Warbird Information Exchange

DISCLAIMER: The views expressed on this site are the responsibility of the poster and do not reflect the views of the management.
It is currently Sat Jul 12, 2025 1:51 am

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Classic Wings Magazine WWII Naval Aviation Research Pacific Luftwaffe Resource Center
When Hollywood Ruled The Skies - Volumes 1 through 4 by Bruce Oriss


Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 11:35 am 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Posts: 1318
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 4:20 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Wed Jul 27, 2005 3:34 am
Posts: 1021
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:30 pm 
Offline
2000+ Post Club
2000+ Post Club

Joined: Mon Jul 26, 2004 2:38 pm
Posts: 2662
Location: Nashville, Tennessee
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?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 3:40 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Fri Apr 30, 2004 11:44 am
Posts: 3293
Location: Las Vegas, NV
marine air wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 10:59 am 
Offline

Joined: Wed Sep 13, 2006 2:48 pm
Posts: 418
Location: Houston, Texas
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:14 am 
Offline
3000+ Post Club
3000+ Post Club
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 04, 2004 8:54 am
Posts: 3331
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


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:35 pm 
Offline
1000+ Posts!
1000+ Posts!
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:35 pm
Posts: 1318
Location: Waukesha Wisconsin
Mike wrote:
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.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 22 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2

All times are UTC - 5 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group