Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Bombardier, GE Sued Over 2004 NW Crash  
User currently offlinePremobrimo From United States of America, joined Jul 2004, 426 posts, RR: 0
Posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6856 times:

Bombardier, General Electric sued over 2004 plane crash that killed two


http://www.cbc.ca/cp/business/060110/b011070.html


Now You're Flying Smart.
49 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineNewark777 From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 9348 posts, RR: 29
Reply 1, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6830 times:

often employ foreign-built jets that may not receive the same level of scrutiny as a major carrier aircraft,

This statement just baffles me. Are they saying the plane was poorly designed in the first place? If it was maintenance, as mentioned here, it would be NW/Pinnacle's fault, not Borbardier. Very strange.

alleging the fatal crash was due to defective parts and a badly maintained aircraft.

Harry



Why grab a Heine when you can grab a Busch?
User currently offlineApodino From United States of America, joined Apr 2005, 4287 posts, RR: 6
Reply 2, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6813 times:

This is a frivolous lawsuit in my opinion. The investigation hasn't even been completed yet, and we don't know the exact cause of the crash.

The foreign built provision is the most ridiculous arguement. If what they are saying is true, and they win this (Highly unlikely), that would open up pandoras box, and all of a sudden the victims of the American A300 that went down in rockaway, could sue Airbus, and all hell will break loose.

One thing I did find interesting. Pinnacle was not named as a defendant, but Northwest was. If Pinnacle was operating the flight, why were they not named?


User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6809 times:

Perhaps they think that Bombardier/GE have deeper pockets.

I am also puzzled that the certification authorities were not included.


User currently offlineLrockeagle From United States of America, joined Oct 2004, 82 posts, RR: 0
Reply 4, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6807 times:

I thought the investigation had already determined that this acident was caused by the pilots not doing a textbook climb. correct me if i'm wrong. some people will sue for anything. this is just like Little Rock National being sued by the captains widow. (AA 1420)

[Edited 2006-01-11 00:36:31]

User currently offlineLMP737 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6777 times:

If the claim made by Motley Rice LLC that they are one of the biggest aviation litigation firms in the USA it also means they are probably one of the must unscrupulous. If they have any knowledge of aircraft certification they would know that any aircraft being flown under part 121 in the USA has to meet standards set by the FAA. Whether it be a regional jet or a mainline jet.

There was a recent article in Popular Mechanics about this crash. It basicially confirmed what most knew. The reason the plane crashed was some very poor decision making in the cockpit.

What the sad truth is this law firm has pretty good chance convincing enough people on a jury that Bombardier and GE are guilty of something.


User currently offlineIsitsafenow From United States of America, joined Feb 2004, 4984 posts, RR: 23
Reply 6, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6751 times:

Mary, Mary....now we know where you ended up. We might have figured ...
safe



If two people agree on EVERYTHING, then one isn't necessary.
User currently offline727forever From United States of America, joined Jan 2006, 793 posts, RR: 5
Reply 7, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6743 times:

I tend to agree with everyone on this. This lawsuit is bull squat. I'll admit I am sometimes a little too quick to defend pilot actions, but on this one it would appear that these guys screwed up 8 ways to sunday.

Unfortunately, these people will probably win their lawsuit. Bombardier/GE knew about the corelock problem but didn't make it well known to operators that this particular scenario could happen. If they're smart they will settle out of court to stop a flood of lawsuits like this from coming in the future.

727forever



727forever
User currently offlineBennett123 From United Kingdom, joined Aug 2004, 7689 posts, RR: 3
Reply 8, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6717 times:

How will settling stop this.

User currently offlineAPFPilot1985 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6675 times:

After all that Scary Mary has said (including this) and what her profession is now, how can anyone (ahem NIKV) take her seriously? Should we ground all airbuses too? How about boeings with foreign components? Surely all RR engined planes are unsafe as well.... right?

User currently offlineEMBQA From United States of America, joined Oct 2003, 9364 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 21 hours ago) and read 6675 times:

Let see.... they knowingly took the aircraft above it's maximum approved altitude, they allowed the aircraft to get too slowed and pitched the nose up causing a compressor stall, they failed to follow engine out procedures and by the time they were at the proper altitude to attempt a 're-light' they had drained the batteries and had no power left to even try a start.... and it's someone else's fault...?

[Edited 2006-01-11 01:12:12]


"It's not the size of the dog in the fight, but the size of the fight in the dog"
User currently offlineACYWG From Canada, joined Feb 2005, 265 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6501 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 10):
Let see.... they knowingly took the aircraft above it's maximum approved altitude, they allowed the aircraft to get too slowed and pitched the nose up causing a compressor stall, they failed to follow engine out procedures and by the time they were at the proper altitude to attempt a 're-light' they had drained the batteries and had no power left to even try a start.... and it's someone else's fault...?

Thank you! Welcome to my respected users list.


User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6477 times:

Mary Schiavo is pure shyster through and through. She should have never been appointed to serve in the DOT. Her allegation about foreign aircraft being less safe and not properly regulated is manure. Although she should probably be censured for making a frivolous argument, unfortunately most judges probably would probably hard pressed to see it because of the seemingly technical nature of the claim.

User currently offlineN79969 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6469 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 10):
Let see.... they knowingly took the aircraft above it's maximum approved altitude, they allowed the aircraft to get too slowed and pitched the nose up causing a compressor stall, they failed to follow engine out procedures and by the time they were at the proper altitude to attempt a 're-light' they had drained the batteries and had no power left to even try a start.... and it's someone else's fault...?

I hope that Schiavo and her clients are crushed in court.


User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5259 posts, RR: 23
Reply 14, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6434 times:

There is plenty of blame to go around in this crash. There are indeed design issues, checklist issues, manufacturing issues, engine choice and design issues, etc., that probably bear litigating. Had passengers been killed, the two defendants here would certainly be defendants in suits by their relatives.

HOWEVER, I would pay for the privilege of defending this suit, which was brought on behalf of the two pilots by Mary Schiavo, Esq. Their families have, unfortunately, by filing this suit and hiring this lawyer and approving this strategy, set them up to be absolutely pilloried in court, dragged through the mud in excrutiating detail. They will be scapegoated to the nth degree, and as their incredibly unprofessional conduct likely was more than 50% responsible for their deaths, it'll be a joy for the defense laywers to defend.

It takes a gigantic set for an attorney to bring this suit on behalf of these plaintiffs, but even more to say that this has anything to do with crappy regulation of *Canadian* companies. That was just a chance for Mary to send a message that she's gonna bring down the whole regional airline industry if they don't settle up with her. It's a ham-fisted, amateurish attempt, and I hope that everyone in aviation rises up and crushes her and her clients. Personally, I think it's a crappy PR strategy for a crappy case, and telegraphs more than anything that she doesn't want a trial in court, just in the media. By doing what she did, she probably also now has set herself up for a motion to transfer venue to a more favorable forum for the defendants. Idiot.

The absolutely wonderful thing about this, however, is that as plaintiffs' counsel in a case like this, she has basically disqualified herself as a guest commentator, because she is now squarely an advocate. Thank goodness. Of course, I know that some networks, mercifully, don't want anything to do with her anymore, anyway.

Silver lining. Yippee.

[Edited 2006-01-11 04:50:40]

User currently offlineGalapagapop From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 910 posts, RR: 4
Reply 15, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6391 times:

Surprise, surprise Schiavo was quoted in this one with another absolutely statement of brilliance. What's next a lawsuit on Airbus quality? She should find something useful for information, instead of spewing out more pro-American ignorance, maybe she could clean those AF planes? Those A320's aren't made with American standards so that dirt just seems to gravitate towards them..... Yeah sure

User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5259 posts, RR: 23
Reply 16, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 6375 times:

Quoting EMBQA (Reply 10):
Let see.... they knowingly took the aircraft above it's maximum approved altitude, they allowed the aircraft to get too slowed and pitched the nose up causing a compressor stall, they failed to follow engine out procedures and by the time they were at the proper altitude to attempt a 're-light' they had drained the batteries and had no power left to even try a start.... and it's someone else's fault...?

You know what, while most of that is correct, it's not even the key fact, in my view. The key fact is that the number one thing that they should have done is declare an emergency and pick an airport to land at. They had many airports at which they could land deadstick once they got control of the aircraft after the engine failure. Instead, they apparently lied to ATC about their condition (arguably in order to avoid discipline for their screw up) and by the time they realized that they were not going to get the engine restarted, they were too low and too far to get to a safe place to land. This puts enough of the proximate cause of the accident squarely on them to make this whole suit a nonstarter.


User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 17, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6322 times:

The fact that other CRJs of various versions have been flown to 410 safely and brought back down with both engines still running, completely under the pilot's control should settle this issue. If anyone needs to be scrutinized here, it is the PCL training dept for not teaching the importance of climb profiles and minimum climb speeds.

All together now: "If you operated an aircraft in a manner other than what the manufacterer specifies, you are on your own with respect the results of your willful actions."



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offline777STL From United States of America, joined Dec 2004, 3695 posts, RR: 3
Reply 18, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6287 times:

Quoting Wjcandee (Reply 16):
Instead, they apparently lied to ATC about their condition (arguably in order to avoid discipline for their screw up) and by the time they realized that they were not going to get the engine restarted, they were too low and too far to get to a safe place to land. This puts enough of the proximate cause of the accident squarely on them to make this whole suit a nonstarter.

Very true. At that altitude they very easily could have dead sticked inbound to KCOU or KJEF.

Typical American society, blame someone else, it's never YOUR OWN fault.



PHX based
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5259 posts, RR: 23
Reply 19, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 16 hours ago) and read 6243 times:

Quoting 777STL (Reply 18):
Typical American society, blame someone else, it's never YOUR OWN fault.

Well, the families can't be expected to know legal and PR strategy. And they are doubtless hurting. They probably can't and don't want to believe that their loved ones did what they did.

Both guys were, by all accounts, good guys in the sense of everyone liked them. Curiously, the reports I have read all seem to indicate that the people who knew them were shocked that (a) they'd behave so irresponsibly and (b) they'd behave so incompetently. You know, sometimes personalities just mesh and ignite something in both people that nobody else realized was there. Who knows.

So the families went out and hired a famous lady, who said "Trust me, I know how to get you guys a settlement, because you sure as hell don't want a trial." And her strategy is to try to enflame the media into looking hard at these companies. She thinks that if she causes them (and the industry) enough pain in the media, they'll settle regardless of the merits. And so we see this stupid press coverage of a stupid PR strategy. The funniest part to me is that the press release title tries to make the story about the FIRM rather than the CLIENTS. That suggests a dual, self-promoting agenda to me, and a muddled agenda is going, in my view, to yield a muddled result.

BTW, I'm guessing that the reason that they didn't sue Pinnacle is that Pinnacle is their employer, and this is probably covered by workman's comp. The insurance companies are rational (unlike the executives who probably want these families' scalps for perpetrating this lunacy) and they'll probably kick in a little money to make it go away. Hopefully, Mary will know when enough is enough, take her cut, and go away. Sadly, I suspect that she's going to want to ride this flawed strategy out for a while, so we might see more. Curiously, nobody seems yet to have written anything off the press release other than the indignant Canadian press. That may change tomorrow. Any newspaper folks who want me on background, give me a call.  

[Edited 2006-01-11 06:35:22]

User currently offlineCactus739 From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 2448 posts, RR: 31
Reply 20, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 14 hours ago) and read 6162 times:

Quoting Lrockeagle (Reply 4):
this is just like Little Rock National being sued by the captains widow. (AA 1420)

huh?



You can't fix stupid.... - Ron White
User currently offlineWjcandee From United States of America, joined Jun 2000, 5259 posts, RR: 23
Reply 21, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 13 hours ago) and read 6098 times:

You know, I was thinking tonight about this case and how sad it is that these poor pilots are going to be destroyed in the media and in court in front of their families if this thing ever were to go to trial.

And I was thinking, were this my case, one of the things that I would do is interview everybody that these two pilots TAUGHT. I'm pretty sure that at least one was an instructor pilot in some class of aircraft, and of course a captain is constantly called upon to nurture first officers. Given that there were some basic airmanship (judgment) failures as well as some basic stick-and-rudder failures involved, I will bet that not only did these guys violate what they were TOLD to do, they probably violated rules that they TAUGHT OTHERS and enforced against others. If you paraded twenty students of the captain in front of a jury to testify that he had taught them not to do exactly what he did, or at least to repeat aviation maxims and principles that he taught them, things that he violated here, it would be painful and persuasive.

I am just really sad that the family has chosen to go this way, and to ride this particular horse.


User currently offlineRevelation From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 12710 posts, RR: 25
Reply 22, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 5997 times:

I read the transcript of the cockpit voice recorder, and I hate to say it, but the crew sounded more like teenagers on a joy ride instead of professional pilots. I'm glad they didn't kill anyone else. Out of all the things I read, the one that startled me the most was that they ignored the stick shaker. How one could press on with the stick shaker going off is beyond me.

Quoting 727forever (Reply 7):
Unfortunately, these people will probably win their lawsuit. Bombardier/GE knew about the corelock problem but didn't make it well known to operators that this particular scenario could happen. If they're smart they will settle out of court to stop a flood of lawsuits like this from coming in the future.

Yes, despite everything I just wrote, I do agree with this. The aircrew did a lot of stupid things, but in the end, they did find one issue that the lawyers can make hay over.



Inspiration, move me brightly!
User currently offlineAvFan4ever From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 81 posts, RR: 0
Reply 23, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5941 times:

Quoting 777STL (Reply 18):
Typical American society, blame someone else, it's never YOUR OWN fault.

Very true. US culture does not emphasize personal responsibility . . . idiot-proofing everything so that individuals cannot harm themselves or others seems to be regarded as a societal entitlement.

Rule #1 in filing frivolous lawsuits: name the entities with deepest pockets (and/or the most insurance coverage) as defendants. Pockets don't get much deeper than GE and Bombardier. Of course, they went ahead and named Honeywell, NWA, Parker-Hannifin and others. Don't see Pinnacle Airways listed among the defendants, or individuals involved with the training and certification of the deceased pilots, etc. The lawsuit will likely be settled out of court, the lawyers filing the lawsuit (who proudly proclaim they are involved in lots of aviation-related litigation) will make plenty of money.


User currently offlineLUVRSW From United States of America, joined Aug 2005, 498 posts, RR: 1
Reply 24, posted (8 years 9 months 2 weeks 7 hours ago) and read 5886 times:

Hi, what is the stick shaker, and what does it warn?
Thanks


25 727forever : The stick shaker is a device on the control wheel that vibrates (quite a lot) when the air data computers sense that you are nearing a stall. It is al
26 Swissy : 727forever, excellent explanation, thank you very much. That is why we in Europe say, " in the USA you are not getting rich because you are working ha
27 MattRB : Here's hoping BBD and GE don't settle and put Mary in her place.
28 Post contains images Aogdesk : Not to defend the suit, but didn't that particular tail number have a mx history that somehow affected the possibility of relighting? I thought I just
29 MaverickM11 : Bingo. That's the only reason.
30 YOWza : Does this not make it a NW MX issue rather than a Bombarider/GE issue? YOWza
31 MaverickM11 : NW doesn't have any money right now, so why would they want to sue them?
32 Okie : The case was filed in Florida which is a little short on tort reform. Clue one. The idea is to get the defendants to settle out of court for less tha
33 Swissy : Well spoken and explained Okie, My question is "are you guys not sick and tiered wasting hard earned tax money on sh.. like that"? Sorry for my "stupi
34 FlyMeToTheMoon : And there we have it again - call it extortion, highway robbery, prostitution, anything you want. This is just another bunch of lawyers working on con
35 MaverickM11 : Don't forget insurance! Insurance will probably pay out any award or compensation, and that trickles down to other clients of those insurers, right d
36 Wjcandee : Well, here we are at Day Two and nothing in the press other than a Canadian article and Mary's press release. Guess nobody was interested. Only reader
37 MissedApproach : The CRJ also incorporates a stick-push as well, doesn't it? I remember reading that in the 1997 AC CRJ crash at YFC, the pilots were surprised that t
38 Wjcandee : Yup. These guys in the Pinnacle crash not only got the shaker, they got the pusher. The NTSB public docket from the public hearing details how they h
39 APFPilot1985 : Could you link to the report, I couldn't seem to find it on the NTSB website last night.
40 Type-Rated : Wasn't the Captain fired from a previous airline job for his inability to follow check lists properly? And isn't it also a fact that he didn't follow
41 YOWza : Nice thinking Okie. YOWza
42 Post contains links Radarbeam : I will, most of the time, side with the pilots too. But in this case, what these guys did is beyond comprehension. Here's the link to a description of
43 EMBQA : The information on the NTSB site is very vague at this point. Your best source is a google search for news reports and other sites.
44 Mika : Despicable, just despicable.
45 Post contains links Wjcandee : http://www.ntsb.gov/events/2005/Pinnacle/exhibits/default.htm This is the public docket from the public hearing. Look at the group chairmen's reports
46 727forever : Vmo on the CRJ is 335 knots. You are correct on the merits of the procedure. I'm going off of memory from recurrent like 4 years ago, but it went a l
47 Revelation : Some interesting things from the Wikipedia article referenced above: I had forgotten that they overrode the nose down four times. I didn't know about
48 Daveflys0509 : Here's some info I found about this crash.. Don't know how serious you can take it, but it seems to sum up the crash overall. Jesse, 31, was captain o
49 ThePinnacleKid : Man, have some sympathy for them... These men weren't jerks. They weren't evil people. They were just two guys.... on a FERRY flight... and yeah, the
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
AA Sued Over Crash In Kirksville posted Sat Jan 29 2005 03:06:41 by Qqflyboy
Jennifer Lopez Sued Over Jet Bills posted Sat Oct 7 2006 05:04:50 by FlyingTexan
Pilot Fired Over DC-10 Crash posted Tue Sep 19 2006 13:15:03 by Airfoilsguy
N.T.S.B. Suspects Icing In 2004 Ebersol Crash posted Tue May 2 2006 21:47:45 by Airwave
Update On NW Crash 5/05 posted Mon Jul 11 2005 22:31:02 by Hirisk
AA Sued Over HIV Tests For Applicants posted Mon Mar 7 2005 09:32:59 by 777ER
Confusion Over An Air Crash In BOM posted Wed Jan 12 2005 09:27:47 by IndianFlyboy
NW Crash In The 80s posted Wed Jul 21 2004 17:43:48 by 7E72004
When Did The Bombardier Co. Take Over Lear Jet? posted Thu Jun 3 2004 08:07:36 by KBUF737
AA Sued Over Lack Of Legroom In Economy Class posted Fri May 14 2004 16:56:59 by Spoon04