VFR into IMC, Lycoming sued for $26 million
04-10-2013, 02:59 PM
#11
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 834
Originally Posted by UnderOveur
I was unaware of this. Why??
It is an official gov't agency, tasked specifically with determining the kind of information that would be relevant to Lycoming's defense. Furthermore, since it's #1 goal is to ultimately promote and enhance safety, it's finding could be viewed as non-discriminatory in nature.
It is an official gov't agency, tasked specifically with determining the kind of information that would be relevant to Lycoming's defense. Furthermore, since it's #1 goal is to ultimately promote and enhance safety, it's finding could be viewed as non-discriminatory in nature.
04-10-2013, 03:06 PM
#12
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Holding over Macho Grande
Posts: 602
OK. Put another way...
NTSB findings are inadmissable in a court of law because, if they weren't, then the NTSB investigators could possibly be bribed by the ambulance chasers, and this automatic exclusion precludes that possibility.
Is this correct??
NTSB findings are inadmissable in a court of law because, if they weren't, then the NTSB investigators could possibly be bribed by the ambulance chasers, and this automatic exclusion precludes that possibility.
Is this correct??
04-10-2013, 03:24 PM
#13
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 834
Originally Posted by UnderOveur
OK. Put another way...
NTSB findings are inadmissable in a court of law because, if they weren't, then the NTSB investigators could possibly be bribed by the ambulance chasers, and this automatic exclusion precludes that possibility.
Is this correct??
NTSB findings are inadmissable in a court of law because, if they weren't, then the NTSB investigators could possibly be bribed by the ambulance chasers, and this automatic exclusion precludes that possibility.
Is this correct??
04-10-2013, 03:31 PM
#14
Gets Weekends Off
Thread Starter
Joined APC: Nov 2009
Posts: 5,193
Originally Posted by N9373M
Why on earth was a pop-up IFR not requested?
From the NTSB:
The pilot, age 47, held an airline transport pilot certificate with airplane multiengine rating, and a commercial pilot certificate with airplane single-engine land and airplane single-engine sea ratings. In addition, the pilot held a turbojet powered rating and type ratings in various transport category aircraft. A first-class airman medical certificate was issued on November 26, 2007, with the limitations stated, "must wear corrective lenses, not valid for any class after." The pilot reported on her most recent medical certificate application that she had accumulated 14,200 total flight hours.
EDIT: The report further states: Examination of the engine revealed that the number four cylinder exhaust valve was stuck in the open position and was bent. The camshaft was intact and each of the camshaft cam lobes exhibited severe wear and spalling signatures. The corresponding tappets exhibited severe spalling on their respective camshaft contact surfaces. The engine exhibited signatures consistent with a high time engine."
So that's probably why the jury did what it did - it was the engine's fault /sarcasm.
From the NTSB:
The pilot, age 47, held an airline transport pilot certificate with airplane multiengine rating, and a commercial pilot certificate with airplane single-engine land and airplane single-engine sea ratings. In addition, the pilot held a turbojet powered rating and type ratings in various transport category aircraft. A first-class airman medical certificate was issued on November 26, 2007, with the limitations stated, "must wear corrective lenses, not valid for any class after." The pilot reported on her most recent medical certificate application that she had accumulated 14,200 total flight hours.
EDIT: The report further states: Examination of the engine revealed that the number four cylinder exhaust valve was stuck in the open position and was bent. The camshaft was intact and each of the camshaft cam lobes exhibited severe wear and spalling signatures. The corresponding tappets exhibited severe spalling on their respective camshaft contact surfaces. The engine exhibited signatures consistent with a high time engine."
So that's probably why the jury did what it did - it was the engine's fault /sarcasm.
Sarcasm detected, not directed at you.
04-10-2013, 03:39 PM
#15
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Jan 2013
Posts: 834
Originally Posted by Grumble
The engine was several HUNDRED hours beyond TBO, in a salt environment.
Sarcasm detected, not directed at you.
Sarcasm detected, not directed at you.
04-10-2013, 03:46 PM
#16
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Holding over Macho Grande
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by Yoda2
I knew you were going to ask that! No, it does not; but severely limits it. No situation is perfect...
OK, I get it. That said, how incredibly flimsy and superficial.
Are you aware of any case history showing where an NTSB investigator was proven to have been bribed by any party to a lawsuit in support of this BS?
04-10-2013, 03:48 PM
#17
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Nov 2011
Position: Volleyball Player
Posts: 3,982
Originally Posted by UnderOveur
I was unaware of this. Why??
It is an official gov't agency, tasked specifically with determining the kind of information that would be relevant to Lycoming's defense. Furthermore, since it's #1 goal is to ultimately promote and enhance safety, it's finding could be viewed as non-discriminatory in nature.
It is an official gov't agency, tasked specifically with determining the kind of information that would be relevant to Lycoming's defense. Furthermore, since it's #1 goal is to ultimately promote and enhance safety, it's finding could be viewed as non-discriminatory in nature.
Also, remember that it's "probable cause", not "100%".
04-10-2013, 03:50 PM
#18
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Holding over Macho Grande
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by seattlepilot
What you all don't see is that this process of ambulance chasers is putting people out of business. Lycoming can weather this and the legal fees but small operators are the ones paying the price. And people wonder why aviation is getting so expensive .
What I didn't know was that the NTSB's findings were inadmissable in a court of law. The blood suckers must've really had a party the day they won that exclusion.
04-10-2013, 03:53 PM
#19
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2012
Position: Holding over Macho Grande
Posts: 602
Originally Posted by JamesNoBrakes
Well, one reason could be that if you looked at their findings, you could probably find multiple systems and procedures that could be blamed, any one of which could have stopped the accident. I can think of many accidents that could have been prevented with a different system. It doesn't mean that system was unsafe if used properly, but it also means a different system could have prevented it. At some point it's just ridiculously costly and not worth it.
Also, remember that it's "probable cause", not "100%".
Also, remember that it's "probable cause", not "100%".
This also makes sense, but not enough to exclude expert opinion from legal proceedings...esp. when the goal is to pin the blame on the donkey.
God but we need tort reform and "loser pays".
04-10-2013, 03:58 PM
#20
Gets Weekends Off
Joined APC: Dec 2009
Position: 127.0.0.1
Posts: 2,115
Originally Posted by Grumble
The engine was several HUNDRED hours beyond TBO, in a salt environment.
Review of Lycoming Service Instruction Number 1009AT, the recommended time between overhauls is 2,000 hours. The Service Instruction states for the O-320 engine, "if an engine is being used in a 'frequent' type service and accumulates 40 hours or more per month, and has been so operated consistently since being placed in service, add 200 hours to the TBO time."
Also, the #4 Cylinder was replaced from an engine that had metal in the oil.
NTSB: Untitled Page
I agree, this is not an engine problem per se, but scud running on a possibly poorly maintained motor.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
