G100UL paint testing by YouTuber mluvara

[A64Pilot]

On 1/6/2025 at 1:48 PM, gabez said:

how does it work if an STC is used but Textron says no? where does the liability fall to? 

 

STC holder and Owner and maybe the IA. I’m no Laywer but they would go after Textron too I’m sure and if they could show Textron was negligent then of course they would also pay.

Remember the Cirrus that ran into some building in NY? The lawsuit among others named Hartzell, I guess if the prop hadn’t pulled them into the building they would still be alive?

Edited January 19 by A64Pilot

[aviatoreb]

3 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

STC holder and Owner and maybe the IA. I’m no Laywer but they would go after Textron too I’m sure and if they could show Textron was negligent then of course they would also pay.

Remember the Cirrus that ran into some building in NY? The lawsuit among others named Hartzell, I guess if the prop hadn’t pulled them into the building they would still be alive?

What about his sneakers?  If he hadnt had a pair of good footwear I bet he wouldnt have gone to the airport that day.  Not to mention his toothbrush.

[GeeBee]

7 hours ago, A64Pilot said:

STC holder and Owner and maybe the IA. I’m no Laywer but they would go after Textron too I’m sure and if they could show Textron was negligent then of course they would also pay.

Remember the Cirrus that ran into some building in NY? The lawsuit among others named Hartzell, I guess if the prop hadn’t pulled them into the building they would still be alive?

The standard practice is to sue everybody and let the trial sort it out. You never know what will happen in discovery and thus you name anyone and everyone then let the chips fall.

[A64Pilot]

On 1/19/2025 at 3:41 PM, GeeBee said:

The standard practice is to sue everybody and let the trial sort it out. You never know what will happen in discovery and thus you name anyone and everyone then let the chips fall.

Yes I know, but it has many negative effects that only benefit the Lawyers, it makes the named defendants have to defend themselves and they do that with Lawyers.

It also drags the process out exponentially, which adds many billable hours for the Lawyers.

I have no experience thank God, but it seems that many, possibly most Lawsuits have nothing to do with the truth, but with enriching Lawyers, personal injury comes to mind.

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, A64Pilot said:

Yes I know, but it has many negative effects that only benefit the Lawyers, it makes the named defendants have to defend themselves and they do that with Lawyers.

It also drags the process out exponentially, which adds many billable hours for the Lawyers.

I have no experience thank God, but it seems that many, possibly most Lawsuits have nothing to do with the truth, but with enriching Lawyers, personal injury comes to mind.

Noooo. It protects the plaintiff. To give a simple example, you have a crash with an engine failure. You sue the engine manufacturer only to find out after the statute has passed that it was a faulty fuel valve. Now it is too late to sue the airframe manufacturer or the valve manufacturer and your client comes up with bupkus because you failed to cover your bases. Can you say legal malpractice? That is why you sue everybody.  

[MikeOH]

13 hours ago, GeeBee said:

Noooo. It protects the plaintiff. To give a simple example, you have a crash with an engine failure. You sue the engine manufacturer only to find out after the statute has passed that it was a faulty fuel valve. Now it is too late to sue the airframe manufacturer or the valve manufacturer and your client comes up with bupkus because you failed to cover your bases. Can you say legal malpractice? That is why you sue everybody.  

And, who protects the defendant?  Oh, yeah, the defendant!  He has to use HIS money to defend himself when many, many times he's blameless and is named not for the reason you state, but because he has DEEP pockets and often gets to 'share' in the claims payout, regardless.

The most egregious example is the Carnahan case where Parker-Hannifin was sued in a loss of control accident where the AI failed and the pilot couldn't fly partial panel...Parker-Hannifin made the vacuum pump...which did NOT fail!  Yet, they got to pay for all their defense costs plus some portion of the judgement!  Guess what happened next?  Parker-Hannifin stopped manufacturing vacuum pumps! Said, "F this!" to the marketplace. "Society" was NOT well served. Guess who was happy?  Lawyers from BOTH sides!

"The NTSB accident report indicated there may indeed have been problems with the primary attitude display, but said that secondary instruments were probably functioning at the time of the crash. A second attitude indicator, however, was operating properly -- though located on the copilot's side of the panel. According to the report, it may have been difficult for pilot Randy Carnahan to read under the circumstances. The NTSB ruled the cause of the accident was Randy Carnahan's spatial disorientation and NOT any failure of a Parker-Hannifin product."

Conveniently, NTSB reports are not typically allowed as evidence at trial...gee, pretty convenient when you're trying to squeeze money out of every 'defendant'!

[GeeBee]

1 hour ago, MikeOH said:

And, who protects the defendant?  Oh, yeah, the defendant!  He has to use HIS money to defend himself when many, many times he's blameless and is named not for the reason you state, but because he has DEEP pockets and often gets to 'share' in the claims payout, regardless.

The most egregious example is the Carnahan case where Parker-Hannifin was sued in a loss of control accident where the AI failed and the pilot couldn't fly partial panel...Parker-Hannifin made the vacuum pump...which did NOT fail!  Yet, they got to pay for all their defense costs plus some portion of the judgement!  Guess what happened next?  Parker-Hannifin stopped manufacturing vacuum pumps! Said, "F this!" to the marketplace. "Society" was NOT well served. Guess who was happy?  Lawyers from BOTH sides!

"The NTSB accident report indicated there may indeed have been problems with the primary attitude display, but said that secondary instruments were probably functioning at the time of the crash. A second attitude indicator, however, was operating properly -- though located on the copilot's side of the panel. According to the report, it may have been difficult for pilot Randy Carnahan to read under the circumstances. The NTSB ruled the cause of the accident was Randy Carnahan's spatial disorientation and NOT any failure of a Parker-Hannifin product."

Conveniently, NTSB reports are not typically allowed as evidence at trial...gee, pretty convenient when you're trying to squeeze money out of every 'defendant'!

I'm not defending the quality of the justice system. I am explaining, let me say that again, explaining why things work the way they work. If you have a bone to pick, go to the people who make the laws and stop urinating on me just because I explain how it works. Geez, GAL.

[MikeOH]

1 minute ago, GeeBee said:

I'm not defending the quality of the justice system. I am explaining, let me say that again, explaining why things work the way they work. If you have a bone to pick, go to the people who make the laws and stop urinating on me just because I explain how it works. Geez, GAL.

My, a bit 'sensitive' today, are we?

Geez, you were 'splainin' to @A64Pilot 'why it works' in your opinion more than how.  I.e., you act like it's not driven by money for the lawyers.  I even gave an example with Carnahan; that example is hardly because of some 'statute of limitations' concern!  GAL, yourself

[GeeBee]

I lost the deal of the century for me. I was part of a syndicate that was going to buy Piper out of bankruptcy but we could not bifurcate the tort liabilities from the purchase. I know of waaaay more absurd judgements than Carnahan including an Aerostar that hit the mountain with the two male occupants naked. Believe me if thte Piper deal went through with our business plan,  I would not be flying a Mooney M20R. As I have indicated before I have been part of extensive litigation reaching all the way to the SCOTUS. Of course litigation is driven by money for the lawyers (aka billable hours), but again (sigh) the predicate was, "why sue everybody" and that was the predicate that was answered and answered directly and with legal justification. Change the law if you don't like it. It is what it is because we voted for it.

[A64Pilot]

I know I voted on no ballot, referendum etc for these laws.

I don’t know why you couldn’t have bought Piper and not had their liability tail.

We bought Thrush with no liability for aircraft manufactured before we bought it.

I doubt buying Piper would have made you rich anymore than buying Mooney made them rich.