Travis Barker Blames Pilots, Equipment for Plane Crash

[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.

 

[Fly91]

In a case like this, no defendant gets out for free if the plaintiffs attorneys are doing their jobs.

Thats ridiculous to say. That would mean everyone that sues a company for anything, gets money from them, as long as the attorney does his job.

Companies get released from being liable every day in this country. I don;t care what dream team you have, there isn't always 100% fault to be found. Scumbag attorneys will try and make up things and have expert witnesses lie and/or say to the jury what they tell them to say, but it does not always work.

I just hope like hell GY gets released from this suit, they really should. Bombardier, yeah, an attorney can probably get a few people on the jury to see something could have been designed better. The same jurors that will continue to fly on planes with the same exact set-ups and with the same exact exposed squat switches.

Its going to be a sh11ty day in this country if Travis gets a dime from either GY or Bombardier. Every pilot and aviation company will be effected by it, in the long run.

 

[Fly91]

What a loser...and the lawyer too.

Yup, Travis is nothing but a gutter trash loser with talent to play the drums. And attorneys are just the scumbags that take advantage of perhaps the worst judicial system in the world.

(for the internet nuthuggers): I know some countries have much worse judicial systems, the system we have here though, is a hilarious joke in many many ways. Definitely one of the worst in allot of ways.

 

[Gulfstream 200]

Well said!
:0

 

[SansPlane]

Fly91 or should I say FlyOffTheHandle? First off, I said a case like this. Second, like it or not a burn victim is a sympathetic plaintiff weather you like him or not. And third, yes defendants are released from suits every day but I would not wager any defendants getting off in this one. Litigious cases/issues are more often settled than tried.

My comment ridiculous? Well KMA. JK Why don’t you sign Travis up for Mona Vie? Doesn’t that stuff have healing properties or enable one to turn back time once fully imbibed so they can change the course of the future and past simultaneously? [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

 

[Fly91]

Fly91 or should I say FlyOffTheHandle? First off, I said a case like this. Second, like it or not a burn victim is a sympathetic plaintiff weather you like him or not. And third, yes defendants are released from suits every day but I would not wager any defendants getting off in this one. Litigious cases/issues are more often settled than tried.

My comment ridiculous? Well KMA. JK Why don’t you sign Travis up for Mona Vie? Doesn’t that stuff have healing properties or enable one to turn back time once fully imbibed so they can change the course of the future and past simultaneously? [FONT=&quot][/FONT]

GY should get a pass. But since they're so big, they'll probably just cut a check and not give a damn. Bombardier might not get a pass, but it would be bullsh1t if they had to pay anything. If they settle out of court it will shoot out a big neon sign, world-wide, saying "our planes are designed poorly, don't fly on them." I'm a big believer in "assumption of risk". If you go to a carnival and a ride comes apart and you break your neck, too bad. You went on a friggin carnival ride!!!!! A ride run by a bunch of toothless, high school drop-out bearded freaks with three tits, that can't add or subtract. Why should someone get millions???? Something, yes, just because....but certainly don't set people up for life and set up their children and their children, all in one lawsuit, thats bullsh1t. Same thing with planes, if you don't want to "assume the risk" of what can happen, take a car or a bus. After all, a bus is really the safest form of travel. If someone doesn't like machines, walk! Don't make this country worse than it is and sue for millions just because you think they'll settle out of court.

Look, its the American way, lawsuits will continue as the nations favorite pass time until laws are changed. So Travis, thanks for weakening a country one lawsuit at a time.

I think Mona-Vie will actually remove 3rd degree burn scars, overnight. But you have to sign up with me to get that special juice.

 

[Basil]

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

Lots of attention has been focused on Bombardier and Goodyear...anybody think that the Training Provider (be it FlightSafety, Simuflight, etc) might have some liability in this? Bombardier and Goodyear may be liable for the event happening as it did due to system or component design, but the crew and their training is responsible for the handling of the event.

"Mr. Sim Instructor....Your company motto is The Best Safety Device is a Well-Trained Crew. I see from the training records that you never trained nor evaluated a Tire Failure/Squat Switch Failure/Loss of Antiskid/TR Autostow sequence at V1...tell the jury why you overlooked this known flaw in the Lear-60, blah blah blah..."

Also, does anybody know if the survivors say that they received a safety-briefing from the crew prior to the flight? I imagine that the CVR may have captured it if it happened.

"Mr Director of Ops, why did your crew fail to give a safety-briefing? My client would not have been burned as badly had he known the location of the fire extinguishers and how to open the door quickly."

I imagine that there will be more parties named in this suit, right or wrong.

 

[Fly91]

Lots of attention has been focused on Bombardier and Goodyear...anybody think that the Training Provider (be it FlightSafety, Simuflight, etc) might have some liability in this? Bombardier and Goodyear may be liable for the event happening as it did due to system or component design, but the crew and their training is responsible for the handling of the event.

"Mr. Sim Instructor....Your company motto is The Best Safety Device is a Well-Trained Crew. I see from the training records that you never trained nor evaluated a Tire Failure/Squat Switch Failure/Loss of Antiskid/TR Autostow sequence at V1...tell the jury why you overlooked this known flaw in the Lear-60, blah blah blah..."

Also, does anybody know if the survivors say that they received a safety-briefing from the crew prior to the flight? I imagine that the CVR may have captured it if it happened.

"Mr Director of Ops, why did your crew fail to give a safety-briefing? My client would not have been burned as badly had he known the location of the fire extinguishers and how to open the door quickly."

I imagine that there will be more parties named in this suit, right or wrong.

I suppose. And thats my point, there needs to be a line drawn somewhere. LIke I said earlier in this thread, Travis and the other plaintiffs can sue many different people or entities, its just how far should this lawsuit sport go. How much money is enough for these plaintiffs. Why not just let them own GY and Bombardier, give them ownership in FSI or Simu and give them $100 million. Pathetic.

MORE BULLSH1T:
How about the news today on FOX. Some girl at a bar somewhere drinking it up, stands right next to the bar as a bartender takes a mouthful of Bacardi 151 and blows a flame across 4-5 other glasses with a Bacardi 151 floater on top of each. As he blows it the 151 bottle falls over and the lady get sprayed with flaming 151 on her face, hands and arms. 3rd dergree burns. Again, "assumption of risk" is there, this bar does this 20 times a night, every night, its known by everyone that goes there. Plus, she stood there with a stupid drunk smile on her face watching him do it. Well, she can sue the bartender, HUMAN NEGLIGENCE, and the bar itself for allowing their bartenders to do it. But......this stupid biatch is filing a lawsuit against Bacardi...hahahahahahahahaha.
What a scumbag. Assumption of risk is written all over her burnt face and she was drinking, and she stood right there to watch. She says the Bacardi should not be flammable, yet the dumb azz has been drinking it forever.
I guess if a gas station has an explosion because they didn't keep their wiring in good condition and it sparked somewhere, and you got burned real bad, we can sue whoever sold that "flammable" gas to them and get $1 billion from the Kuwaiti government.