Settlement in Duxford L-39 Accident...

[T33driver]

T33driver has it most nearly right, but still a bit backwards. We, the ones who sue, are not just "willing accomplices" to the lawyers who help us do so. It is our responsibility; lawyers are the accomplices. If you shoot all the lawyers, people will have to represent themselves in court, and the process will be messier and less efficient, but if you kill someone in your airplane their survivors will still wind up with your money. Sorry.

August[/quote]

August,

Objection sustained couselor! I agree and I should have organized my thoughts better. Neither the lawsuit-happy plaintiffs nor their lawyers would be a factor if both parties weren't willing participants. Good or bad, money's always a powerful incentive and frivelous lawsuits can be a short-cut to damage awards on par with the Powerball Lottery. This current state of affairs and stories like the one in the this thread make me even more reluctant to give rides in the T-33. What a shame.

[oscardeuce]

About two months ago my car developed a shimmy. Then on my way to the shop, at 40 mph the left front wheel departed the car. Two days earlier I had the tires rotated,and 4/5 lugs were loose. They fixed the damage and that was it. No punative damages,emotional sufferin, siut filed. That's the way it should be they screwed up,and fixed it.

[marine air]

I only saw the accident report, but it sounds like the instructor's fault.
Why did he eject from the airplane if the instructor who is supposed to be the PIC, didn't call for it? Does the L-39 have 0-0 martin Baker ejection seats? Ejecting isn't always a sure thing even in the best seats.
How short was the runway, and why didn't they make a go around?
When I take someone up and I am the CFI or PIC, I always give a safety briefing and a pre-flight discussion of what we're going to be doing on that flight. If we are doing aerobatics for example, I show him how to egress and when it is and is not appropriate. IE, IF we blow a hammerhead or the engine burps at O gravity, don't be blowing the canopy off!
The student pilot was probably a good man. It just makes me wonder if the CFI was qualified, and why the owner's chose to let that guy fly their aircraft. Was the runway length even appropriate for the type of traing they were doing?

[Randy Haskin]

I only saw the accident report, but it sounds like the instructor's fault.
Why did he eject from the airplane if the instructor who is supposed to be the PIC, didn't call for it?

The report said that this wasn't his first trip around the air patch in an L-39, and that he was in an upgrade qualification course. He had all ready studied the systems hmiself, and should have had a knowledge of how the egress system worked. He need not have relied on the Instructor's pre-flight safety briefing to tell him how and when to use the seat.

Although the instructor was "in command", the ejection seat is always an individual vote. The guy who pulled the handles made the decision to do so on his own accord -- that is precisely why that seat is there.

[DB2]

I believe the L-39 seats require 90kts forward speed to work (at ground level). I had a friend lose the brakes landing an L-39, and he rode it off the end of runway at 60 kts. Once they cleaned the mud off, there was no damage to him, and only minor sheet metal damage to the L-39.

I do not believe there has ever been a succesful civilian ejection from an L-39. In fact, based on my very limited experience flying one, unless I was over inhospitable terrain, I would probably try to dead stick it down rather than eject if the engine failed. They are truly built like a tank.

I think August raised some excellent points in his posts. After my accident I did talk to a number of people who were involved, or had been involved, in aviation related liability lawsuits. One thing was very clear to me - the initial impulse to sue is often the result of anger or frustration following the accident, and a need to feel that someone should be "punished". Logic or reason are not playing a part in the decision-making process. This is when the lawyers ponce.

However, as time goes by, the original plantiffs seem to lose interest, and want to "move-on". The lawyers though are moving forward full-speed with their eye on a settlement. Therefore, they push and push and push on the plantiffs to stay in the case. So as a result, the plantiffs simply end up bitter and depressed over the case, which can often drag out for years. Most told me they didn't even care about the money in the end. They just wanted it "over".

The other disturbing thing about the lawsuits is that the lawyers aren't interested unless there is a chance for a big payout, since their fees are often a percentage of the payout. I think there are cases where there should be fair and equitable damages paid to plantiffs, particularly with regards to medical expenses. But no lawyer will take a case unless they can serve their own interestes by making the outrageous pain and suffering claims.

[Mike]

Before pontificating on the lawyers' position in a legal case which most people here appear to have done zero research on before hitting the 'post' button, perhaps you should all read this..........

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread ... 312&page=2

[T33driver]

Before pontificating on the lawyers' position in a legal case which most people here appear to have done zero research on before hitting the 'post' button, perhaps you should all read this..........

http://www.pprune.org/forums/showthread ... 312&page=2

Apparently anyone who doesn't draw the same conclusions as you must be a pontificating ignoramus...please enlighten us.