|
Originally Posted by MTOP
(Post 569050)
You are clearly ignorant of airline operating procedures, the operation of the Q400 in particular, and the legal system.
1. Procedures are not "stated in the Ops Specs" and the relevant procedures for the operation of the DHC-8 Q400 would, in this case, be the Colgan General Operations Manual and the Colgan Bombardier DHC-8 Q400 Flight Manual (or whatever Colgan's title is for the aircraft operating manual). 2. You state that "there are and were KNOWN FREQUENT issues,with, warning lights going on ...which can be legally interpreted negatively..." I'm not really sure what this means, but the point is, you don't either. There have been no reports that I am aware of that there were "warning lights [sic] going on..." aboard the CO3407 aircraft, but in any event, the annunciator lights and/or CAS (Crew Alerting System) messages on the Q400 are not designed to "interpreted" legally, negatively, or otherwise. The aircraft's warning and caution lights (if indeed that's what you were referring to) are designed to present a clear and unambiguous statement of condition of the particular component or system. I could go on about the design philosophy and functionality of these systems, but I won't bother--you obviously don't fly the airplane and wouldn't be likely to understand how the systems work. 3. It is quite unlikely that the "plaintiffs" will assert any claim or complaint predicated upon the use of the autopilot unless it ensues that the autopilot use played some causative role in the accident. At this point, there is no indication that the autopilot use played any role other than possibly enabling the decay of airspeed to a critical point where the stickshaker was activated. Again, there is no prohibition against "flight into known icing" using the autopilot. In fact the aircraft is certificated for flight into known icing, based upon an assumption that the autopilot will be used the majority of the time while in known icing. You might try acquiring some information and some facts about the subject you're writing about, before holding forth about commercial aircraft and pilot procedures--not to mention the law and the legal system--on a professional pilot's forum. Blah Blah Blah Try this! Ice had a role in the crash. Plane an simple, there is nothing that you can say that will change that............. NOTHING When the plaintiff's lawyers come home after the trial(s) with suitcases full of Colgan's money, these posts will be long gone. and some Jacksonian Philosophy will do you well also:D |
Originally Posted by Droog
(Post 568787)
I was only describing how the system would work in my ideal world. I understand that this is different from reality. As far as the "greedy leeches" are concerned, I was not refering to the Colgan victims' families per se. Rather, I was refering to anyone who files frivolous claims in order to make easy money. I also understand the role of lawyers. I just have a problem with the ones who seem to arrive on the scene of an accident before the emergency personnel and exploit the "pain and suffering" for personal gain. This greed and silliness is taken to the nth degree, and we all pay a price in the end.
My point primarily was that it is the plaintiffs themselves who hire the attorney or firm and who, basically, drive the timing of the filing. |
Originally Posted by SAABaroowski
(Post 568810)
If you think the families victims, or the jurors will consider the history of the Q400 and the 3 SAS crashes safe your crazy............
It is also unlikely that the jurors in any potential jury trial will hear much, if anything about the SAS mishaps. For one thing, raising those incidents in conjunction with a trial examination of the CO3407 accident is not necessarily probitive, and SAS' own maintenance procedures inter-related with a landing gear component part, were determined to be the cause of those accidents, not the design, the pilot's actions, the operating procedures, etc., etc. |
Originally Posted by newarkblows
(Post 568829)
right after the SAS crashes they came out with a news article about the safety of the q400. It was a european paper but they looked up the amount of hull loss accidents vs the total # of q400 flying around at the time. Something like 16 had suffered hull loss accidents out of 160 airframes.
I know the Q is supposedly a solid airplane and i would fly on one without hesitation but from the outside (publics perspective) looking in the airplane looks like a POS and has a spotty at best safety record. Every airplane has enormous lists of problems that are either fixed or deferred... show that list to someone who doesnt know a lot about planes and it looks bad. |
Originally Posted by mjarosz
(Post 569020)
Our local radio show had on Pat Smith, from Salon.com's 'Ask the Pilot' and had him debunk most of what the lawyers are suing for. Although it's just a local radio show, I thought they did a good job explaining that there is no known cause yet and how terrible this lawyer really is for trying to bring a suit so early on in the case. The clip can be downloaded here and starts at 24:00 into the show:WEDG-FM
First of all, unless you have read the complaint in the one action that has been brought so far, then you can't know "what the lawyers are suing for" nor can you, or anyone else "debunk" it. Furthermore, any "debunking" will have to be done in the due course of the litigation, to include, if necessary, a trial. Second, you will recall, that immediately after the accident, there was so much talk of icing as a likely cause, that icing then became "the" cause, even to a lot of people who should know better. In the days and weeks since the accident, other possible, plausible theories have emerged to supplant the wild speculation about icing. These include pilot error in allowing the aircraft to stall on the approach. The use of the autopilot at that point in the approach, under those conditions, may, or may not have anything to do with it, but the point is, all of the speculation so far about the probable cause of the accident is suspect, short of an official finding of probable cause by the NTSB. Likewise, any and all "debunkings" are suspect and premature. |
If the name calling continues, this thread will be closed. Let's express our opinions with respect to others and their opinions.
|
Originally Posted by RomeoSierra
(Post 568655)
Have a question for horizon pilots that fly the Q400. Have you ever noticed any handling or control issues when flying in the ice. I know from flying in the northwest that ice is encountered on a regular basis.
I honestly wasn't too excited to go back to a plane with boots but they do an awesome job... with of course no loss of power. |
So my last post got deleted. Ok, fine, I got too loud and angry. Mea Culpa
I've intensely researched law and lawyers and thought alot about what they do and how the legal system works. It's a definite disaster. Allow me to calmly break down what's wrong with the legal system. Please not that in many ways they may all be inter-related: 1) Incompetent design: The tort system seems to be designed to invite fraud and abuse. The 7th Amendment is way too loose. Law in general relies on often illogical premises and "gray areas". It emphasizes witness testimony (proven to be highly fallable and corruptable) over hard evidence. 2) Dishonest practitioners: My one and only friend whose a lawyer admits and laments that lawyers tend to be extremely greedy and sleazy. Over the last couple years some of the nation's most powerful and notorious trial lawyers have been jailed for serious illegal infractions in their practices. And just the other day two judges were indicted for taking bribes. Other medical and scientific professionals I've spoken with say they often have attorneys propositioning them to falsify evidence. 3) Complete lack of regulation: Any of you airline pilots here may have an FAA inspector waiting for you at the gate for your next flight. I work in a pharmacy and at any time a representative from the state pharmacy board can come to check on us. But how often do attorneys have state bar inspectors come to inspect their activities? It doesn't happen. The government has an official see/hear/speak no evil policy for the practice of law. This means lawyers can generally act with impunity and without any direct supervision. 4) Massive political influence: Attorneys donate more money to politicians than any other group. In the 2004 election trial attorneys gave $187M in contributions, 98% of which went to democrats. In comparison the oil, healthcare and insurance industries combined only gave $167M. Through these contributions and the fact that the majority of politicians are themselves lawyers, the profession has worked to prevent the government from enacting "tort reform" measures. In addition to politicians they also contribute to the electoral campaigns of judges, who in most jurisdictions are elected. In no-consequence surveys roughly 60% of elected judges admitted that donations and gifts from local trial attorneys affected their decision making during trials. That's basically it. There it is; there's your legal system. Speaking as a scientist I would not rely on this system for any reasonable or reliable decisions or assertions. Finally, a message to the moderators and administrators: I'm not sure how much control you have over third party advertising on this website but I have noticed several dubious and sleazy trial lawyer advertisements here. |
Originally Posted by SAABaroowski
(Post 568549)
wasn't this the guys name who was killed by OJ????????/
|
Originally Posted by The Juice
(Post 570403)
OJ was never convicted of killing anything or anyone, Saab.:rolleyes: OJ is always in the wrong place at the wong time....poor Juice
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 12:01 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands