DJ AM suing over Learjet accident

[Hacker15e]

I was quoting the mis-spelling of "tires"

Never been to England, eh? Over here, "tires" is the misspelling and "tyres" is correct.

Same with "colour", "manoever", "aluminium", and a whole host of other words you may see spelled differently on a BBC web story.

 

[Hacker15e]

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7947941.stm
I think suing the estates of the pilots is just wrong!

Why not? Are they not the ones who were making the decisions up front and manipulating the controls?

We as a pilot group are quick to make sure the pilots get credit when something good happens, but aren't as pointed in making sure responsibility and blame are placed where they deserve to be.

 

[averyrm]

Sue the crew?!?! How could you sue a pilot for trying to abort a takeoff if he thought the aircraft was unfit to fly? Second, people sue where the money is, not necessarily where the problem itself is. The airline is where the money is, obviously.

apparently they were wrong.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Ok, the crew I can see suing, but how is this Learjet's fault?

On a 55 and 60, the design of the landing gear, squat switch and thrust reversers, and more specifically how they integrate, is a terrible design. It was only a matter of time before all the cards stacked up and something like this happened.

I flew a 55, and after this incident, I wouldn't be upset if I never flew one again.

I believe, however, that in this case, the pilots tried to abort above V1. It is questioned whether or not they tried to resume the takeoff after the abort attempt. Either way, they're both no-no's. However, the design of the airplane is definitely a major contributing factor.

Hell, why not sue Flight Safety and Simuflite for poor training. Before this, they preached the generic "abort for a tire failure". In a Lear 60, unless you're taxiing out and a tire blows, you better not be aborting (figuratively speaking; 80 knots is more the threshold). The other one is almost always not far behind it and you will almost certainly end up off the runway. The 60 has more than enough power to continue a takeoff with TWO blown tires on the same side, and i'd rather have 9000' of runway to stop after a trip around the pattern vs. 5000' after accelerating to 120 knots with V1 being 125.

 

[Hacker15e]

Sue the crew?!?! How could you sue a pilot for trying to abort a takeoff if he thought the aircraft was unfit to fly?

It's not that simple. If the decision to abort is what caused the death -- and, for example, if they made the incorrect decision based on the aircraft flight manual -- then they are absolutely at fault.

To put in another way...what if you were on an airliner that had an in-flight engine fire...and the crew shot the fire extinguishers on, and shut down, the incorrect engine, leading to a crash. Are the crew at fault? By your logic, they just "trying" to shut down the correct engine, right?

Sorry, but this is what professional pilots get paid for. Just getting from point A to point B can be accomplished by any trained monkey. Making correct split-second decisions when an emergency happens IS what being a pilot is all about.

 

[averyrm]

On a 55 and 60, the design of the landing gear, squat switch and thrust reversers, and more specifically how they integrate, is a terrible design. It was only a matter of time before all the cards stacked up and something like this happened.

I flew a 55, and after this incident, I wouldn't be upset if I never flew one again.

I believe, however, that in this case, the pilots tried to abort above V1. It is questioned whether or not they tried to resume the takeoff after the abort attempt. Either way, they're both no-no's. However, the design of the airplane is definitely a major contributing factor.

Hell, why not sue Flight Safety and Simuflite for poor training. Before this, they preached the generic "abort for a tire failure". In a Lear 60, unless you're taxiing out and a tire blows, you better not be aborting (figuratively speaking; 80 knots is more the threshold). The other one is almost always not far behind it and you will almost certainly end up off the runway. The 60 has more than enough power to continue a takeoff with TWO blown tires on the same side, and i'd rather have 9000' of runway to stop after a trip around the pattern vs. 5000' after accelerating to 120 knots with V1 being 125.

Thrust reversers aren't used in calculating stopping distances (at least in the 35), so the fact that you don't close both of the squats shouldn't matter if you do what you're supposed to. Like you said, if you're slow go ahead and abort, if you're fast (above 80 or so) take it in the air, it's safer. And I absolutely think Flight Safety and Simuflite could be included in the lawsuit, from what I've seen of their product.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

Thrust reversers aren't used in calculating stopping distances (at least in the 35), so the fact that you don't close both of the squats shouldn't matter if you do what you're supposed to. Like you said, if you're slow go ahead and abort, if you're fast (above 80 or so) take it in the air, it's safer. And I absolutely think Flight Safety and Simuflite could be included in the lawsuit, from what I've seen of their product.

It isn't the factored distances that I'm talking about. It's the fact that on some of the earlier model aircraft, it is possible to deploy the TRs, spool up the engine, blow out a tire, disable a squat switch, and have the system autostow the TRs with the engines still producing max reverse N1 because it thinks the airplane is now in the air. You'd then have one engine producing max reverse and the other producing full "go" power.

 

[averyrm]

It isn't the factored distances that I'm talking about. It's the fact that on some of the earlier model aircraft, it is possible to deploy the TRs, spool up the engine, blow out a tire, disable a squat switch, and have the system autostow the TRs with the engines still producing max reverse N1 because it thinks the airplane is now in the air. You'd then have one engine producing max reverse and the other producing full "go" power.

... but that didn't happen, so why are they suing learjet?

 

[averyrm]

It isn't the factored distances that I'm talking about. It's the fact that on some of the earlier model aircraft, it is possible to deploy the TRs, spool up the engine, blow out a tire, disable a squat switch, and have the system autostow the TRs with the engines still producing max reverse N1 because it thinks the airplane is now in the air. You'd then have one engine producing max reverse and the other producing full "go" power.

Also, if I'm reading everything right (I'm bored on reserve), if you lose the left squat switch, the engines go to idle, stow the reversers (both of them) and then begin increasing thrust after a few seconds.

 

[TFaudree_ERAU]

I had not read that it spools down before autostow, just that it autostows while the engines are still spooled up. It may have come to light that it is supposed to spool down, but I haven't had much time to read the discussions in the weeks after the accident.

 

[loubetti]

I was quoting the mis-spelling of "tires"

Uh.... sorry to break this to you, Sean, but the word tyre was NOT misspelled. "Tyres" or "Tyre" is a very valid spelling of the word, just like "gage" is a valid spelling for the word "gauge".

Last time I checked, "tyre" is the British spelling of the word.

It's like the word "center" and "centre". Same thing.

Sadly, many in the USA do not know the difference between American and British, or, the "Queen's" English and the spelling of certain words, not to mention the pronunciation.

I mean, if it were at night and I had to open up the bonnet on my car to check for some fault and asked you for a torch that I have stored in the boot to have a better look...

Chances are you would have no clue as to what I am talking about, as you assume the only English is American English.

 

[MikeD]

Uh.... sorry to break this to you, Sean, but the word tyre was NOT misspelled. "Tyres" or "Tyre" is a very valid spelling of the word, just like "gage" is a valid spelling for the word "gauge".

Last time I checked, "tyre" is the British spelling of the word.

It's like the word "center" and "centre". Same thing.

Sadly, many in the USA do not know the difference between American and British, or, the "Queen's" English and the spelling of certain words, not to mention the pronunciation.

I mean, if it were at night and I had to open up the bonnet on my car to check for some fault and asked you for a torch that I have stored in the boot to have a better look...

Chances are you would have no clue as to what I am talking about, as you assume the only English is American English.

Better late than never, I suppose.....

I don't care for your undercarriage, or your reheat!

Don't feed the wankers!