astanley
En-Route
From the 12 January 2006 issue of "AINAlerts":
Wonderful, eh?
Cheers,
-Andrew
Wonderful, eh?
Cheers,
-Andrew
Have fun, get killed, sue for money
- Thread starter astanley
- Start date
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
N2212R said:
You might wish to rethink posting that thought
The Joseph W. Williams is the Joe Williams who posts here so maybe he has something to add about his expiriences.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
And when you get right down to it, I can't put all the blame at the attorney's feet for such things. Our legal system could do with work, the fact that it allows insane awards, and judgments that fly in the face of known facts is absurd.
PS on this particular incident, I am not so sure the relight failure was entirely the crew's fault. Although the first link or two in the chain most likely was.
PS on this particular incident, I am not so sure the relight failure was entirely the crew's fault. Although the first link or two in the chain most likely was.
EdFred
Taxi to Parking
smigaldi said:
The hot shot pilot ignored warnings, didn't follow procedure, etc...they screwed up on their joy ride, EOS. When a lawfirm files suit against EVERYONE, they are just looking for an easy payday.
If this POS lawsuit results in a "victory" for Motley Crue then perhaps all the pilots that run out of gas should sue Exxon, AirBP, Lycoming, Continental, Phillips, Piper, Cessna, various spark plug makers, etc... because if their products burned fuel more efficiently then they would not have run out of fuel and crashed. Pilots flying with their heads up their ass should not result in payment.
jesse
Touchdown! Greaser!
Have you read the CVR transcript of this flight?
These guys were being absolute idiots.
They killed themselves, that simple. Their family should get nothing.
...I would laugh if someone tried to sue me. I'd just hand them my checkbook. If they knew how to work the dollar menu at McDonalds they might be able to buy a meal with my money.
These guys were being absolute idiots.
They killed themselves, that simple. Their family should get nothing.
...I would laugh if someone tried to sue me. I'd just hand them my checkbook. If they knew how to work the dollar menu at McDonalds they might be able to buy a meal with my money.
astanley said:
Well, yeah. Nothings been decided yet, the suit has just been filed. The guys were idiots, and unprofesional ones at that. They played test pilot without knowing what they could be in for. They didn't think they would get hurt out of it because they were trying to get to max certified altitude, they just hadn't done their calculations properly nor had they obviously received any training in operating in the "top right hand corner" of the envelope. Is there going to be a settlement in this one? You bet. Will it be big? Nope. It'll probably pay about like life insurance 5-7 years income. IIRC, since they were employees, strict liability doesn't apply so a pro rata liability split does. It really depends on the engine report, and the real ability of the aircraft to operate at the certified FL 410. Now, if it appears that the FL 410 thing was a marketing division thing that brought about some fudging, all bets are off and punative damages apply. Most likely not though and the award will be about $250,000 per dead crew, and that would seem fair since it looks like there was an engine core problem that shouldn't have happenned even though they were stupid about the way they handled the flight. Although switching seats, I don't know where that even plays a part, who cares? It's not hazardous and can be viewed as appropriate for the Captain to allow the FO on a repositioning flight, into the Left seat in furtherance of his training.
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
Let'sgoflying! said:
Here is one case I ran across where the legal system was used to restore someone's reputation after (allegedly) false charges were filed. We'll never know the whole story, but if it is what the plaintiff said it is, I believe that it was appropriate for him to use the court system to restore his good name:
http://www.roanoke.com/news/roanoke/wb/48297
"When a Roanoke prosecutor dropped the charge, Reagan took the rare step of suing his accuser for $1 million, claiming malicious prosecution, defamation and emotional duress.
.................
.......Anthony said that the woman (accuser) told her she was having trouble remembering the event, in part because of alcohol, cocaine and methamphetamines she had used that day."
kevin47881
Final Approach
wsuffa said:
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
I put most of the blame on people's greed other than the laywers. There seems to be way too many people out there who believe that anything bad that happens must be somebody (else's) fault and that somebody owes the "victim" a big chunk of change. If most people were willing to take responsibility for their own actions and decisions, there'd be a whole lot less business for any ambulance chasers.Let'sgoflying! said:
I personally have been fighting the urge to threaten a lawsuit for an injury I suffered last summer. While waterskiing with a brand new high priced / high quality handle (the handle consists of an aluminim bar wrapped in some sort of grippy stuff and attached to a 5 ft bridle) the handle broke in half when I leaned away from the boat to cut across the wake. This handle was of a new design in which the bridle rope passes through the hollow handle bar rather than being attached directly to the ends of the bar. When the handle broke the bar actually shattered leaving some very jagged edges and the rope running through the bar trapped my hands. I was wearing gloves (as is typical) but the combination of the jagged edges and the trapping rope removed virtually all the flesh and from the bone on the last joint of my right hand little finger. I've broken handles many times before with no more than a few bruises, but usually the break is in one of the ropes of the bridle where it attaches to the bar and the trauma from such an accident normally involves your hands hitting your own gut (or lower!) and/or a hard crash into the boat wake (at about 60 mph) . I also have bent/broken a few ski handle bars but in every case before the bar didn't break completely apart nor did it present any sharp edges to my hands.
Normally I would consider a skiing injury to be just one of those things that happen, but this time I've been thinking that the manufacturer shouldn't have used a material which could break in a way that leaves sharp pointy edges where your hands are and they should have anticipated that running the bridle rope through the bar would trap hands if the bar broke. So far I've resisted the urge to seek monetary compensation but I have come close to asking for several thousand bucks for my pain and suffering, medical treatment, time off work, and the permanent loss of feeling in that part of my hand. I guess it must come down to whether or not I really think the manufacturer should be responsible for this kind of injury, that is one that occurs when using a (brand new no less) product as intended and a defect causes the injury. I went for a few weeks without being able to type normally (part of my job), lost over a month of our rather short ski season, and was in pretty serious pain for at least a couple weeks. Pulling off the remaider of my right glove and seeing the bone of my little finger with most of the flesh hanging by a few threads is a sight that continues to haunt me to some extent as well (but I'm sure I can get over that).
What do you all think about this?
Last edited:
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
lancefisher said:
I'm a believer in having the court system available to provide redress when it can't be obtained any other way. Redress does not mean "punitive", it means redress.
In the case I cited above, the guy (plaintiff) sat in jail a few days and had his reputation harmed because the girl (allegedly) improperly accused him of a crime. The case was dropped. And she (allegedly) had been using drugs all day before the original incident. (In the bible, what she allegedly did is called 'bearing false witness')... Yes, he has a right to redress, and the woman who was concerned about 'victims not coming forward' ought to have a talk with the girl, not push for restriction of lawsuits. Supporting my case is the fact that he was willing to settle for nominal money and a public apology.
I also believe that *if* a product is subject to regulation (take, for example, aircraft certification), there should be a much, much higher standard for filing a lawsuit against the manufacturer.
On the other hand, having the lawsuit as a means to obtain a remedy is intended to ensure that manufacturers act in a more responsible fashion. If, for example, there were no quality control process for an SUV, and the manufacturer left off 4 of the 5 bolts that hold the front wheel on, and an accident resulted, then the manufacturer should be liable for that accident.
In your case, if you approached the manufacturer and they refused to provide any recompense, and you incurred out-of-pocket expense due to a design or manufacturing flaw, then I wouldn't fault a lawsuit to recover those costs. Asking for punitive damages of $millions would give me heartburn, however.
Part of the reason that punitive damages exist is the fault of irresponsible manufacturers. I call it the Pinto syndrome. Ford knew about a product defect that caused fires in the vehicles, resulting in a certain number of deaths. They then calculated the cost of 1) making the design changes, and 2) making field repairs under a recall... then calculated that cost against the cost of paying for "loss of life" when the inevitable accidents and fires happened. Some financial nimrod - approved by management - came to the conclusion that "loss of life" was cheaper, so that was the way the company went.
http://www.fordpinto.com/blowup.htm
Now, that leaves me conflicted. Should there be punitive damages assessed where a manufacturer is shown conclusively to have ignored the liklihood of injury/death from their product, even in well-trained hands? For aircraft, we have gov't approved safety specs and a training program that sensitizes pilots to the dangers. Not so with the Pinto.
So, the question becomes: do we need the ability to have punitive damages to encourage responsible behavior by manufacturers?
I think where I come down on this is as follows: If it's reasonable redress for actual injuries, OK. If it's a lawyer/plaintiff trying to hit the 'jackpot', it's not OK.
lancefisher said:
If it is a bad design (as it was) if you don't sue them about it, what incentive do they have to change the design so it doesn't happen again to someone else, possibly with more tragic results?
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
I'm definitely not looking for a big payoff, but even 5-10k would be beyond my direct costs. Actually my main interest is in convincing the manufacturer that they should pull this product off the market or at least warn users of the unusual potential for serious injury. So far they offered to replace the handle at their expense but I really haven't pushed for anything more as I'm conflicted about whether this is the "right thing to do".
wsuffa
Touchdown! Greaser!
lancefisher said:
They're probably hanging their hat on the "no incidental or consequential damages" portion of the warranty.
You need to have a conversation with the corporate counsel for the company if they just "don't get it". Put them "on notice" that there is a patent design defect.
Given that proliferation of internet sites and media outlets that would be interested in the case, you shouldn't have a hard time convincing them they ought to do something. Or the threat of action by the CPSC.
http://www.wcco.com/bios/local_bio_160135112.html
http://www.kmsp.tv/news/investigators/
http://www.kstp.com/article/5/
February is sweeps month. The media vultures circle for blood in February....
I would say yes...However.
I think that punitive damages should go to neither the person filing the suit, nor the lawyers. I would think the damages should go to somehow rectify the offending system, or assistance to individuals harmed in similar situations.
In the case of the Pinto, the punitive damages could be distributed to various burn centers, or burn research. If it is determined that an aircraft manufacturer knowingly used substandard parts in an engine, they may have to pay for the overhaul to new specs for all affected engines, not just the "simple" replacement of the substandard parts.
James_Dean
Pattern Altitude
If the familes get any money out of this I think that Pinnacle should countersue the families to recover the purchase price of the perfectly usable CRJ they destroyed. For pete's sake they melted an engine after they stalled the aircraft, after they hit the OVERRIDE on the stick pusher. Then kept quiet on the whole double engine failure to ATC until they were below 15,000 feet.
Minutes from last public hearing
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...ts/default.htm
FDR Factual Report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...its/316970.pdf
CVR Transcript:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...VR_Factual.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/316970.pdf
GE Report on Engine Core Lock:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...its/324090.pdf
Human Performance Report/Crew Histories:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...its/322805.pdf
James Dean
Minutes from last public hearing
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...ts/default.htm
FDR Factual Report:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...its/316970.pdf
CVR Transcript:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...VR_Factual.pdf
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/316970.pdf
GE Report on Engine Core Lock:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...its/324090.pdf
Human Performance Report/Crew Histories:
http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinn...its/322805.pdf
James Dean
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
The most chilling part of the CVR transcript:
"aw #. we’re gonna hit houses dude."
"aw #. we’re gonna hit houses dude."
ScottM
Taxi to Parking
- Joined
- Jul 19, 2005
- Messages
- 42,529
- Location
- Variable, but somewhere on earth
- Display Name
Display name:
iBazinga!
lancefisher said:
Of all the CVR transcripts I have read or heard that one ranks number two on the chill list. The first was from he Alaska Air MD-80 that crashed off of LA a few years ago. Just before impact the FO say "Here we go"
Get me every time. I just keep picturing myself right next to him as he says it, looking out the window, seeing the ocean and knowing you have no chance and are dead. BRRRRRrrrrr!
Parker Hannifin is named as a defendant???? 
Do they get named in every lawsuit because they've managed to stay in business in spite of being named in every lawsuit?
Do they get named in every lawsuit because they've managed to stay in business in spite of being named in every lawsuit?
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
Its fascinating and dismaying to me how our legal system works sometimes.
I have to wonder how all those other countries function under similar circumstances.... say if the pinto problem occured in England or a jet crashes in Australia, how do they cope with the problems of compensating real victims and penalizing truly negligent companies?
If, as some believe, attorneys are 'in power' here because the strongest lobbyists are attorney groups and most politicians are attorneys*, how did it NOT get that way in other countries??
*speculation only
I have to wonder how all those other countries function under similar circumstances.... say if the pinto problem occured in England or a jet crashes in Australia, how do they cope with the problems of compensating real victims and penalizing truly negligent companies?
If, as some believe, attorneys are 'in power' here because the strongest lobbyists are attorney groups and most politicians are attorneys*, how did it NOT get that way in other countries??
*speculation only
Let'sgoflying! said:
Remember how the inclusion of a reference to Qantas in the movie, "Rain Man" gave rise to the myth that Qantas was the safest airline in history?
The current furor over litigation, largely stirred up by the insurance lobby, has created the myth that litigation is somehow dramatically more prevalent now than it was in the past (which it ain't), and that the USA is the only place where aggressive and offensive litigation is pursued (also, not true).
Not to say that there are not substantial abuses (as there are, and especially since the distasteful practice of lawyer advertising became legal), but it is not an epidemic... and we are not the only ones with lots of litigation (Australia mentioned, they advertise over there, too...).
Most important thing we can do? Ensure that the public is better-educated as to the true costs of incredibly high damage awards, that they understand money paid by insurance carriers, is paid by us all.
===
Disclaimer: I am not a plaintiffs' lawyer, I represent businesses.
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
Danger; Political!
Thanks for the ers ective from one in the rofession, S ike!
S.... I get these emails every monday - would you give your o inion of this? Anyone?
http://www.tx4tx.org/
http://www.tortreform.com/
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"The report is not a criticism of the many honorable attorneys in Texas who work hard and give donations to candidates in average amounts similar to other community members."
"Trial lawyers' primary purpose in making huge and often conflicting political contributions is not to advance their own deeply held views, but to protect and expand the mechanisms in policy and law through which they can profit at others' expense."
Thanks for the ers ective from one in the rofession, S ike!
S.... I get these emails every monday - would you give your o inion of this? Anyone?
http://www.tx4tx.org/
http://www.tortreform.com/
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"The report is not a criticism of the many honorable attorneys in Texas who work hard and give donations to candidates in average amounts similar to other community members."
"Trial lawyers' primary purpose in making huge and often conflicting political contributions is not to advance their own deeply held views, but to protect and expand the mechanisms in policy and law through which they can profit at others' expense."
Re: Danger; Political!
Dave:
Did you have an accident? Because you have no P!
It's... complicated. You have the "lawsuit reform" groups which, if you drill down a bit, are funded by insurance carriers, and some of the restructions they promote would serve to deprive legitimate victims of meaningful redress, and hence, destroy much incentive for safer practices, or so say the ATLA and TTLA (American / Texas Trial Lawyers' Ass'n).
Since there is no "bright line," on one side of which is the "good" litigation and the other, the "bad," there is a constant balancing act of trying to avoid excessive windfalls for plaintoffs and their counsel, while not depriving those legitimately wronged of any remedy at all.
I have had way too many opportunities to defend good and honorable business owners who either (1) had no culpability at all for a circumstance, but were being sued because of their presence at a jobsite (or, more to the point, becaus eof the presence of their insurance policy in the mix); or (2) had some small degree of responsibility for a situation and genuinely wanted to do something right for the harmed party, but were precluded from being able to do so by plaintiffs' counsel who decreed, "not enough," and in the process, netted their clients less (though, often, more for themselves).
There are those businesses and people who genuinely do not care about bad consequences, but I don't know very many. The challenge is to get juries to recognize that, every time they decide to pour out a defendant (the mean ol' "corporation"), they are also pouring out a whole bunch of jobs and opportunity for the people who relied upon that company for their own livelihood. Many on juries believe (mistakenly) that if an insurance carrier pays the tab, it's a "no harm" game (hence, insurance carriers' interest); not realizing that, every time a new record verdict is reached, the cost of coverage for the remainder of the affected industry just went up, and the money and resources available for expansion, promotions, raises, innovative ideas, all diminish.
Not easy. Not at all.
Let'sgoflying! said:
Dave:
Did you have an accident? Because you have no P!
It's... complicated. You have the "lawsuit reform" groups which, if you drill down a bit, are funded by insurance carriers, and some of the restructions they promote would serve to deprive legitimate victims of meaningful redress, and hence, destroy much incentive for safer practices, or so say the ATLA and TTLA (American / Texas Trial Lawyers' Ass'n).
Since there is no "bright line," on one side of which is the "good" litigation and the other, the "bad," there is a constant balancing act of trying to avoid excessive windfalls for plaintoffs and their counsel, while not depriving those legitimately wronged of any remedy at all.
I have had way too many opportunities to defend good and honorable business owners who either (1) had no culpability at all for a circumstance, but were being sued because of their presence at a jobsite (or, more to the point, becaus eof the presence of their insurance policy in the mix); or (2) had some small degree of responsibility for a situation and genuinely wanted to do something right for the harmed party, but were precluded from being able to do so by plaintiffs' counsel who decreed, "not enough," and in the process, netted their clients less (though, often, more for themselves).
There are those businesses and people who genuinely do not care about bad consequences, but I don't know very many. The challenge is to get juries to recognize that, every time they decide to pour out a defendant (the mean ol' "corporation"), they are also pouring out a whole bunch of jobs and opportunity for the people who relied upon that company for their own livelihood. Many on juries believe (mistakenly) that if an insurance carrier pays the tab, it's a "no harm" game (hence, insurance carriers' interest); not realizing that, every time a new record verdict is reached, the cost of coverage for the remainder of the affected industry just went up, and the money and resources available for expansion, promotions, raises, innovative ideas, all diminish.
Not easy. Not at all.
Tim
Line Up and Wait
Scott
I wish I had saved that whole thread and the email that avweb sent out about it. I posted on that thread. I think it was really great to be able to debate directly with the guy that represented the party in court. I did not and still do not agree with Mr. Wolk. The posts that set him off where over the line. How ever when it happens to folks here on this board or any other board, that are not big time lawyers.... What recourse do they have? Seems once again the haves come out ahead of the have nots. The haves at least had the resouces to defend their name. Where did you get the clip of 03/11/03?
Quote:
'A mob mentality takes over online' March 11, 2003
By Estelle Ellis
American aviation attorney Arthur Alan Wolk is one of the lucky few who claimed victory in an Internet defamation dispute.
Wolk is an attorney and a pilot with 30 years' experience. He used to pilot a Korean War jet fighter before he crashed on takeoff from the Kalamazoo Battle Creek International Airport. An investigation found that he had not been at fault.
When Wolk, however, criticised a Special Federal Aviation Regulation issued after it was decided to pay off victims rather than to fix the faulty petrol tanks of a fleet of aircraft, he fell prey to severe criticism and ridicule in the chatroom of AVWeb - an aviation website.
People called Wolk an "ambulance chaser", a "bastard" and a "load of scum".
"In truth, Wolk does not lie, did not lie, is not a conniver and, as luck would have it, is not a bastard either," Wolk's attorneys countered in court papers after he issued a summons against AVWeb and the online participants in the discussion.
Wolk sued the AVWeb Group, who at that stage provided Internet services to about 125 000 subscribers who were mostly pilots and aircraft owners. He also sued the editor-in-chief of AVWeb, Michael Busch; the editor, Joseph Burnside; and those who had participated in the discussion: Joseph W Williams, Robert Johnson, Brent Owen and Ross Harvey. top.DisplayAds('Pos7',2,225);
AVWeb was advised to settle and apologise. They agreed to start supervising their chatroom. Wolk asked them not to pay him but rather make a donation to charity.
Owen wrote his own apology in which he stated: "There is a mob mentality that takes hold in chatrooms on the Internet.
"Things that people would ordinarily never say or do become easy, perhaps because of the anonymity that is provided.
"What I didn't realise, and do now, is that the Internet has great capacity to do harm to innocent people ... therefore, for some reason that I cannot adequately explain, I harmed a person whom I didn't even know.
"That is just wrong, and for that I apologise to Mr Wolk, and I appreciate his willingness to forgive me without exacting a price from me," Owen stated.
The Joseph W. Williams is the Joe Williams who posts here so maybe he has something to add about his expiriences.
__________________
Scott F. Migaldi
CP-ASEL-IA
'80 Piper PA28-161 N8116B
I wish I had saved that whole thread and the email that avweb sent out about it. I posted on that thread. I think it was really great to be able to debate directly with the guy that represented the party in court. I did not and still do not agree with Mr. Wolk. The posts that set him off where over the line. How ever when it happens to folks here on this board or any other board, that are not big time lawyers.... What recourse do they have? Seems once again the haves come out ahead of the have nots. The haves at least had the resouces to defend their name.
Where did you get the clip of 03/11/03?Quote:
'A mob mentality takes over online' March 11, 2003
By Estelle Ellis
American aviation attorney Arthur Alan Wolk is one of the lucky few who claimed victory in an Internet defamation dispute.
Wolk is an attorney and a pilot with 30 years' experience. He used to pilot a Korean War jet fighter before he crashed on takeoff from the Kalamazoo Battle Creek International Airport. An investigation found that he had not been at fault.
When Wolk, however, criticised a Special Federal Aviation Regulation issued after it was decided to pay off victims rather than to fix the faulty petrol tanks of a fleet of aircraft, he fell prey to severe criticism and ridicule in the chatroom of AVWeb - an aviation website.
People called Wolk an "ambulance chaser", a "bastard" and a "load of scum".
"In truth, Wolk does not lie, did not lie, is not a conniver and, as luck would have it, is not a bastard either," Wolk's attorneys countered in court papers after he issued a summons against AVWeb and the online participants in the discussion.
Wolk sued the AVWeb Group, who at that stage provided Internet services to about 125 000 subscribers who were mostly pilots and aircraft owners. He also sued the editor-in-chief of AVWeb, Michael Busch; the editor, Joseph Burnside; and those who had participated in the discussion: Joseph W Williams, Robert Johnson, Brent Owen and Ross Harvey. top.DisplayAds('Pos7',2,225);
AVWeb was advised to settle and apologise. They agreed to start supervising their chatroom. Wolk asked them not to pay him but rather make a donation to charity.
Owen wrote his own apology in which he stated: "There is a mob mentality that takes hold in chatrooms on the Internet.
"Things that people would ordinarily never say or do become easy, perhaps because of the anonymity that is provided.
"What I didn't realise, and do now, is that the Internet has great capacity to do harm to innocent people ... therefore, for some reason that I cannot adequately explain, I harmed a person whom I didn't even know.
"That is just wrong, and for that I apologise to Mr Wolk, and I appreciate his willingness to forgive me without exacting a price from me," Owen stated.
The Joseph W. Williams is the Joe Williams who posts here so maybe he has something to add about his expiriences.
__________________
Scott F. Migaldi
CP-ASEL-IA
'80 Piper PA28-161 N8116B
woodstock
Final Approach
lancefisher said:
in this case, yes, you should at least try for medical costs and pain and suffering. that's ridiculous. you might not be the first /only one to do so either.
woodstock
Final Approach
smigaldi said:
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
lancefisher said:
Sorry to hear about your sports injury. Glad it wasn't worse.
You're obviously an experienced water skier participating voluntarily in a known, hazardous sport. Why didn't YOU take action against one of the perceived flaws in the equipment that you chose to use beforehand (i.e. the rope travelling through the bar) ?
Just curious.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
I wasn't aware of the design change. It looked a lot like the handle I was replacing as the rope attachment is hidden under a protective covering. In addition, I've never had a handle break in the same fashion. Usually the rope breaks where it attaches or the handle bends without breaking. It appears that the material used for this handle was very brittle as the ends look more like broken glass than bent metal. Ironically, I bought the new handle because the bridle on the one I had was showing signs of wear and I didn't want it to break in a tournament.Dave Krall CFII said:
Last edited:
Dave Krall CFII
Final Approach
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2005
- Messages
- 5,022
- Location
- Seattle WA
- Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
lancefisher said:
Interesting.
Is a few ounces of weight really such an issue in a tow bar's performance that it is worth sacrificing at the expense of safety for skiing competitions with such a repetitive history of breakage, regardless of design ?
Eamon
Line Up and Wait
I took my C-150 past it's service ceiling a few times
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
Heres our chance to make a cool mil or two:
"Waterski Towrope Weaklinks"
a device placed between the rope and handle, which has a breakaway limit of XYZ lbs tension for a 180lb man....enough to pull a person around, but will break if he falls, preventing dragging injuries! Just turn the knob to adjust for your weight and away you go! Did you know 4 people get hurt in the US every year by defective tow equipment?
This could be the one!
j/k!
"Waterski Towrope Weaklinks"
a device placed between the rope and handle, which has a breakaway limit of XYZ lbs tension for a 180lb man....enough to pull a person around, but will break if he falls, preventing dragging injuries! Just turn the knob to adjust for your weight and away you go! Did you know 4 people get hurt in the US every year by defective tow equipment?
This could be the one!
j/k!
Let'sgoflying!
Touchdown! Greaser!
Eamon said:I took my C-150 past it's service ceiling a few times
Really? Huh. What was your mach number up there!?
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Dave Krall CFII said:
I don't think it's the weight per se, but the density. They used to make them float, but now they just make them so they don't sink too fast. And like I said before, the usual weak link is where the rope attaches to the handle which this new design was likely intended to address. Most of the one's where the bar itself failed must have had inadequate/no heat treatment or the alloy was wrong because they just bent "wet noodle like" when stressed a little. This is the first time I ever saw one shatter.
gismo
Touchdown! Greaser!
Let'sgoflying! said:
Here's a minor little problem: When I ski I can produce a short term static load of about 750 lbs on the handle and a transient load about double that (the elasticity of the rope and handle are the limits there). The force needed to tear the flesh off my finger was probably on the order of 50-100 lbs, and the load of someone being dragged across the water is maybe on the order of 100-200 lbs. Let me know when you've got something that can distinguish between the necessary loads and the much smaller destructive/harmful loads and I'll help you set up the market.