lawsuit in Philly

[MyNameIsNobody]

Spouting off....off vs. out....Young teenagers spout out.

[MyNameIsNobody]

Coffe is hot.  Got it.  Thanks.  Lawn mower blades are sharp too.

[MyNameIsNobody]

Water in fuel bad.  Arguments ensue when you state how much or how little =‘s “bad”...

[MyNameIsNobody]

Leftists have long memories and zero sense of humor.

[Andy95W]

22 minutes ago, David Herman said:

There are lots of small lessons learned from this tragedy. (e.g. - For takeoff, always use full length of available runway. Always park the plane with full tanks if you can. Try to sump the tanks first before you move the plane and shake up the fuel. Try to make sure water doesn’t leak through your fuel caps.) 

The big lesson to learn: Don’t kill yourself trying to save the the airplane. Save yourself - insurance will take care of the airplane. 

I'm not sure how we went from a reasonable discussion, took 2 weeks off, then wound up with a shit storm, but I'll second how Dave summarized it, above. 

[Guest]

9 hours ago, David Herman said:

Ok Alan ... you’re so smart and I don’t have a clue. Excuse me!

• Fact one: the guy made the decision to takeoff from an intersection instead of using full length. Mistake number one. 
• Fact two:  He had an engine failure and descended to within ten feet of the runway ...  by all accounts had plenty of runway length to land and safely stop on the runway ... but he had immediately retracted the gear and it was still up - then the engine the engine caught again so he decided to keep going ... that one fact alone is enough. That’s what killed him. His own bad decision.
• A few short seconds later the engine quit again and he stalled the plane ... Fact three.
• Fact four ... he failed to detect water in the system during his preflight. 
• Fact five ... ya I do know ... the airplane was parked on the ramp three days and it rained 1.22” those three days.
• Fact six -water was discovered in the fuel diaphragm and fuel servo. 
• Fact seven, again ... ya I do know - he didn’t top off the fuel upon arrival ... he let it sit with nearly empty tanks and filled up the day of departure. Can you say “condensation?”
• Fact eight ... ya I do know ... the engine last ran on the day of his arrival.

How about those facts ????? 

... but like you said ... I don’t have a clue. I don’t know anything.

I can read ...  can you... ???? It’s all right there ... spelled out. Black and white. Written clearly ... 

why don’t YOU read the facts before YOU START SPOUTING OUT???

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2015/07/engine-makers-blamed-for-fatal-plane.html

 

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident to be:
The pilot’s improper decision to attempt continued flight after a momentary loss of engine power with usable runway remaining. Contributing to the accident were the pilot’s premature retraction of the landing gear and the loss of engine power due to fuel system water contamination from precipitation, which resulted from maintenance personnel’s failure to comply with the manufacturer’s maintenance instructions and the pilot’s failure to detect fuel contamination during the preflight inspection.
 

 I wasn’t deliberately, vindictively “trashing the pilot” ... the facts are he stalled the airplane ... the facts are talking ... not me ... Stalling the airplane was his last mistake in a series of bad decisions and mediocre pilotage. It makes me sad ... 

ya ... actually I do have a clue how much water it takes to stop an engine. I didn’t stall it after the engine lost power.

The real question is, will the defence be able to articulate points like this to the jury and help them see where the fault really belongs?

Clarence

Edited July 2, 2018 by M20Doc

[Oldguy]

1 hour ago, David Herman said:

One would hope Clarence.

I’m one of the worst communicators around ... so one would think a competent lawyer could get the facts laid out on the table? 

Unfortunately, as one of our corporate attorneys once said, facts and truth are irrelevant in a trial. It all hinges on what you make the jury believe.

[EricJ]

1 minute ago, Oldguy said:

Unfortunately, as one of our corporate attorneys once said, facts and truth are irrelevant in a trial. It all hinges on what you make the jury believe.

I've never sat through a trial, but I've sat through jury selection a few times.   It was obvious to me that the selection process was to screen in the most gullible, persuadable people as possible.   I never got selected.

[Jerry 5TJ]

1 hour ago, EricJ said:

.....but I've sat through jury selection a few times.   It was obvious to me that the selection process was to screen in the most gullible, persuadable people as possible....

I have been on several juries & I've owned several Mooney planes.  Correlation?  

[Alan Fox]

On ‎7‎/‎1‎/‎2018 at 9:31 PM, MyNameIsNobody said:

I hope your pump hose is empty the next time you fuel...

You have a short  pump hose..... 

[DXB]

The trial appears to be in progress right now.  It doesn't sound like there will be Mooney exhibit at the courthouse though, based on an inquiry with someone who'd know.  If I were retired and had the time, I'd consider attending the trial.  I kinda wish AOPA or other GA news organizations covered stuff like this.  It would be nice to know precisely how we're getting fleeced (or, alternately, how justice was being served - admittedly no way to know for sure from my vantage point).  

 

[FloridaMan]

I’m thinking the law firm dun goofed by posting here and drawing attention from a bunch of pro-aviation attorneys. 

[DXB]

The motion for mistrial filed by the defendant today is attached.  It contains some details on the basis for the plaintiffs' claim and outlines the proceedings thus far.

 

Motion for mistrial.pdf

[KSMooniac]

What a clown show on the part of that plaintiffs attorneys...

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[FloridaMan]

2 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Reading through the pdf above, it reminds me very much of the song from the musical Chicago "Razzle Dazzle"  

https://www.stlyrics.com/songs/c/chicagomovie18267/razzledazzle834656.html

In the UK this would have been thrown out before it even got to trial as a "waste of the courts time", the NTSB evidence would have been allowed as it is a government agency and thus defacto in its accuracy (give or take a bit of cross exam).  No wonder product lawsuits are forcing the costs up if this is how they are allowed to operate.  I have a solution to the whole problem therefore.  All aviation companies should base their Head of Operations in the UK, and retrospectively invoke the contract that all lawsuits are held here as a consequence.  You would not get many lawsuits    

What a mess that has been allowed to happen, it appears that Plaitiff is going on the "magneto failed", despite there being two of them and also its part of an engine and who has not had one of those give up on them beside the road at some point in their life?

Andrew

 

Signature will probably screw that option up once they get slapped by the DOJ for antitrust practices, which will happen. 

[jaylw314]

8 hours ago, Hyett6420 said:

Reading through the pdf above, it reminds me very much of the song from the musical Chicago "Razzle Dazzle"  

https://www.stlyrics.com/songs/c/chicagomovie18267/razzledazzle834656.html

Hah!  I mentioned the exact same song in the previously deleted thread on this 

[thinwing]

My question...is why wasn't aviation revitalization act not an absolute defense against this lawsuit?Didnt congress establish an absolute period of legal liability?Why didn't the court throw this out immediately as congress intended?

[thinwing]

Exactly...the plaintiffs states clearly they haven't touched subject magneto for something like 34 years...I think Congress placed an absolute limit of 17 years if I recall correctly...I don't understand why this has proceeded

[DXB]

And the buffoonery keeps dragging on...

[KSMooniac]

I don't speak that language...what does this mean?

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk

[Steve W]

1 hour ago, KSMooniac said:

I don't speak that language...what does this mean?

Sent from my LG-US996 using Tapatalk
 

There was a mistrial declared, but they're starting the procedure to do it all over again.

 

[DonMuncy]

Appears to be just notice of a status conference. Where the judge requires the parties to appear and let him know where the case is and where it is going. 

[Ftlausa]

After reading the Motion for Mistrial (and yes, I am an attorney), I can start to understand why aircraft engines are so darn expensive.  This litigation, which appears in my opinion to lack any reasonable foundation in law or fact against Continental, has probably cost Continental well in excess of $1 million in attorney's fees and costs to date.  I have been in a number of high stakes cases, and litigation is an expensive proposition.  Best guess is that the plaintiff's attorney is hoping that the jury is going to want to award something because of the underlying tragedy.  This is the type of case where the judge is expected to intervene and prevent that type of result and decide the case on the law.  There is always the appellate courts as well.      

[thinwing]

I noticed one of the earlier motions presented by prosecution was to prevent any mention of NTSB probable cause of water contamination and pilot error as cause of accident from being presented to Jurers was granted......Also no mention of GARA to jurers also granted.I don't understand the suppression of evidence in this case.Seems very biased in favor of prosecution

[mike_elliott]

I will have a discussion with NTSB Chair Bruce Landsberg, who is giving the keynote presentation at the #MooneySummit VI on Saturday morning about NTSB probable cause reports admissibility. On the surface to this non barrister it would seem just the title of "probable" would be speculative in nature, easily motioned to dismiss by either party. Now the factual report would seem to be admissible with subpoenas issued to the respective NTSB experts deriving the report. But i am just a flight instructor...this is well above my pay grade to opine