Aviation Incidents from Kathryn's Report

I think the bigger and more concerning recurring problem is too many ambulance chasing lawyers...

 

And this surprises people because?

 

Boy! I'm really worried now because I worked at Boeing for 45 years and had something to do with the 707, 720, 727, 767, and 747. They used engines from GE and we were sloppy as hell in what we did in designing those pieces of junk that have flown millions of safe accident free miles and the 737 used the GE engine and that airplane had the number 7 in its model number so that makes me complicit in any accident that should befall any Boeing airplane from 1958 to 2018 that has the number 7 in its identification. Will this crap ever stop! How in hell can the Boeing Company be charged with negligent aircraft design because an engine built by a reputable company failed after thousands of hours of reliable operation?? Every successful aircraft engine in history has had failures but it has seldom been from negligence. I better not say anymore our I might get sued.

 

See Mr Parks ... there you go using logic and reason and being practical... you clearly didn't go to law school....

In this day and age the Boeing and GE executive will just be able to claim their feelings have been hurt and go to a "safe place"

 

My comment was the state of our society and not the quality of Boeing or any other airplane.

Stanley Tool Company makes perfectly good screw drivers but the sad truth is a significant percentage of the cost of buying one is product liability coverage to protect themselves from some idiot suing because he poked it in his eye.

 

Doesn't surprise anyone, I don't think.

It does keep my lawyer son (who represents insurance companies for a law firm in Los Angeles) and many more like him busy day and night.

They'll settle out of court for some ridiculous sum, but probably a less ridiculous sum than a jury would award.

If this Wisner guy meant what he said about making the planes safer, he'd seek a settlement that requires, I dunno, more stringent inspections, or anti bird devices, or some other thing to actually help reduce engine failures, rather than big bucks for himself and his clients.

D

 

I do think the aviation industry has made great strides on their own to make airliners more safe and more reliable. Big smoking holes in the ground are not good for business. I do think we have gone backwards a bit in pilot quality and maintenance quality and not really seeing any moves to improve that.

 

Boeing was negligent in “designing, manufacturing, assembling, and selling the accident aircraft as not to cause injury to plaintiffs.”???? Give me a break!

Next, they'll come after me for being one of the people who designed that "negligent" aircraft? (And Bob, too.)

 

Can this actually make it to court or will it be thrown out? How can one make so many statements of negligence without proof? You can't go around claiming things without anything to back it up and actually get it seen in front of a judge, right?

 

Apparently, that was an original from 1917 that they had restored. A shame for the loss of life (2) and the historic WW-I trainer.

 

Any bets of his clients are also the ones that saw fit to shoot videos, selfies and grab there bags during the evac?

 

What makes it more upsetting to me is that on this past Tuesday evening, Ron Alexander spoke before the Atlanta chapter of the American Institute of Aeronautics & Astronautics at our monthly dinner meeting in Marietta. He spoke about the early history of the Atlanta Airport, which Candler Field is seeking to emulate, and gave us a photo tour of his facility.

The two aircraft in the collection that he spoke the most about were the DC-3 (a 1939 original, and thus not a converted C-47) and the Jenny (a 1917 original, though he admitted it didn't have many original parts left). The Jenny was Hispano-Suiza powered, by the way.

 

You beat me to it, Jim. I noticed that it looked like a Hisso up front. It seems that always before a crash there is either a witness who sees the pilot fighting the controls or a pre-crash fire. Maybe there was a fire problem with this one .

 

I purchased my C3b Stearman from Ron. He was a class act and really did a tremendous amount for the antique movement.

 

a witness was reported to have seen fire during take off...

I have difficulty with the rational of pulling an aircraft off a display stand... then go fly it without preparation... although properly restored doesn't mean the aircraft was ready for flight by just removing it from display where it had been for some time... too many things to dry out, loosen, allowing for leaks and other disasters to sneak in...

 

link?

 

It was my understanding from Mr. Alexander's presentation last Tuesday that the Jenny was flown quite regularly. Have you seen information to the contrary?

 

That's what I was trying to find out. Didn't see anything in the OP which suggested otherwise.

 

Well, this is one instance where the eye witness was correct. Worst thing that can happen and I send my condolences to the survivors.

 

the link in the first post refers to witnesses

local accounts made mention of the Jenny was brought out from the museum to be flown...

regardless a nearly 100 year old plane is not flown nearly enough to verify the effects of non use / display status may bring... unfortunately the old cliche' about "assume" may have come into play

 

Years ago a friend asked me if I would fly his Navion to a show some distance away. He had more airplanes than pilots to get his equipment to the event. I almost accepted the offer until I realized that it had been a while since I had flown one so I turned it down. Two family members agreed to fly it and shortly after takeoff the cockpit filled with white smoke and when the canopy was opened, it burst into flame. A misting hydraulic leak in the landing gear retraction system was blamed for the fire that ended in two fatalities.

 

I know of a lot of cars and a number of planes in museums that are used regularly. Museum display status in no way indicates lack of airworthiness in the absence of supporting evidence. Lots of inherent hazards in operating any machine that is a collection of old parts but it is done everyday buy those that go to great lengths to minimize the hazards and not always with the desired results. To blame them with no supporting evidence is very premature.