Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Travis Barker Blames Pilots, Equipment for Plane Crash

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
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?


.
 
Last edited:
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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".
 
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.

Every plane I've ever seen has the same problem, exposed squat switches and their wiring. If a tire blows we could have the same accident again.
Hopefully the pilot takes it into the air like they're supposed to if its after V1.

I don't see how anyone can prove the tires were defective, they're in a million pieces and melted. But I'm sure the plaintiffs and the defendants attorneys will have "expert witnesses" fighting over this in court. Pathetic.

How worn were these tires, how were the pressures? Pilot's responsibility to inform maintenance.

That would point to pilot error.

Does this plane have tire pressure monitoring equipment? If not, why not?

If it did, again, its pilot error.

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

It can also lead to bankruptcy for companies. Economics and profits are always and will always be more important then human life. They might get a settlement out of this, but planes will not be changed.

The lawsuit might have some teeth to it, but its pathetic to award anyone money for those reasons. 90 million people a year get on planes in the USA alone, all of them knowing that it can crash for a thousand different reasons. Flying isn't perfectly safe, never will be, and everyone knows it.

Those same people get in there cars every day too, knowing they could die minutes later.

Does this mean when something goes wrong it should mean....."screw you, pay me."

Lawsuits are bullsh1t and its one of the many downfalls of the great USA.
 
We should adopt laws from other countries regarding accidental death. $500 maximum award per person, like they have in some Indonesian countries.

Whats the point in making a family member rich if their loved one is already dead?

Nothing but greed. It certainly isn't going to put a dent in a company like GY or Bombardier and the charter operators are covered for this type of thing and business goes on. If the award is more than the insurance coverage, they file bankruptcy and form a new LLC the next day. If they were smart, they have their names Clay and Global as "DBA's" so they can keep using those names. They won't skip a beat in their businesses.
 
Last edited:
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.

I don;t believe for a minute that they will only be asking for $25K. Give it time to develope. if that were all they REALLY wanted, GY, Bombardier, Global and Clay would get together and cut a check tomorrow.

Don't be surprised if its $100 million in a few months.
 
We should adopt laws from other countries regarding accidental death. $500 maximum award per person, like they have in some Indonesian countries.

Whats the point in making a family member rich if their loved one is already dead?

Nothing but greed. It certainly isn't going to put a dent in a company like GY or Bombardier and the charter operators are covered for this type of thing and business goes on. If the award is more than the insurance coverage, they file bankruptcy and form a new LLC the next day. If they were smart, they have their names Clay and Global as "DBA's" so they can keep using those names. They won't skip a beat in their businesses.


The point?

The simple truth is the only way to presuade businesses to change their bahavior/products to enhance safety is by hitting them in the only place they listen -- their bank accounts.

A handful of people died here and a few more nearly burned to death...

Modeling ourselves after Indonesia? -- :0

Was this the fault of a poor brake design? (no brakes after tire failure)

was it the result of poor training/execution (abort after V1?)

While I wont pass judgement, Id imgine this is not "just an accident"

Were contract pilots used? How did this affect the situation? who authorized them? (KPWK accident)

Theres lots of factors, but I'd sure be pissed if I was this guy also. He's lucky to be alive, unlike his 4 friends and the pilots. While Im not for ludicrous lawsuits - Id sure like to know what happened here, not just "it was an accident"
 
The point?

The point is: This country is sue happy, its no secret. And Americans are pathetic with all of the lawsuits they file each year, most of them being complete BS and getting thrown out.

The simple truth is the only way to presuade businesses to change their bahavior/products to enhance safety is by hitting them in the only place they listen -- their bank accounts.

You don't hit their bank accounts, the insurance pays for it whether its a settlement or judgement from a jury. The companies NEVER go out of business, not big ones like these anyway.

Why doesn't every corporate jet have an EVS system like the G550, can't everyone that loses a loved one in a crash due to bad weather sue the manufacturer of the plane if it doesn't have the EVS system. Isn't that a design flaw if the technology is there? Can't crash victims and survivors of planes that go off the ends of runways sue the state and local governments for not having an arresting net at the end of every runway in case a plane is going off the end? How about being able to sue airlines that don't use a big giant parachute to save the plane when it runs out of gas, the technology is there? See where I'm going......there's always something to sue for.

Human error is the only thing that makes sense in this case.

I think if a passenger is stepping off a plane and the air stairs moves away from the plane and they fall and break their back, then yes, they should sue the airline for not properly securing it.

A handful of people died here and a few more nearly burned to death...

Thats the risk you take when you take a machine into the air. Now if a HUMAN (pilot(s)) screwed up and could have avoided that accident, or at least minimized its effects by so simply following procedure.....they should be sued upside down and sideways. Or in this case, the insurance company that insured those pilots, since they are deceased.

Modeling ourselves after Indonesia? -- :0

Thats right. Money can't bring people back from the dead and it can't take burn scars off the body, so what good is making some family member rich? It does NOTHING!!! It just makes everything in aviation more expensive for everyone via increased insurance premiums, and the insurance companies make more money.

If you could only sue for say, $1,000 per death in this country, noone would file a lawsuit...WHY? There's no cha-ching factor in it for them.

Was this the fault of a poor brake design? (no brakes after tire failure)

No, not at all. That braking system is on the Lear 23,24,25,35,31,55 and 60, its been working great since the 1950's. Brakes are not the weak link in a braking system anyway, the tires are! Any braking system made can easily lock up a tire, just like on all of our cars, you stand on the brakes and they will lock up easily. Without tires making traction, what good are great brakes?

was it the result of poor training/execution (abort after V1?)

Its looking that way. Until something else points in a different direction, this accident is pilot error. Tires blow, you can't blame GY in any way shape or form. Maybe there was a piece of debris on the runway that blew the tire. I guess they should sue the airport for not cleaning the runway before each take-off. Thats the only way that debris could never be blamed for the cause of a blown tire. You think they'll ever do that to make us safer out there, hell no! It will cost too much m oney and slow down the entire country. Economics is more important than human life, period.

Were contract pilots used? How did this affect the situation? who authorized them? (KPWK accident)

Contract pilots....salary full-time pilots..........SAME SIM SCHOOLS, SAME PROCEDURES!!!!! No factor.

Theres lots of factors, but I'd sure be pissed if I was this guy also. He's lucky to be alive, unlike his 4 friends and the pilots. While Im not for ludicrous lawsuits - Id sure like to know what happened here, not just "it was an accident"

I'd be pissed too, but I would sue the pilots for making a stupid decision. Not a tire company or an aircraft design that has been around since the 1950's. If that fool thinks the tires were defective, he should never get in a car again thinking he may die, because the tire COULD be defective.

Aborting after V1, which they did, is pilot error. No passing judgement, it is what it is.
 
Last edited:

Latest resources

Back
Top Bottom