NTSB asks FAA to ground Zodiac CH-601XL

The Zodiac is rated at +6/-3 G.


The aircraft isn't limited to that; that's merely a maneuver limit I stick to - not out of any reason to baby the airframe, but because pulling even 2 G for any length of time is pretty much guaranteed to get me airsick.

I didn't say the aircraft is breaking at 2 gs, I'm saying that it is easy to hit the 2g stick force issue which can then accelerate the change rate to a situation where more than the 6gs (or what ever force is required for destruction) can be exceeded with no further, or even giving corrective inputs on the part of the pilot. IOW, above 2gs and the aircraft may depart from controlled stable flight all by itself, and that 2gs can be exceeded with no input required from the pilot. I would never take my hand off the stick of that airplane. Full encircling grip at all times.
 
I'm about to post a reply to his blog, but it''l boil down to "conflict of interest much?".

Come on, Jay, there's no conflict of interest. Its obvious for all to see: Cessnas are, hands down, the best looking, most capable, and safest airplanes on the market right now.

I mean, compare the track record of the Cessna 152 to the Boeing 747. Seems obvious to me which one's safer. The 152 doesn't make itself more dangerous by adding flotation devices in the seats, and inflatable slides that can be used as a boat, and that pesky black box that lets the NTSB guess at a probable cause, which will inevitably read "Pilot Error."

All other plane manufacturers might as well fold up, since Cessna is so strong....oh, and not overpriced at all.
 
That is one of the funniest things I've read. Talk about drinking too much of the Cessna kool-aid. I'm still laughing after reading it, and I couldn't even finish the stupid thing. What an ignorant fool
 
You can post a reply right here and he'll read it. ;)
Well, here's the reply I posted on his blog, so he'll get to read it twice...

Wow. Your blog entry is such a naked display of conflict of interest I don't know where to begin.

I bought my AMD Zodiac XLi new at the factory last June. (It's the airplane in the page I linked to above.) I've flown it 154.5 hours since then, including several significant cross countries and for all of my work on a CFI-SP rating. In that time, I've never once had anything close to a problem that would cause an inflight emergency.

It's also better equipped than any Skycatcher will ever be. It's fully IFR certified, as well; that was a requirement for any LSA I purchased. The Skycatcher won't be offered in an IFR version. When I asked a Cessna VP about that at Sebring 2008, he claimed ignorance that any LSA could be. I don't know if he was just playing dumb, or was genuinely ignorant.

My Zodiac is far from "deadly". If you'd like, I'll be happy to demonstrate for you; my home airport is less than 90 minutes' flight from KSUX.

There are more Zodiacs flying, homebuilt and factory, than there are orders for Skycatchers. The type has a long history of homebuilt success, and is one of the more popular homebuilts around for very good reason. How many of those Skycatcher firm orders are from real buyers, and how many from Cessna Pilot Centers and Citation dealers who were forced to place orders for the Skycatcher in order to retain their status?

By the time I could get my hands on a Skycatcher (that assumes that the schedule doesn't slip, as Cessna execs have recently said might happen due to the second crash), I may well have flown 500 hours in my Zodiac. When I was ready to buy last spring, I wanted an airplane now, not three years from now. My airplane was built in the US by American workers, as well.

I have no doubt the Skycatcher will be a fine aircraft. Cessna is not known for putting out turkeys. However, an aircraft I can fly today beats an aircraft I'd have to wait three or more years for. (The first few hundred Skycatchers will go to Cessna Pilot Centers.) I haven't seen a price on the Skycatcher, but I'll be greatly surprised if I could get as much airplane for as little money.

In short, your message is a lot of innuendo and FUD. I guess that's what you have to do if you can't compete on the merits.
 
That is not what I read. The witnessed ones all reported changes in altitude, coming into the pattern and maneuvering.

As for negative stick force progression, here's where that is going to bite you... You're going to be slow on take off it's going to be a bouncy and windy, you're going to clear the tree line and WHAM! you're at 2.6 gs on the gust and all of a sudden the stick is throwing itself at your gut and you're stalled at 50' trying to push the stick through center as a wing is trying to wrap itself around your ear in a spin and then all of a sudden the windshield will be full of the ground... and it will be close..... and then you will be dead.

I don't recall seeing anything about a negative stick force gradient. What I read said the force gradient is reduced...

The Board also found that the stick force gradient - a measure of the force applied to the control stick and the increase in lift that results - was not uniform throughout the range of motion, particularly at high vertical accelerations or Gs. The lessening of the gradient at high Gs could make the airplane susceptible to being inadvertently over-controlled by the pilot, which could create a condition in which the airplane is stressed beyond its design limits leading to an in-flight structural failure.
 
I don't recall seeing anything about a negative stick force gradient. What I read said the force gradient is reduced...

If the situation exists to reduce, there is ability for it to go negative with greater levels of the aggravating condition, be it g loading on the static balance system or speed loading on the aerodynamic balance system, and the force/reaction scale will be an exponential one. It's the nature of that particular design/construction flaw.
 
That is one of the funniest things I've read. Talk about drinking too much of the Cessna kool-aid. I'm still laughing after reading it, and I couldn't even finish the stupid thing. What an ignorant fool

Yeah. I bet he doesn't realize that by bashing, oh, the entire rest of the aviation industry and making every other airplane look "dangerous" that he's driving away potential new pilots, which will eventually result in the death of the industry, INCLUDING Cessna. :mad3:

Edit: Oh goody, he's here. Message boards are much better for back-and-forth than blogs. :yes:
 
Last edited:
Yeah. I bet he doesn't realize that by bashing, oh, the entire rest of the aviation industry and making every other airplane look "dangerous" that he's driving away potential new pilots, which will eventually result in the death of the industry, INCLUDING Cessna. :mad3:

Edit: Oh goody, he's here. Message boards are much better for back-and-forth than blogs. :yes:

It's also bad salesmanship on a deeper level. One thing about high end sales, it's about relationships, and good relationships are about good kharma. Sometimes the best thing for your customer is to go elsewhere. If you recognize this and spend some time educating them (steering upgrade options your direction), now you have developed a relationship with this potential buyer, and he views you as both knowledgeable and honest (only an honest guy would tell you not to buy his product). Even if he does not buy your product, he's going to take a buddy, and his buddy is going to ask questions, and he will tell his buddy, "Call this guy, he'll set you straight, he's a good guy who knows his s-t." and that is worth more $$$ than any self aggrandizing blog ever will be. When Guy 1 is ready to upgrade, because what you told him he was likely to find (slow, low capacity....) he found, now he comes to you for his upgrade. In the mean time 2 of his buddies bought planes from you and you're getting calls from their friends.
 
It's also bad salesmanship on a deeper level. One thing about high end sales, it's about relationships, and good relationships are about good kharma. Sometimes the best thing for your customer is to go elsewhere. If you recognize this and spend some time educating them (steering upgrade options your direction), now you have developed a relationship with this potential buyer, and he views you as both knowledgeable and honest (only an honest guy would tell you not to buy his product). Even if he does not buy your product, he's going to take a buddy, and his buddy is going to ask questions, and he will tell his buddy, "Call this guy, he'll set you straight, he's a good guy who knows his s-t." and that is worth more $$$ than any self aggrandizing blog ever will be. When Guy 1 is ready to upgrade, because what you told him he was likely to find (slow, low capacity....) he found, now he comes to you for his upgrade. In the mean time 2 of his buddies bought planes from you and you're getting calls from their friends.

Bingo. And part of the reason Cirri sell so well is that Cirrus really gets that. Cessna isn't the bad one in this respect though, it's Piper. The only reason I even got to look inside the Matrix at AOPA Expo when it was introduced is that I was wearing a media badge. Otherwise, I would have needed an appointment. On the other hand, Cirrus will let you test-fly a brand-new SR22 even if you tell them flat-out "I will never be able to afford one of these in my lifetime, even used." They know that after you fly it, you'll tell your friends about it, maybe you'll even beg your local FBO to put one on the rental line. Very smart on the part of Cirrus. :yes:

And the Klapmeier brothers get it in more ways than just marketing. They're true aviators. Sure, they love their own products, and who wouldn't? But I always see an extra gleam in Alan's eye when he talks about flying his De Havilland Chipmunk to a grass field on a sunny Saturday, too. They're doing their best to make flying fun, safe, and useful while growing the GA industry. More power to them! :yes:
 
Bingo. And part of the reason Cirri sell so well is that Cirrus really gets that. Cessna isn't the bad one in this respect though, it's Piper. The only reason I even got to look inside the Matrix at AOPA Expo when it was introduced is that I was wearing a media badge. Otherwise, I would have needed an appointment. On the other hand, Cirrus will let you test-fly a brand-new SR22 even if you tell them flat-out "I will never be able to afford one of these in my lifetime, even used." They know that after you fly it, you'll tell your friends about it, maybe you'll even beg your local FBO to put one on the rental line. Very smart on the part of Cirrus. :yes:

<SNIP>
Cirrus brought a couple of planes to Lincoln 2 years back. I looked at them and was still offered a test flight after establishing my flight credentials and lack of finances. About then better lead then I came by so I walked away so the sales rep could spend his time potentially more profitably.
 
It works both ways. Some people don't like the airplanes after flying them, the same as they didn't like some of the airplanes in the fleet long before Cirrus came along. Their reasons for not liking them are just as good as those who think they're great. I'm all for Cirrus and hope they do well, although it won't ever be because I bought (or wanted) one of anything they've designed so far. A friend flew one too, said he liked it. Except for the noise. And the seats weren't comfortable. And he didn't like the bag compartment. And a few other things. To each his own.

Bingo. And part of the reason Cirri sell so well is that Cirrus really gets that. Cessna isn't the bad one in this respect though, it's Piper. The only reason I even got to look inside the Matrix at AOPA Expo when it was introduced is that I was wearing a media badge. Otherwise, I would have needed an appointment. On the other hand, Cirrus will let you test-fly a brand-new SR22 even if you tell them flat-out "I will never be able to afford one of these in my lifetime, even used." They know that after you fly it, you'll tell your friends about it, maybe you'll even beg your local FBO to put one on the rental line. Very smart on the part of Cirrus. :yes:

And the Klapmeier brothers get it in more ways than just marketing. They're true aviators. Sure, they love their own products, and who wouldn't? But I always see an extra gleam in Alan's eye when he talks about flying his De Havilland Chipmunk to a grass field on a sunny Saturday, too. They're doing their best to make flying fun, safe, and useful while growing the GA industry. More power to them! :yes:
 
It works both ways. Some people don't like the airplanes after flying them, the same as they didn't like some of the airplanes in the fleet long before Cirrus came along. Their reasons for not liking them are just as good as those who think they're great. I'm all for Cirrus and hope they do well, although it won't ever be because I bought (or wanted) one of anything they've designed so far. A friend flew one too, said he liked it. Except for the noise. And the seats weren't comfortable. And he didn't like the bag compartment. And a few other things. To each his own.

The reason I wouldn't buy one is that it's legs are splinted out and it's not pressurized. If I'm going to spend that much money on Tupperware, it better be pressurized and retractable and do 300....
 
I assume that part of their success is a result of market research that indicated there was no sustainable market for what you want to buy, and why Piper has what's left of it to themselves. Probably the reason you got the letter from Alan that the Mirage would be more to your liking. And oh by the way, at more than 2X the SR-22 price.

OTOH, the P-Lancair would be right up your alley, eh? How much are they these days?

The reason I wouldn't buy one is that it's legs are splinted out and it's not pressurized. If I'm going to spend that much money on Tupperware, it better be pressurized and retractable and do 300....
 
OTOH, the P-Lancair would be right up your alley, eh? How much are they these days?

Been on my list for a long time the IVP has been. You can buy completed show quality glass panel IVPs for mid 300s with a recip. If I built the powerplant I want (Audi V12 TDI), I'd probably have $60k FWF with a $30k recoup on the old powerplant and prop. Call it $400-$425k by the time I got it where I wanted.
 
Last edited:
I agree...and would genuinely like to see a reply to my message.

Jay,

I appreciate the effort you put into your comment, and I believe it stands on its own merit. It's truly kind of you, assuming you were sincere, to offer me a flight.

I am happy for your success with your plane and your enthusiasm about flying.

I do sell wonderful Cessna airplanes, and believe we both may stand a bit naked as you point out.

Regards,
Steve
 
I don't recall seeing anything about a negative stick force gradient. What I read said the force gradient is reduced...

that is what i was thinking. i don't think that anyone in their right mind would sell an airplane with negative stick force, but a reduction in stick force per g at higher loads is common.
 
That's a really interesting idea...what's it weigh compared to something like an IO-550 with turbo and intercooler?


Trapper John

I'm having trouble finding that info actually. It's a small engine though, 6 liters 500hp, 750lbs of torque available from 1750rpm to 3250, should give it a hell of a good econo cruise economy and speed, in a 60* V-12 just over 2' long. The 60 degree V-12 combined with the common rail HP injection should leave it smooth enough that the prop will be able to bolt up to the flywheel without a dampener.
 
I appreciate the effort you put into your comment, and I believe it stands on its own merit. It's truly kind of you, assuming you were sincere, to offer me a flight.
I am quite sincere. After reading your blog more, it looks like you're based out of KFSD. I'm an hour away from there, and don't get over there often enough as it is. If you'd like a ride, you have only to ask. I'll even let you give me a ride in something Cessna! :yes: :)

I am happy for your success with your plane and your enthusiasm about flying.
Thanks.

I do sell wonderful Cessna airplanes, and believe we both may stand a bit naked as you point out.
I truly wish I could both afford and fly a new Cessna. However, as things stand, it is not to be. I'm restricted to flying an LSA for medical reasons. Even if I could afford a new $350K 172, I couldn't legally get in and fly it. (My $133K Zodiac was a stretch, as it was.) That restricts my choices, and I believe I made the best one based on my mission criteria. Yes, there may well be a problem with the Zodiac design that cases it to fall out of the sky under certain conditions. I'm confident that it will be resolved, just as problems with the Bonanza, the 737, and other now-popular aircraft that were notorious in their day for falling out of the sky were resolved. Until then, I fly my airplane conservatively and maintain it rigorously, and I'm confident that that will keep me safe.
 
Last edited:
Jay. You are a true pilot. I applaud you sir. All of us that fly take a calculated risk.
 
Ha! I'd actually prefer to take you in my hot air balloon!
My roommate would shoot me if I didn't take you up on that. For that matter, I'd shoot myself. :rofl: Neither of us have ever been up in a hot air balloon.

Being the pilot's pilot you are...
Me? Hardly. I'm just a 325-hour private pilot operating under the sport pilot rule, about to get a CFI-SP rating (if I can ever get over to KIKK to do the checkride), and always trying to learn more about aviation.
 
And don't think for a minute that you don't have a bunch of guys pulling for you and your family of airplanes. None of us take any pleasure in this stuff, and even though it might seem like piling on, we just want the airplanes to be safe for the pilots and owners that fly them. This isn't the first time such a problem has surfaced, and it won't be the last.

My roommate would shoot me if I didn't take you up on that. For that matter, I'd shoot myself. :rofl: Neither of us have ever been up in a hot air balloon.


Me? Hardly. I'm just a 325-hour private pilot operating under the sport pilot rule, about to get a CFI-SP rating (if I can ever get over to KIKK to do the checkride), and always trying to learn more about aviation.
 
If it's the one I'm thinking of "Wiley in a green "Acme Bat Suit", it was clearly a CFIT event.

Sure, laugh it up and have fun at somebody else's expense. Easy to do when you're not named in the lawsuit. It's not nearly as funny then. Buster.




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Tempe, Arizona
Judge Joan Kujava, Presiding
________________________________ WILE E. COYOTE,§ Plaintiff§ v.§ CIVIL ACTION NO. B19294§ ACME COMPANY,§ Defendant§ ________________________________
OPENING STATEMENT OF HAROLD SCHOFF,
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
By Mr. Schoff:
My client, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, a resident of Arizona and contiguous states, does hearby bring suit for damages against the Acme Company, manufacturer and retail distributor of assorted merchandise, incorporated in Delaware and doing business in every state, district, and territory. Mr. Coyote seeks compensation for personal injuries, loss of business income, and mental suffering caused as a direct result of the actions and/or gross negligence of said company, under Title 15 of the United States Code Chapter 47, section 2072, subsection (a), relating to product liability.
Mr. Coyote states that on eighty-five separate occasions, he has purchased of the Acme Company (hereinafter, 'Defendant'), through that company's mail order department, certain products which did cause him bodily injury due to defects in manufacture or improper cautionary labeling. Sales slips made out to Mr. Coyote as proof of purchase are at present in the possession of the Court, marked Exhibit A. Such injuries sustained by Mr. Coyote have temporarily restricted his ability to make a living in the profession of predator. Mr. Coyote is self-employed and thus not eligible for Workmen's Compensation.
Mr. Coyote states that on December 13th, he received of Defendant via parcel post one Acme Rocket Sled. The intention of Mr. Coyote was to use the Rocket sled to aid him in pursuit of his prey. Upon receipt of the Rocket Sled, Mr. Coyote removed it from its wooden shipping crate and sighting his prey in the distance, activated the ignition. As Mr. Coyote gripped the handlebars, the Rocket Sled accelerated with such sudden and precipitate force as to stretch Mr. Coyote's forelimbs to a length of fifteen feet. Subsequently, the rest of Mr. Coyote's body shot forward with a violent jolt, causing severe strain to his back and neck and placing him unexpectedly astride the Rocket Sled. Disappearing over the horizon at such speed as to leave a diminishing jet trail along its path, the Rocket Sled soon brought Mr. Coyote abreast of his prey. At that moment, the animal he was pursuing veered sharply to the right. Mr. Coyote vigorously attempted to follow this maneuver but was unable to, due to poor design and engineering on the Rocket Sled and a faulty or non-existent steering system. Shortly thereafter, the unchecked progress of the Rocket Sled led it and Mr. Coyote into collision with the side of a mesa.
Paragraph One of the Report of Attending Physician (Exhibit B), prepared by Dr. Ernst Grosscup, M.D., D.O., details the multiple fractures, contusions, and tissue damage suffered by Mr. Coyote as a result of this collision. Repair of the injuries required a full bandage around the head (excluding the ears), a neck brace, and full or partial casts on all four legs. Hampered by these injuries, Mr. Coyote was nevertheless obliged to support himself. With this in mind, he purchased of Defendant as an aid to mobility one pair of Acme Rocket Skates. When he attempted to use this product, however, he became involved in an accident remarkably similar to that which occurred with the Rocket Sled. Again, Defendant sold over the counter, without caveat, a product which attached powerful jet engines (in this case, two) to inadequate vehicles, with little or no provision for passenger safety. Encumbered by his heavy casts, Mr. Coyote lost control of the Rocket Skates soon after strapping them on, and collided with a roadside billboard so violently as to leave a hole in the shape of his full silhouette.
Mr. Coyote states that on occasions too numerous to list in this document he has suffered mishaps with explosives purchased of Defendant: the Acme 'Little Giant' Firecracker, the Acme Self-Guided Aerial Bomb, etc. (For a full listing see the Acme Mail Order Explosives Catalogue and attached deposition, entered in evidence as Exhibit C.) Indeed, it is safe to say that not once has an explosive purchased of Defendant by Mr. Coyote performed in an expected manner. To cite just one example: At the expense of much time and personal effort, Mr. Coyote constructed around the outer rim of a butte a wooden trough beginning at the top of the butte and spiraling downward around it to some few feet above a black X painted on the desert floor. The trough was designed in such a way that a spherical explosive of the type sold by Defendant would roll easily and swiftly down to the point of detonation indicated by the X. Mr. Coyote placed a generous pile of birdseed directly on the X, and then, carrying the spherical Acme Bomb (Catalogue #78) climbed to the top of the butte. Mr. Coyote's prey, seeing the birdseed, approached, and Mr. Coyote proceeded to light the fuse. In an instant, the fuse burned down to the stem, causing the bomb to detonate.
In addition to reducing all Mr. Coyote's careful preparations to naught, the premature detonation of Defendant's product resulted in the following disfigurements to Mr. Coyote:
1. Severe singeing of the hair on the head, neck, and muzzle.
2. Sooty discoloration.
3. Fracture of the left ear at the stem, causing the ear to dangle in the aftershock with a creaking noise.
4. Full or partial combustion of whiskers, producing kinking, frazzling, and ashy disintegration.
5. Radical widening of the eyes, due to brow and lid charring.
We come now to the Acme Spring-Powered Shoes. The remains of a pair of these purchased by Mr. Coyote on June 23rd are Plaintiff's Exhibit D. Selected fragments have been shipped to the metallurgical laboratories of the University of California at Santa Barbara for analysis, but to date, no explanation has been found for this product's sudden and extreme malfunction. As advertised by Defendant, this product is simplicity itself: two wood-and-metal sandals, each attached to milled-steel springs of high tensile strength and compressed in a tightly coiled position by a cocking device with a lanyard release. Mr. Coyote believed that this product would enable him to pounce upon his prey in the initial moments of the chase, when swift reflexes are at a premium.
To increase the shoes' thrusting power still further, Mr. Coyote affixed them by their bottoms to the side of a large boulder. Adjacent to the boulder was a path which Mr. Coyote's prey was known to frequent. Mr. Coyote put his hind feet in the wood-and-metal sandals and crouched in readiness, his right forepaw holding firmly to the lanyard release. Within a short time, Mr. Coyote's prey did indeed appear on the path coming toward him. Unsuspecting, the prey stopped near Mr. Coyote, well within range of the springs at full extension. Mr. Coyote gauged the distance with care and proceeded to pull the lanyard release. At this point, Defendant's product should have thrust Mr. Coyote forward and away from the boulder. Instead, for reasons yet unknown, the Acme Spring-Powered Shoes thrust the boulder away from Mr. Coyote. As the intended prey looked on unharmed, Mr. Coyote hung suspended in the air. Then the twin springs recoiled, bringing Mr. Coyote to a violent feet-first collision with the boulder, the full weight of his head and forequarters falling upon his lower extremities. The force of this impact then caused the springs to rebound, where upon Mr. Coyote was thrust skyward. A second recoil and collision followed. The boulder, meanwhile, which was roughly ovoid in shape, had begun to bounce down a hillside, the coiling and recoiling of the springs adding to its velocity. At each bounce, Mr. Coyote came into contact with the boulder, or the boulder came into contact with Mr. Coyote, or both came into contact with the ground. As the grade was a long one, this process continued for some time. The sequence of collisions resulted in systemic physical damage to Mr. Coyote, viz., flattening of the cranium, sideways displacement of the tongue, reduction of length of legs and upper body, and compression of vertebrae from base of tail to head. Repetition of blows along a vertical axis produced a series of regular horizontal folds in Mr. Coyote's body tissues, a rare and painful condition which caused Mr. Coyote to expand upward and contract downward alternately as he walked, and to emit an off-key, accordion-like wheezing with every step. The distracting and embarrassing nature of this symptom has been a major impediment to Mr. Coyote's pursuit of a normal social life. As the court is no doubt aware, Defendant has a virtual monopoly of manufacture and the sale of goods required by Mr. Coyote's work. It is our contention that Defendant has used its market advantage to the detriment of the consumer of such specialized products as itching powder, giant kites, Burmese tiger traps, anvils, and two-hundred-foot-long rubber bands. Much as he has come to mistrust Defendant's products, Mr. Coyote has no other domestic source of supply to which to turn. One can only wonder what our trading partners in Western Europe and Japan would make of such a situation, where a giant company is allowed to victimize the consumer in the most reckless and wrongful manner over and over again. Mr. Coyote respectfully requests that the Court regard these larger economic implications and assess punitive damages in the amount of seventeen million dollars. In addition, Mr. Coyote seeks actual damages (missed meals, medical expenses, days lost from professional occupation) of one million dollars; general damages (mental suffering, injury to reputation) of twenty million dollars; and attorney's fees of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. By awarding Mr. Coyote the full amount, this Court will censure Defendant, its directors, officers, shareholders, successors, and assigns, in the only language they understand, and reaffirm the right of the individual predator to equal protection under the law.
 
That's great. Well done:

Sure, laugh it up and have fun at somebody else's expense. Easy to do when you're not named in the lawsuit. It's not nearly as funny then. Buster.




UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHWESTERN DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
Tempe, Arizona
Judge Joan Kujava, Presiding
________________________________ WILE E. COYOTE,§ Plaintiff§ v.§ CIVIL ACTION NO. B19294§ ACME COMPANY,§ Defendant§ ________________________________
OPENING STATEMENT OF HAROLD SCHOFF,
COUNSEL FOR PLAINTIFF
By Mr. Schoff:
My client, Mr. Wile E. Coyote, a resident of Arizona and contiguous states, does hearby bring suit for damages against the Acme Company, manufacturer and retail distributor of assorted merchandise, incorporated in Delaware and doing business in every state, district, and territory. Mr. Coyote seeks compensation for personal injuries, loss of business income, and mental suffering caused as a direct result of the actions and/or gross negligence of said company, under Title 15 of the United States Code Chapter 47, section 2072, subsection (a), relating to product liability.
Mr. Coyote states that on eighty-five separate occasions, he has purchased of the Acme Company (hereinafter, 'Defendant'), through that company's mail order department, certain products which did cause him bodily injury due to defects in manufacture or improper cautionary labeling. Sales slips made out to Mr. Coyote as proof of purchase are at present in the possession of the Court, marked Exhibit A. Such injuries sustained by Mr. Coyote have temporarily restricted his ability to make a living in the profession of predator. Mr. Coyote is self-employed and thus not eligible for Workmen's Compensation.
Mr. Coyote states that on December 13th, he received of Defendant via parcel post one Acme Rocket Sled. The intention of Mr. Coyote was to use the Rocket sled to aid him in pursuit of his prey. Upon receipt of the Rocket Sled, Mr. Coyote removed it from its wooden shipping crate and sighting his prey in the distance, activated the ignition. As Mr. Coyote gripped the handlebars, the Rocket Sled accelerated with such sudden and precipitate force as to stretch Mr. Coyote's forelimbs to a length of fifteen feet. Subsequently, the rest of Mr. Coyote's body shot forward with a violent jolt, causing severe strain to his back and neck and placing him unexpectedly astride the Rocket Sled. Disappearing over the horizon at such speed as to leave a diminishing jet trail along its path, the Rocket Sled soon brought Mr. Coyote abreast of his prey. At that moment, the animal he was pursuing veered sharply to the right. Mr. Coyote vigorously attempted to follow this maneuver but was unable to, due to poor design and engineering on the Rocket Sled and a faulty or non-existent steering system. Shortly thereafter, the unchecked progress of the Rocket Sled led it and Mr. Coyote into collision with the side of a mesa.
Paragraph One of the Report of Attending Physician (Exhibit B), prepared by Dr. Ernst Grosscup, M.D., D.O., details the multiple fractures, contusions, and tissue damage suffered by Mr. Coyote as a result of this collision. Repair of the injuries required a full bandage around the head (excluding the ears), a neck brace, and full or partial casts on all four legs. Hampered by these injuries, Mr. Coyote was nevertheless obliged to support himself. With this in mind, he purchased of Defendant as an aid to mobility one pair of Acme Rocket Skates. When he attempted to use this product, however, he became involved in an accident remarkably similar to that which occurred with the Rocket Sled. Again, Defendant sold over the counter, without caveat, a product which attached powerful jet engines (in this case, two) to inadequate vehicles, with little or no provision for passenger safety. Encumbered by his heavy casts, Mr. Coyote lost control of the Rocket Skates soon after strapping them on, and collided with a roadside billboard so violently as to leave a hole in the shape of his full silhouette.
Mr. Coyote states that on occasions too numerous to list in this document he has suffered mishaps with explosives purchased of Defendant: the Acme 'Little Giant' Firecracker, the Acme Self-Guided Aerial Bomb, etc. (For a full listing see the Acme Mail Order Explosives Catalogue and attached deposition, entered in evidence as Exhibit C.) Indeed, it is safe to say that not once has an explosive purchased of Defendant by Mr. Coyote performed in an expected manner. To cite just one example: At the expense of much time and personal effort, Mr. Coyote constructed around the outer rim of a butte a wooden trough beginning at the top of the butte and spiraling downward around it to some few feet above a black X painted on the desert floor. The trough was designed in such a way that a spherical explosive of the type sold by Defendant would roll easily and swiftly down to the point of detonation indicated by the X. Mr. Coyote placed a generous pile of birdseed directly on the X, and then, carrying the spherical Acme Bomb (Catalogue #78) climbed to the top of the butte. Mr. Coyote's prey, seeing the birdseed, approached, and Mr. Coyote proceeded to light the fuse. In an instant, the fuse burned down to the stem, causing the bomb to detonate.
In addition to reducing all Mr. Coyote's careful preparations to naught, the premature detonation of Defendant's product resulted in the following disfigurements to Mr. Coyote:
1. Severe singeing of the hair on the head, neck, and muzzle.
2. Sooty discoloration.
3. Fracture of the left ear at the stem, causing the ear to dangle in the aftershock with a creaking noise.
4. Full or partial combustion of whiskers, producing kinking, frazzling, and ashy disintegration.
5. Radical widening of the eyes, due to brow and lid charring.
We come now to the Acme Spring-Powered Shoes. The remains of a pair of these purchased by Mr. Coyote on June 23rd are Plaintiff's Exhibit D. Selected fragments have been shipped to the metallurgical laboratories of the University of California at Santa Barbara for analysis, but to date, no explanation has been found for this product's sudden and extreme malfunction. As advertised by Defendant, this product is simplicity itself: two wood-and-metal sandals, each attached to milled-steel springs of high tensile strength and compressed in a tightly coiled position by a cocking device with a lanyard release. Mr. Coyote believed that this product would enable him to pounce upon his prey in the initial moments of the chase, when swift reflexes are at a premium.
To increase the shoes' thrusting power still further, Mr. Coyote affixed them by their bottoms to the side of a large boulder. Adjacent to the boulder was a path which Mr. Coyote's prey was known to frequent. Mr. Coyote put his hind feet in the wood-and-metal sandals and crouched in readiness, his right forepaw holding firmly to the lanyard release. Within a short time, Mr. Coyote's prey did indeed appear on the path coming toward him. Unsuspecting, the prey stopped near Mr. Coyote, well within range of the springs at full extension. Mr. Coyote gauged the distance with care and proceeded to pull the lanyard release. At this point, Defendant's product should have thrust Mr. Coyote forward and away from the boulder. Instead, for reasons yet unknown, the Acme Spring-Powered Shoes thrust the boulder away from Mr. Coyote. As the intended prey looked on unharmed, Mr. Coyote hung suspended in the air. Then the twin springs recoiled, bringing Mr. Coyote to a violent feet-first collision with the boulder, the full weight of his head and forequarters falling upon his lower extremities. The force of this impact then caused the springs to rebound, where upon Mr. Coyote was thrust skyward. A second recoil and collision followed. The boulder, meanwhile, which was roughly ovoid in shape, had begun to bounce down a hillside, the coiling and recoiling of the springs adding to its velocity. At each bounce, Mr. Coyote came into contact with the boulder, or the boulder came into contact with Mr. Coyote, or both came into contact with the ground. As the grade was a long one, this process continued for some time. The sequence of collisions resulted in systemic physical damage to Mr. Coyote, viz., flattening of the cranium, sideways displacement of the tongue, reduction of length of legs and upper body, and compression of vertebrae from base of tail to head. Repetition of blows along a vertical axis produced a series of regular horizontal folds in Mr. Coyote's body tissues, a rare and painful condition which caused Mr. Coyote to expand upward and contract downward alternately as he walked, and to emit an off-key, accordion-like wheezing with every step. The distracting and embarrassing nature of this symptom has been a major impediment to Mr. Coyote's pursuit of a normal social life. As the court is no doubt aware, Defendant has a virtual monopoly of manufacture and the sale of goods required by Mr. Coyote's work. It is our contention that Defendant has used its market advantage to the detriment of the consumer of such specialized products as itching powder, giant kites, Burmese tiger traps, anvils, and two-hundred-foot-long rubber bands. Much as he has come to mistrust Defendant's products, Mr. Coyote has no other domestic source of supply to which to turn. One can only wonder what our trading partners in Western Europe and Japan would make of such a situation, where a giant company is allowed to victimize the consumer in the most reckless and wrongful manner over and over again. Mr. Coyote respectfully requests that the Court regard these larger economic implications and assess punitive damages in the amount of seventeen million dollars. In addition, Mr. Coyote seeks actual damages (missed meals, medical expenses, days lost from professional occupation) of one million dollars; general damages (mental suffering, injury to reputation) of twenty million dollars; and attorney's fees of seven hundred and fifty thousand dollars. By awarding Mr. Coyote the full amount, this Court will censure Defendant, its directors, officers, shareholders, successors, and assigns, in the only language they understand, and reaffirm the right of the individual predator to equal protection under the law.
 
Jay,

Your letter to AvWeb on this subject was chosen as the letter of the week. Congrats and good work! :yes:
 
In an article in the Lakeland, Florida Ledger yesterday, Sebastien Heintz is quoted:
Since the report was released, Heintz said that two independent firms, one in the United States and the other in Germany, have conducted flutter analyses on the kits.

"There are no indications of flutter," Heintz said.

An extensive report after a fatal crash in Yuba City, Calif., showed no signs of flutter, Heintz said.
I'd like to see the reports they got, but if they got real engineering data that says flutter isn't the issue, then I'll believe them.
 
Back
Top