. Doing anything else is BS and doesn't help the future of aviation.

"B-J-J Fighter",
That was an uncool statement though.

 

[LRvsH25B]

Well, that's just it. Let's cut to the chase here; looks like the PF really fukced up here. That is what it is. She fukced up. NTSB has said the tired burst at calculated V1. The figure is computed for a reason. If it blew at V1, then in the 60, you're well past V1 when you realize it blew. To simply ignore that data, and assume you can stop the airplane gets you what they got. 1/2 the tires on that overpowered tube can blow, and the 60 will still takeoff, no problem. Why Bombardier and Goodyear are named is no surprise. They have deep pockets. Clearly they had nothing to do with this, but they'll have to put up with this as well. I hope that portion of the suit is dismissed.

Well, that is their right. They don't need to wait, don't have to wait. They just need enough evidence.

Now, if the defendants are declared liable by a jury, are they still idiots?

Of course, there's no way that pilots make errors.

 

[Igor]

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

 

[say again]

Well, that is their right. They don't need to wait, don't have to wait. They just need enough evidence.

Now, if the defendants are declared liable by a jury, are they still idiots?

Of course, there's no way that pilots make errors.

Of course it's their right, never said it wasn't. If the defendants are declared liable by a jury without the final facts, then the jury should join the idiot pool too. Look, I believe he should get some money, just find out who to sue first before naming everyone in the lawsuit, that's all!!

 

[Princedietrich]

It's not entirely unlikely that he doesn't even know who's being named in the lawsuit. It may be his lawyer sending out the papers in a shotgun blast to find out what he'll hit.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Of course he/his atty filed a lawsuit. 99% would after what transpired. What did you expect. No surprise the two manufacturers are being included. Litigation goes after the deep pockets. Shoot for the moon and land on the stars. They need to build a case and the more involved the better chance at it's legitimacy.

 

[Amish RakeFight]

BTW, my post is directed at the topic; not the post above it (Princedietrich).

 

[Amish RakeFight]

Also, having Goodyear and Bombardier involved means that their (GY / Bmbdr) attorneys have to produce documents (discovery phase) and in the end will help the case as they provide documentation that the crew fked up. This wil be based upon the technical guidelines set forth by the respective manufacturer. Even if it absolves GY and Bombard, it builds momentum against the crew and their company.

 

[Fly91]

Of course it's their right, never said it wasn't. If the defendants are declared liable by a jury without the final facts, then the jury should join the idiot pool too. Look, I believe he should get some money, just find out who to sue first before naming everyone in the lawsuit, that's all!!

Filing the lawsuit is just the first step. No lawyer would set a date for trial without having the FAA/NTSB's full reports first. Those reports are what the jury will be using in their decisions, for the most part. But since he already named the charter companies they already have very high expectations that the crew will be placed at fault, since they were flying on behalf of those charter companies. They insure the pilots, so those insurance companies will have to pay up.

If the crew was completely ruled out as the cause....Goodyear and Bombardier certainly aren't at fault. Can't hold Goodyear liable for a tire blowing because how can anyone say the tire was defective? Bombardier can't be held liable because they just build planes, not tires, they did nothing wrong? If the crew didn't write-up any problems the last time they flew it regarding the brakes, the steering, reversers, etc., then the plane was just fine and operating properly.

They will have expert witness after expert witness take the stand, and one after the other they will tell the jury that the pilot should have continued the take-off. You would too if you were on the stand, and everyone else here.

The "sue everybody" thing needs to be stopped. All the survivors are entitled to are monetary awards from the charter companies insurance company or maybe a workmans compensation settlement.

 

[say again]

Filing the lawsuit is just the first step. No lawyer would set a date for trial without having the FAA/NTSB's full reports first. Those reports are what the jury will be using in their decisions, for the most part. But since he already named the charter companies they already have very high expectations that the crew will be placed at fault, since they were flying on behalf of those charter companies. They insure the pilots, so those insurance companies will have to pay up.

If the crew was completely ruled out as the cause....Goodyear and Bombardier certainly aren't at fault. Can't hold Goodyear liable for a tire blowing because how can anyone say the tire was defective? Bombardier can't be held liable because they just build planes, not tires, they did nothing wrong? If the crew didn't write-up any problems the last time they flew it regarding the brakes, the steering, reversers, etc., then the plane was just fine and operating properly.

They will have expert witness after expert witness take the stand, and one after the other they will tell the jury that the pilot should have continued the take-off. You would too if you were on the stand, and everyone else here.

The "sue everybody" thing needs to be stopped. All the survivors are entitled to are monetary awards from the charter companies insurance company or maybe a workmans compensation settlement.

Well said!

 

[Fly91]

Also, having Goodyear and Bombardier involved means that their (GY / Bmbdr) attorneys have to produce documents (discovery phase) and in the end will help the case as they provide documentation that the crew fked up. This wil be based upon the technical guidelines set forth by the respective manufacturer. Even if it absolves GY and Bombard, it builds momentum against the crew and their company.

Thats true. Its like getting free research for the plaintiffs attorneys. I'm assuming the judge will dismiss any liable for GY and Bomb., shortly into the discovery phase.

I hope so anyway. Hell, why don't they also sue the airport authority, the city, the state and the FAA/DOT for not having a longer runway or an arresting device at the end of the runway. The technology is there, the jury should award them millions, right?

 

[Amish RakeFight]

I hope so anyway. Hell, why don't they also sue the airport authority, the city, the state and the FAA/DOT for not having a longer runway or an arresting device at the end of the runway. The technology is there, the jury should award them millions, right?

God knows. I don't doubt that these entites have been named as well as the lady who served the captain her breakfast. They'll all quite possibly have to give testimony, enriching the plaintiffs case against the operator.

Cheap discovery, like you said. Everyone wants to pass the blame. The more involved, the more they corner the crew and charter company and isolate the blame.

Welcome to America! :uzi:

 

[Frap]

Perhaps we could use this tragedy to remind ourselves to think about the events for which we would abort a takeoff and to think about those things and only those things during the actual takeoff roll.

 

[Fly91]

Perhaps we could use this tragedy to remind ourselves to think about the events for which we would abort a takeoff and to think about those things and only those things during the actual takeoff roll.

I think about this accident right before every take-off I've done since the accident. I've also been talking about the accident with every pilot I know. Accidents are free experience. Gotta take advantage of them.

 

[ILOVEBEER]

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

 

[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.