Looking for an A&P to provide assistance in an engine related lawsuit

Blatham489

Blatham489

Pre-takeoff checklist
Joined
Jul 4, 2013
Messages
417
Location
Kerrville
Display Name
Display name:
Latham
Need an A&P with Continental 520/550 proficiency willing to provide statement and/or testimony in an engine related lawsuit, preferably in or near the Houston area. PM me if you know of one or are one.

PS this has nothing to do with cylinder and valve issues
 
Blatham489 said:
Need an A&P with Continental 520/550 proficiency willing to provide statement and/or testimony in an engine related lawsuit, preferably in or near the Houston area. PM me if you know of one or are one.

PS this has nothing to do with cylinder and valve issues
Click to expand...

JScarry said:
Sounds like you need to give Mike Busch a call.
Click to expand...

You want a highly credentialed expert witness like Mike Bush and not just an A&P who with one word will sink your case under cross-exam.
 
Probably worth mentioning if this "statement" benefits the plaintiff or the defense of the owner of said engine (or his estate)
 
Last edited:
OP has not said what the subject matter of the law suite is. Just curious what the problem is/was.
 
Ever heard of those stories where a doctor leaves a sponge in the patient during minor surgery, and the patient dies? Kinda like that. Luckily the patient’s owner survived but he’s more than a little ****ed at the careless doctor.
 
wilkersk said:
It was the whole "shock-cooling-is-a-myth" thing. Then he had to jump in on the borescope debate. You gotta see how that would get some people riled up! ;););)
Click to expand...

I not a Busch hater or lover, but I don’t see him as the expert some do.
 
NordicDave said:
Got to love the Mike Bush haters.
Click to expand...
Nothing to do with love/hate. The only original thing he's done is collect, package, market, and monetize existing, freely accessible aviation recommendations/ideas/options and sell them to unsuspecting GA owners and pilots for a profit. I've helped a number of owners wean off their MB addiction which can be rather easy once you show them where the info is and how to use it. The rest of his mantra is purely opinion based of which I mainly don't agree from a mx point except in flying 91 aircraft past engine TBOs. But if MB gives you a warm fuzzy so be it.

If you really want to read about a top shelf mechanic look up articles on/by Bill O'Brien, FAA.
 
NordicDave said:
Got to love the Mike Bush haters.
Click to expand...
At least the "haters" know how to spell his name.

I've met Mike in 1993 at Oshkosh back when he was hawking that Psion flight planning thing (Flightmaster?). I had had dealings with him before on the old CompuServe AVSIG. He's got good information, but not all of it I agree with and there are some other personal issues that I won't go into.

However, what a great writer he is and how much he espouses about aviation doesn't mean that he is going to be a good expert witness. And that's what you need an expert witness (that's the term not "professional witness" though the latter is pretty descriptive). And there are firms that specialize in providing witnesses tailored to your litigation. Your attorney, if he doesn't know how to find one, needs to be replaced. Further, if you are trying to go up against Continental without an attorney, you've not got a prayer. Continental has already a big leg up on litigation against you.

If you are going to assert that there was some defect in the engine, you're going to need more than an A&P. You're going to need someone with a mechanical engineering or perhaps material science background (depending on just what you're trying to assert).
 
I will say one thing for Mike Busch, he writes under his own name, he doesn't hide behind an alias. I think he has some good information about using borescopes . My" credentials", if I have any, are Air Force mech training and 45 years of gen av experience.
Ive never been an "expert witness" in any trial except for myself as a mediation and I/we won that one eventually. The other side made their claims, sounded good until we showed photos that had been taken and given to me. Other side lawyer didn't have muvh to say after that.

I once went to small claims court, for about $2200 that FBO shop had installed wrong vac pump. I had a letter from Beech with correct part number and receipt from shop with wrong part nu. Judge asked about warranties,but decided In my favor. A and P had just read part number off old part and missed the new revision one.
 
Last edited:
I am not hiding behind an alias. Anybody who's spent more than a few months on any of these forums knows exactly who I am. There's good reason to not use my real name as the username, but I posted my name in threads here when it was appropriate. That picture over there is my house and I've used my N number in examples enough that anybody with a half a brain would have figured it out.


Still, knowing how to use a borescope doesn't make one an expert witness. While I'd take Mike's advice on maintenance issues, I'm not sure he's qualified to talk about product defects. That was my only point (other than to spell his name right).

-Ron Natalie (happy?)
 
Doc Holliday said:
I can think of a few other aviation writers who have a following, and have garnered awards from various groups. I wouldn't consider them as "experts" in anything except writing skills.
Click to expand...
And some of us aviation writers who have garnered awards from various groups agree with you. Except the part about writing skills. :)

Ron Wanttaja
 
An expert witness is just a term for someone paid to be there. Their job is to convince a small crowd of non experts without triggering their BS detectors.

Santa Claus isn't real either
 
wanttaja said:
And some of us aviation writers who have garnered awards from various groups agree with you. Except the part about writing skills. :)

Ron Wanttaja
Click to expand...

Your buddy and fellow writer Zoom would be a great expert witness.:D
 
Clip4 said:
Your buddy and fellow writer Zoom would be a great expert witness.:D
Click to expand...
Now, now...give Zoom credit for spotting talent. I've only been listed as an editor on the masthead of one magazine, and it was one of Zoom's.

Mind you, I was listed without my knowledge or permission, but what the heck....

Ron "Associate Editor, Gulf Coast Aviator" Wanttaja
 
Clip4 said:
He is a writer with a following
Click to expand...
Doc Holliday said:
Recognized expert?
Click to expand...
Indeed... most humans fall very easy prey to the "appeal to authority" fallacy.. even if the person is not a real authority, just a perceived authority. You could probably cite Oprah and for the right audience you'd win.. "Oprah said she thinks flying is dangerous, it must be true!" Mike Busch need not be credentialed, but if who ever is deciding the case sees a name they recognize, someone who has a following, has published books, etc., will (sadly) generally garner more weight then the no name cubicle engineer, who actually *is* credentialed

..I don't know enough about Mike Busch, but his writings aren't bad from what I've read and been given in various flying related events.. and unfortunately our 1920's technology engines (closer to 1900 actually, which is when the magneto was first used) require as much science as they do art to operate.. I always laugh when trying to start a club plane and the local expert on the field goes "you have to prime it twice on odd days of the month, 3 times on even days, then count to 3 slowly.. or 5 quickly, then wiggle the throttle a little after pushing it in and out fast.. next rub your belly and pat your head, then she should kick right over!"

..if Lyco and Conti put out more capable engines or more competent operation manuals that go beyond a 5 step list in the POH we might not need the powerplant equivalent of Mike Busch televangelists for our engines
 
schmookeeg said:
Probably worth mentioning if this "statement" benefits the plaintiff or the defense of the owner of said engine (or his estate)
Click to expand...
Sounds to me like they would be the same person in all regards. Nonetheless, it sounds a bit tortuous to me, so I’d imagine it’ll be tried under the appropriate set of law. Although, I’m not quite understanding the whole issue, but I assume @Blatham489 is intentionally being ambiguous - and rightfully so.
 
Ryanb said:
Sounds to me like they would be the same person in all regards. Nonetheless, it sounds a bit tortuous to me, so I’d imagine it’ll be tried under the appropriate set of law. Although, I’m not quite understanding the whole issue, but I assume @Blatham489 is intentionally being ambiguous - and rightfully so.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I had missed the earlier blue towel thread until it got posted in here.

Asking an A&P to testify against another one... I know a few who would do that.
 
Grum.Man said:
Did insurance not cover the damages?
Click to expand...
It may, at least up front, if the plane was damaged in an accident, but if there was an engine failure due to human failure, the insurance company will go after that person to get their $$ back.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
It may, at least up front, if the plane was damaged in an accident, but if there was an engine failure due to human failure, the insurance company will go after that person to get their $$ back.
Click to expand...

Usually insurance covers damage from a mechanical failure, not the failure.
 
Seems that an engineer from the engine manufacturer could be subpoenaed to act as a credible witness, although most A&P mechanics could probably tell you the outcome.
 
Bill Greenwood said:
I will say one thing for Mike Busch, he writes under his own name, he doesn't hide behind an alias.
Click to expand...
True. But Mike Busch is selling his name or if you prefer his brand. When I've written technical articles or columns, they've all been published under my proper name. But I have no brand to sell. So when I post on forums, which are very few, I use a simple alias to keep life simple.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top