Cessna on Trial, P210 on City Hall Courtyard in Philadelphia

Rob Schaffer

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Nov 27, 2007
Messages
1,371
Location
Green Lane, PA
Display Name

Display name:
CLR2TKF
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home...Exhibit_A__Could_be_anything_from_A_to_Z.html

Families are going after Cessna regarding a death after some guys crashed after takeoff.

Two people died when a Cessna P210 crashed in Idaho on Sept. 28, 2005 - so the issues in front of a Philadelphia jury yesterday were important and serious.
But courtrooms have their own sense of theater, sometimes of the absurdist quality, which is why City Hall onlookers noticed a pinstripe-suited lawyer walking down a long corridor carrying a life-size papier–mâché model of a slaughtered elk's hindquarter while a colleague slung a pilot's seat on his shoulder.
Both the elk's leg and the cockpit seat had been removed from an actual airplane, minus the wings and engine, that was sitting on the northwest plaza of City Hall in the kind of clear, heated tent used for parties.
It was all part of an effort to impress jurors in a case filed by the families of the men who died in the plane against its manufacturer and a company in Factoryville, Pa., north of Scranton, that modified the Cessna.
Pilot Alfred Wilsey Jr., 60, and his longtime friend, Richard Ongaro, 62, had just taken off from the Flying B Resort Ranch in Salmon, Idaho, when the plane crashed. The two had been on a hunting trip and were returning home to Marin County, Calif.
The families of the men believe the plane crashed because the pilot's seat slid back unexpectedly and made it impossible for Wilsey to reach foot and hand controls that operate the plane. The attorneys for the plane-builder say that the Cessna was too loaded down with the elk carcass, two rifles, and other gear from the trip.
The trial is in Philadelphia because Cessna planes are sold here and because the attorney for the families, Arthur Wolk, a nationally known aviation lawyer who himself survived a plane crash, practices here.
It was Wolk who arranged for the plane to be parked on the plaza in hopes of showing how the seat slid backward.

Hmmm,.... wasn't there a seat rail AD after the 1980 incident? Wouldn't that be something that could be referenced in the logs or verified for the plane?

Amazing what they do for court cases now.... :eek:
 
Nevermind the fact that the plane is what - 20-30 years old? Cessna shouldn't even be bothered with this, other than to participate in the investigation as to what happened.
 
Isn't this Richard Collins' old airplane? Someone posted something about this yesterday. Maybe it was a different board.
 
GARA releases liability after 18 years. If the P210 was not more than 18 years old the company is on the hook. If it is older the lawyer can try and overturn GARA itself. He'd probably be successful.
 
http://www.philly.com/inquirer/home...Exhibit_A__Could_be_anything_from_A_to_Z.html
Families are going after Cessna regarding a death after some guys crashed after takeoff.

Hmmm,.... wasn't there a seat rail AD after the 1980 incident? Wouldn't that be something that could be referenced in the logs or verified for the plane?

Amazing what they do for court cases now.... :eek:

I knew someone who worked for Cessna as an accountant. It's standard operating procedure to go after Cessna (or other manufacturer). Unfortunately, it's often cheaper for Cessna to settle than fight.
 
Exactly, and now some lawyer or his/her representative went to a scrap yard to get a fuselage. Guess who's old fuselage they ended up with. The N number is still on it. -- According to a post on The Student Pilot board.

Sheese... :skeptical:

The story said it was "the same airplane..."

I guess they meant "same model"
 
The seat rail AD just plays into the shysters pockets. Its not "look, this was required maintenance the guy didn't do, it was his fault" but comes out as "look, the company built a defective airplane where the seat can roll backwards".
 
I'm going to say it was a Silver Eagle conversion, given that the P210 is the airframe that O&N modifies, and they are in Factoryville. I can't see any other reason why they'd be dragged into this.

I've been into Flying B. It's a little tight in the canyon, but a Silver Eagle wouldn't have any trouble.
 
The seat rail AD just plays into the shysters pockets. Its not "look, this was required maintenance the guy didn't do, it was his fault" but comes out as "look, the company built a defective airplane where the seat can roll backwards".

I have had a seat jump the catch and slide back on me two or three times. All three times on a Tiger. I KNOW I checked the catch before it slipped. Scared the Crap out of me especially since the accident that resulted in the AD occured somewhat near me just across the river in South Jersey. Thankfully everytime it occured I was on the Ground during taxi or run up. I would make different decisons about those flights now but it caused me to jam my flight bag behind the seat for many flights in various planes thereafter. IIRC it turned out to be a ovaled out hole in the seat rail.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this case being litigated by the Same A. W. that was going to sued AvWeb for slander a while back? So be careful who you are calling a shyster....
 
I'm sure this crash had nothing to do with the turbine conversion with 22 hours on it:

SEA05FA201HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On September 28, 2005, about 1715 mountain daylight time, a Cessna P210N, N45SE, impacted terrain during takeoff initial climb from the Flying B Ranch airstrip, located about 38 nautical miles west of Salmon, Idaho. The airplane was destroyed by impact and fire damage, and the two occupants, the private pilot and one passenger, sustained fatal injuries. The airplane was registered to Marlin Ventures LLC of Corte Madera, California, and operated by the pilot. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no flight plan was filed for the personal cross country flight. The flight was originating at the time of the accident, and the intended destination was Boise, Idaho.

According to family members, the pilot and passenger had flown the airplane from San Rafael Airport (Smith Ranch) in San Rafael, California, to the Flying B on September 22, 2005. They were met at the Flying B by three other members of their hunting party, who had flown in on a charter flight from McCall, Idaho. The pilot and passenger did not mention having any problems with the airplane during the non-stop flight that lasted about 2.5 to 3 hours. After spending several days hunting elk, on the day of the accident, the pilot and the passenger returned to the airstrip and prepared to fly back to San Rafael with a planned fuel stop in Boise, Idaho. One of them had shot an elk, and they loaded the airplane with the four elk quarters and their personal gear.

An employee of the Flying B Ranch who observed the pilot and passenger loading the airplane reported that the pilot "did check some figures" and told the passenger that they could have "at least 160 pounds of weight in the rear compartment." The passenger commented that the elk "hindquarters would fit and be almost that weight." The passenger loaded "the 2 hind quarters and then put in 2 sleeping bags, a shirt, a pair of pants, a felt hat, and some Styrofoam packing." The employee reported seeing two seats in the rear of the airplane's passenger compartment. In front of these seats, in the middle of the passenger compartment, the pilot and passenger loaded "the 2 front quarters, 2 rifles, 2 duffle bags, 2 scabbards, a back pack (possibly 2), a small saw, saddlebags, and the antlers." Additionally, this area contained "3 shopping bags with merchandise they had just purchased in the store (3 vests, 2 T-shirts, 1 Jacket, and 1 Visor)" and "a container with cleaning supplies to clean windows on the plane." After the accident, the employee talked with another employee, a wrangler, who estimated each hindquarter weighed approximately 75 pounds, each front quarter weighed 70 to 75 pounds, and each duffle bag weighed "75 pounds at the very most."

According to another Flying B Ranch employee who witnessed the accident, he heard the airplane taking off and it "didn't sound right." He looked towards the airstrip and saw the airplane "barely off the ground" heading south. The witness stated that the airplane was "wallowing back and forth, trying to stall out." He further stated that the "motor sounded like a boat cavitating" and "the nose of the airplane was pointed up." The witness watched the airplane as it veered left, crossed the Middle Fork of the Salmon River, and impacted the ground tail first. The airplane's nose then "slammed into the ground," and the airplane nosed over and came to rest inverted. A fire erupted, which consumed the fuselage of the airplane.

PERSONNEL INFORMATION

The pilot held a private pilot certificate with single- and multi-engine land airplane and instrument airplane ratings. His most recent third class medical was issued on May 5, 2005, with the limitation, must wear corrective lenses for near and distant vision.

According to a "Pilot Record" sheet dated May 20, 2005, completed by the pilot in connection with an application for insurance on the accident airplane, he had accumulated 1,939 hours total flight time of which 1,167 hours were in same make and model as the accident airplane. Copies of the pilot's flight logbooks were provided to the NTSB investigator-in-charge (IIC) by a family member. The most recent logbook covered the time period from April 22, 1994, to September 12, 2005. Review of this logbook revealed no entries indicating a flight into or out of the Flying B Ranch. The last 12 entries in the logbook appeared to record flights in the accident airplane. All of the entries listed the aircraft type as "P210," and one of the entries listed the aircraft identification as "SE." These entries began on June 1, 2005, ended on September 12, 2005, and totaled 21.8 hours.

During an interview conducted by the NTSB IIC, the flight instructor, who gave the pilot flight training in the accident airplane, stated that the pilot received 10 hours ground school and over 15 hours dual instruction in the airplane over a 4 to 5 day period. He further stated that the training "progressed normally." Landings were made at 8 different airports during the training including Reno, Nevada, elevation 4,415 feet, and Bend, Oregon, elevation 3,456 feet. Short field takeoff and landing techniques were covered during the flight training. The instructor described the short field takeoff technique for the airplane as follows: Add 10 degrees to the normal 10-degree flap setting, pull the airplane off at 75 knots (as opposed to rotating at 75 and letting the airplane fly off), climb at Vx (80 knots), raise flaps 10 degrees at a time - usually after raising the landing gear.

The Flying B employee who observed the loading of the airplane stated that the pilot had been coming to the Flying B for 30 years, but had not flown in himself since 2000.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

FAA airworthiness records for the airplane indicated the 1979 Cessna P210N, S/N P21000267, was modified by installation of a Rolls Royce gas turbine engine Model 250-B17F/2, S/N CAE881125, and Hartzell propeller Model HC-B3TF-7A/T9212NK-2, S/N EXA1123, in accordance with STC SA1003NE on March 20, 2000. This modification, known as a "Silver Eagle" conversion, was performed by the STC holder, O & N Aircraft Modifications, Inc., of Factoryville, Pennsylvania. At this time, a new hour meter was installed.

The airplane's maintenance logbooks were not located during the investigation. According to records obtained from the maintenance facility that had been maintaining the airplane since its conversion, the most recent annual inspection was completed in March 2005. At the time of this inspection, the airplane had accumulated 1,004.0 hours since the conversion.

Review of FAA registration records indicated Marlin Ventures LLC purchased the airplane on May 20, 2005. The accident pilot signed the ownership documents as President of Marlin Ventures LLC. The records indicated that as of May 20, 2005, the airplane had accumulated 2,379.0 hours total time and 1,040.1 hours since its conversion.

The weight and balance of the airplane at takeoff was estimated using the following information:

Basic empty weight, 2,541.2 pounds, obtained from aircraft weighing report prepared by O & N Aircraft dated May 4, 2000.

Front seat occupants, 340 pounds (170 pounds each).

Middle seat baggage, 380 pounds, from information provided by Flying B employee who observed loading of airplane.

Rear baggage, 160 pounds, from information provided by Flying B employee who observed loading of airplane.

Fuel in wing tanks, 308.2 pounds (46 gallons times 6.7 pounds/gallon)

The estimated takeoff weight was 3,729.4 pounds, which was below the maximum gross weight of 4,000 pounds. The estimated takeoff moment was 181.116 pound-inches, and the estimated center of gravity was 48.56 inches, which was within the aft limit of 49 inches. (According to the FAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement for STC SA1003NE, the aft center of gravity limit is 49 inches at all weights, and the forward center of gravity limit varies with weight. At 3,800 pounds, the forward center of gravity limit is 42.5 inches.)

The fuel aboard the airplane at takeoff was estimated by assuming a fuel burn rate of 25 gallons/hour, 3 hours of flight time since refueling, and usable fuel aboard following last refueling of 121 gallons (wing and tip tanks full, baggage tank empty).

The short field takeoff checklist provided in Section IV, the Normal Procedures section, of the FAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement for STC SA1003NE, stated:
1. Wing Flaps -- 10 degrees (see Section V Takeoff Chart).
2. Brakes -- APPLY.
3. Condition Lever -- FULL INCREASE.
4. Power Lever -- TAKEOFF (111 psi torque or 810 degrees C TOT). Observe torque and temperature limits.
5. Brakes -- RELEASE.
6. Elevator Control -- LIFT NOSE WHEEL at 65 KIAS.
NOTE: WHEN NOSE WHEEL IS LIFTED, THE GEAR MOTOR MAY RUN 2-3 SECONDS TO RESTORE HYDRUALIC PRESSURE.
7. Climb Speed -- 78 KIAS (until obstacles are cleared).
8. Landing Gear -- RETRACT (after obstacles are cleared).
9. Wing Flaps -- RETRACT after reaching 85 KIAS.
NOTE: DO NOT REDUCE POWER UNTIL WING FLAPS AND GEAR HAVE BEEN RETRACTED.

Regarding wing flap settings, the amplified procedures for takeoff in Section IV stated the following: For normal takeoffs, use of 0-20 degrees flaps is approved. Each notch of flaps will reduce takeoff distances approximately 10% as compared to the next lesser notch.

Regarding short field takeoffs, the amplified procedures for takeoff in Section IV stated the following: Takeoff performance shown in the Basic P210N Pilot's Operating Handbook, repeated in Section V of this Airplane Flight Manual Supplement, can be equaled or exceeded for all ambient conditions except altitudes above 7,000 feet and temperatures above 30 degrees C. In this circumstance, the use of 20 degrees flap will produce equivalent takeoff performance.

The TAKEOFF DISTANCE/MAXIMUM WEIGHT 3,700 LBS/SHORT FIELD chart in Section V, the Performance section, of the FAA Approved Flight Manual Supplement for STC SA1003NE, indicated that at a pressure altitude of 3,000 feet and a temperature of 20 degrees C, the takeoff ground roll would be 1,375 feet and the total distance to clear a 50 foot obstacle would be 2,255 feet. The chart indicated that for operation on a dry, grass runway, the distances should be increased by 15% of the ground roll figure, resulting in a ground roll of 1,581 feet and a total distance to clear a 50 foot obstacle of 2,461 feet. The chart conditions included flaps 10 degrees, zero wind, lift off speed of 69 KIAS and climb speed at 50 feet of 75 KIAS.

The STALL SPEEDS chart in Section V indicated that at the most rearward center of gravity, at a weight of 4,000 pounds, a bank angle of zero degrees, and flap deflections of 10 and 20 degrees, the stall speeds would be 69 and 63 KIAS, respectively. The chart indicated that at the most forward center of gravity, the stall speeds for 10 and 20 degrees flaps would be 70 and 65 KIAS, respectively.

The owner of the aforementioned maintenance facility, who had been flying and maintaining the airplane since its Silver Eagle conversion, stated the following with respect to airplane performance: "Weight and balance is very, very critical. With weight aft, you really need to hold the nose down and gain airspeed on takeoff."

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

At 1655, the reported weather conditions at Lemhi County Airport in Salmon, Idaho, located approximately 38 nautical miles east of the accident site, at an elevation of 4,043 feet, were wind from 360 at 4 knots, visibility 10 statute miles, sky clear, temperature 20 degrees C, dew point 0 degrees C, and altimeter 30.25 inches. At 1755, the conditions at Lemhi County Airport were winds calm, visibility 10 statute miles, sky clear, temperature 21 degrees C, dew point -1 degrees C, and altimeter 30.22 inches.

At 1655, the reported weather conditions at Challis Airport in Challis, Idaho, located approximately 35 nautical miles southeast of the accident site, at an elevation of 5,039 feet, were winds calm, visibility 10 statute miles, sky clear, temperature 20 degrees C, dew point -6 degrees C, and altimeter 30.26 inches. At 1755, the conditions at Challis Airport were winds calm, visibility 10 statute miles, sky clear, temperature 21 degrees C, dew point -6 degrees C, and altimeter 30.24 inches.

The eyewitness to the accident reported that the weather at the time was "good, no wind, 65 to 70 degrees F, and good visibility."

Using a temperature of 68 degrees F (20 degrees C), the Flying B Ranch airstrip elevation of 3,647 feet, and an altimeter setting of 30.25 inches, the pressure and density altitudes were calculated to be 3,343 and 4,793 feet, respectively.

AIRPORT INFORMATION

According to information obtained from the airnav.com website, the Flying B Ranch Landing Strip Airport is privately owned and has a single turf runway, runway N/S, which is 2,000 feet long and 100 feet wide. There are no obstructions listed for runway N. The obstructions listed for runway S are "ridge, RIDGE ACROSS APCH END OF RWY S." The airport is located in the canyon of the Middle Fork of the Salmon River. The canyon is oriented north-south and downstream is to the north. The runway is located on a flat bench on the west bank of the river.

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION

Lemhi County Sheriff's Office personnel examined the accident site on September 29, 2005, and reported that the wreckage was located at 44:58.078 North latitude and 114:43.972 West longitude. Examination of photos provided by the Sheriff's Office revealed that the wreckage was visible when looking southeast from the departure end of the south runway. The accident site appeared to be within 1/4 mile of the end of the runway, offset to the left of the runway centerline, and approximately the same elevation as the runway. The site was located on level grass covered terrain. The wreckage path began with a ground scar that continued to the main wreckage. The propeller separated and was found between the start of the ground scar and the main wreckage. The nose wheel separated and was found beyond the main wreckage. The main wreckage consisted of the inverted fuselage with wings, tail group and engine attached. The fuselage and the inboard sections of the wings were destroyed by fire.

The wreckage was recovered from the accident site on October 6, 2005, and inspected on November 8, 2005, by an NTSB investigator and representatives of Cessna Aircraft Company and Rolls-Royce Corporation at the Discount Aircraft Salvage facility in Deer Park, Washington.

The left wing was fire damaged. The outboard portion of the wing separated from the remainder of the wing. The aft portion of the wing was fire damaged. The left aileron was not observed. The left aileron cables had been cut and continuity was established to the inboard portion of the wing. The left flap had fire damage. The outboard flap push/pull rod remained attached to the bell crank. The rod between the outboard and inboard bell cranks was bent and broken. The flap actuator separated from structure and was fire damaged. The flap actuator measurement indicated approximately a 15 degree down position.

The right wing was fire damaged. The right aileron remained attached. Aileron control cable continuity was established to the inboard portion of the wing. The right flap remained attached and a majority of the flap was consumed by fire. The right flap push/pull rods remained attached to the flaps and the bell cranks. One right wing flap cable was observed cut and the other flap cable was torn and fire damaged. Speed brakes were observed installed on both the left and right wings.

The horizontal stabilizer had been cut from the tail cone by recovery personnel. The left and right elevators remained attached to the horizontal stabilizer. Both the horizontal stabilizer and elevators had fire damage. Elevator control continuity was established from the elevator torque tube to the elevator link assembly in the aft tailcone. The elevator control cables were cut by recovery personnel forward of the elevator link assembly. The elevator trim tab remained attached to the right elevator. The non-Cessna trim tab installation had two actuators. The inboard trim tab rod measurement was approximately 1 3/4 inches and the outboard trim rod measurement was 1 1/2 inches. The trim tab had damage at the inboard portion of the tab and the tab was observed in approximately the neutral position. The trim tab cables were separated at the elevator root. The trim tab moved freely when the cables were moved. The vertical fin was fire damaged. The rudder was removed by recovery personnel. The rudder cables had been cut in the aft tail cone area. The rudder cables were observed attached to the cockpit rudder pedal assembly, which was fire damaged.

The cabin area was destroyed by fire. No seat rails were observed. A portion of a seat frame from an unidentified seat was observed. Two dual pin seat adjust handles with attaching pins were observed. No seat belts or shoulder harness were found during the wreckage examination. The seat frame from the bench seat was separated and fire damaged. No tie downs for the luggage were observed. The instrument panel was destroyed by fire.

The fuel system was modified for the installation of the Rolls Royce turbine engine. Fuel placards were observed for the use of Jet A on both left and right wing fuel tanks. The left fuel tank was breached. A fire damaged vent line was observed in the left wing. Two STC installed wing tip fuel tanks were observed. The right fuel tip tank was observed torn open. The aircraft had an auxiliary baggage compartment fuel tank, which was not observed. The position of the non-Cessna fuel selector mechanism could not be determined due to damage. A detailed examination of the fuel system could not be performed due to the damage to the fuel system.

The propeller remained attached to the hub and was separated from the engine. All three blades were still intact in the hub. One blade did not have bending and a diagonal cut was observed approximately 1 foot from the tip. The second blade was bent aft approximately at midspan and the blade had chordwise scratching. The third blade was bent aft midspan and chordwise scratching was observed.

During examination of the engine, no engine compressor or turbine case penetration was observed. The engine propeller gearbox had sustained considerable impact damage. The case was fractured and the prop shaft had sustained rotational fractures. The compressor inlet was examined and was found unremarkable. Some light impact debris was found in the first and second stage area. The N1 drive displayed rotational continuity by rotating the compressor. The N2 drive train was locked. All engine air and fuel line fittings were at least finger tight and no pre-impact fractures were observed. An engine control cable continuity check was performed from the engine controls back through the aircraft firewall to the end of the cables at the lever arms. No cockpit mounting structure remained, and due to impact damage, the control cables could not be exercised. The engine control governor pointer was found at 84 degrees. The bottom gearbox drain plug was removed and no debris was observed.

MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION

An autopsy of the pilot was not performed. Toxicological samples were obtained, and toxicological tests conducted by the FAA's Toxicology and Accident Research Laboratory were negative for carbon monoxide, cyanide, ethanol, and drugs.

TESTS AND RESEARCH

A complete engine teardown examination was conducted on November 23, 2005, at the facilities of Rolls-Royce Corporation in Indianapolis, Indiana, under the supervision of an FAA inspector. The compressor rotated freely after removal from the gearbox; it was not examined further. The accessory gearbox was rotated in both the N1 and N2 drive trains from the tachometer drives pads once the turbine and compressor were removed. All drive pads rotated freely; no further disassembly was performed. The combustion section was unremarkable. Significant turbine wheel tip rub was observed in the fourth stage turbine nozzle third stage blade track area. The rub circumferentially was from approximately the 9 o'clock to the 6 o'clock position. The N2 drive train rotated after removal of the exhaust collector. All engine shafting was intact and unremarkable. The observed engine bearings were intact, rotated smoothly and displayed no signs of distress. On January 31, 2006, the fuel control unit was bench tested at the facilities of Honeywell Controls in South Bend, Indiana, under the supervision of an FAA inspector. The bench test results indicated the control met or exceeded in-service limits. On February 2, 2006, the overspeed governor and the propeller governor were bench tested at the facilities of Woodward Controls in Rockville, Illinois, under the supervision of an FAA inspector. Both units performed within service limits. No mechanical anomaly was found which would have precluded normal operation of the engine or its components.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

The wreckage was released to a representative of the owner on March 14, 2006.
 
Upon further review..

Thinking about the flight in/out of Flying B - going in was the one time in flying where I have been seriously concerned. There are big rocks, close in. No reason why, on departure, you can't just fly up the canyon to gain altitude, but if you are impatient, and try to turn without doing it right, well, stuff happens in the mountains.

What experience did this guy have in the mountains? how much time in the plane, in those conditions? What were wx conditions? Did he try departing in the afternoon??

My money is on this being a mountain flying accident - seat rails have nothing to do with it. Nobody is flying with bad seat rails anymore.

Jurors in Philly will not understand mountain flying. At all. Nothing short of an IMAX film could bring it home to them.

If I were plaintiff's attorney, I'd file in Philly over, say, McCall ID any time.
 
I posted after the accident report went up.

Decent flying conditions, but hot. Was he nervous about being able to climb, and rotated too soon?
 
And an aircraft that was 16 years old at the time of the accident, so the suit against Cessna can go forward. Of course, it takes someone utterly devoid of common sense to decide a machine was improperly manufactured because it broke 16 years later.
 
The seat rail AD just plays into the shysters pockets. Its not "look, this was required maintenance the guy didn't do, it was his fault" but comes out as "look, the company built a defective airplane where the seat can roll backwards".
But aren't both of the statement actually correct?

It was a defective seat rail design and it needed a required modification. So now the question becomes if the modification was made would it have prevented this accident? Now the jury becomes 'forensic engineers'.
 
And an aircraft that was 16 years old at the time of the accident, so the suit against Cessna can go forward. Of course, it takes someone utterly devoid of common sense to decide a machine was improperly manufactured because it broke 16 years later.

Say what?

"FAA airworthiness records for the airplane indicated the 1979 Cessna P210N..."

On September 28, 2005, about 1715 mountain daylight time, a Cessna P210N, N45SE, impacted terrain during takeoff initial climb...
That would make it 26. Methinks your trusty little HP calculator needs new batteries. :D

OTOH, the Silver Eagle mod was done in 2000. Does that reset the GARA 18-year clock?
 
OTOH, the Silver Eagle mod was done in 2000. Does that reset the GARA 18-year clock?

iirc, the 18-year clock is only the mod itself, not the entire airplane.
 
Say what?

That would make it 26. Methinks your trusty little HP calculator needs new batteries. :D

OTOH, the Silver Eagle mod was done in 2000. Does that reset the GARA 18-year clock?

Ooof, how embarrassing. Another in a long line of reasons why a biology professor should never dabble in simple arithmetic. Then GARA should protect Cessna from the suit until the lawyer takes it to the SCOTUS.
 
Seeing as the NTSB report indicates they found no seat rails (I presume they were destroyed in the cabin fire), what evidenciary support is there for suing Cessna for faulty rails being contributory to this accident?
 
Because Cessna has deep pockets and the same lawyer extracted 480 million the last time he sued them on the seat rail thing.

2001 Cassoutt vs. Cessna Aircraft Company
This case is the largest aviation verdict of all time. A Pensacola Florida jury awarded four hundred and eighty million dollars ($480,000,000) against Cessna Aircraft Company for another seat slip that caused two passengers to be severely burned and another to be crippled for life. The Wolk Law Firm proved that Cessna, in spite of being punished twenty years before in the Harper case continued to allow unsafe pilots’ seats to be used in its aircraft and did nothing to retrofit those aircraft with features to prevent the seat slip before the occurrence of this accident years later. The verdict was some eighty million dollars ($80,000,000) compensatory and four hundred million dollars ($400,000,000) in punitive damages.
 
What people will do to hunt or fish.....
 
I knew someone who worked for Cessna as an accountant. It's standard operating procedure to go after Cessna (or other manufacturer). Unfortunately, it's often cheaper for Cessna to settle than fight.

I'd be skeptical of that statement with regard to a manufacturer like Cessna. While the cost to settle one case might appear more favorable than litigating it, to actually settle meritless cases invites more meritless cases with all the attendant costs. Many companies have a policy of defending these cases. Yes, it costs money in the short term, but is well worth it in the long term.
 
Isn't this case being litigated by the Same A. W. that was going to sued AvWeb for slander a while back? So be careful who you are calling a shyster....
Not only sued AvWeb but three of the posters, one of which is a former PoA Member. One should always watch who they are defaming on the Internet. Any illusions to being protected in a private area is just that, an illusion.
 
Last edited:
Isn't this case being litigated by the Same A. W. that was going to sued AvWeb for slander a while back? So be careful who you are calling a shyster....
1. Wolk sued AvWeb and three other "contributors" over some slanderous remarks. The contributors for making the remarks and AvWeb for not policing what was being said more closely IIRC. It might be a good idea to edit any remark that might be considered slander from postings.

2. It is a shame that NTSB reports can't be used in Civil cases.
 
Not only sued AvWeb but three of the posters, one of which is a former PoA Member. One should always watch who they are defaming on the Internet. Any illusions to being protected in a private area is just that, an illusion.

Keep in mind who that former member was and how, well, how do I say this, strident, his remarks frequently were.


That being said, this suit is crap, IMHO. No rails? No evidence? No case. I'm no lawyer, but, come on. And if it's Cessna's fault, why sue O&N? I know the answer. I just hate seeing companies bankrupted for crap like this.
 
I'm no lawyer, but, come on. And if it's Cessna's fault, why sue O&N? I know the answer. I just hate seeing companies bankrupted for crap like this.

I just can't see how the connection can be made from a stall-mush crash to seat slippage if the aircraft was close to being trimmed correctly for takeoff.


Trapper John
 
That being said, this suit is crap, IMHO. No rails? No evidence? No case. I'm no lawyer, but, come on. And if it's Cessna's fault, why sue O&N? I know the answer. I just hate seeing companies bankrupted for crap like this.

It's Philly, you can indict a ham sandwich there.

That state allows the plaintiff to choose the place to file a claim and it allows the plaintiff to choose his jury. 90% of the tort problem in PA is concentrated on that courthouse.
 
I still don't understand how you can file suit when to do so is against the law.
 
Back
Top