Punk Rocker files suit over plane crash.

I believe that the preliminary information released (this was discussed on AeroNews after the accident) is that the abort took place after V1, and that the NTSB found evidence of multiple tire failures.

It's not clear to me if the multiple tire failures were the result of the abort, or if the pilots found themselves in a situation where they thought they were unable to rotate , so they felt they HAD to abort above V1.

V1 is a decision speed, not the minimum safe flying speed. It's possible to hit V1, and then have a failure (complete loss of all engines, for instance) that makes it impossible to take it into the air. The FDR data on what the speed trend was when they aborted will be important - was the airplane still accelerating or not? Could multiple tire failures make it impossible for the airplane to reach V2? Could FOD from the tires cause a loss of available thrust?

Bottom line - it's WAY too soon to know what happened. IF the pilots decided to abort above V1, AND they don't have extenuating/mitigating information to justify why that appeared to be the safest course of action, then they failed their duty. But we don't know that yet.

Jury will be critical on this. If a defense lawyer can get the decision making process across to the jury, and if there's information not yet discussed, they may be able to argue that the pilots did their best.

On the plaintiff side of the suit - I don't know how badly he was burned, or what his prognosis for recovery is, and if it affects his ability to perform anymore. Judging by the laundry list of defendants, this seems like a prudent action by those responsible for protecting his estate to establish a means for recouping losses, and those losses could be significant if he can't play any more. They'll have to show evidence of actual damages, submit a case for the projected future damages, and so on. I don't know if they are looking for punitive damages (and alleging gross negligence) - I got the impression they were not.
 
This was alluded to in one thread, then Tim just hammered it home. The final NTSB reports aren't out yet. What I find unfortunate in our system is that this guy is allowed to sue before the facts of the incident are known. We should all be concerned about this because every time there's a suit like this (founded or not), it raises our operating costs.

Lawsuits are a necessary check and balance in our system. Frivolous and opportunistic lawsuits are incredibly irritating. In a situation like this, I don't think that drummer (talented or not, it's irrelavant) should be able to sue until the NTSB comes back with the factual findings. It would be a much more efficient use of dollars and resources. Those truly not involved in the incident would also be free from having to waste their money protecting themselves.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
geneseib said:
Seems a bit ironic that he's sueing over disfigurement.
Click to expand...


How many burn scars do you have? I have my share. Bad burns are not a joke. He chose to ink himself, while I'm not a fan, it was his choice and to him they are not a disfigurement. Burn scars can be horrible, major burns are ungodly painfull, and they are for a long time. Ever had a third or fourth degree burn debred? Ain't fun, even on morphine it's horribly painful, and you get to go through daily for a couple of weeks sometimes. The healing process is forever, and the scar tissue may limit his mobility for life.Y'all think it's a big joke, but it's not. It's bad enough when the pilot does everything right and you still end up like this, but if the pilot screwed the pooch and hit the binders after V1, lets say if it was me in the plane and he had survived, I'd a shot him. Like I've said before, not everyone is wired to be a pilot, problem is, many times we don't know until it's too late.
 
Tom Parker said:
This was alluded to in one thread, then Tim just hammered it home. The final NTSB reports aren't out yet. What I find unfortunate in our system is that this guy is allowed to sue before the facts of the incident are known.
Click to expand...

He can sue because the accident happened. Air Carrier operations carry with them Strict Liability, that means no excuse gets you out of the wringer. He doesn't have to prove any negligence at all, the fact that the accident happened is prima facia and conclusitory all in one wrap. Air Carrier, Explosives, and Dangerous Animals, you are automatically and totally liable by default. Anything goes wrong, you're in the wind for it regardless if anything could have been done to prevent the occurance or not. The only thing that the NTSB report will do is effect the punitive damages awarded, and it didn't sound like they were going after punis, just compensatory, and all they need to show for that is their damages.
 
Last edited:
Tom Parker said:
This was alluded to in one thread, then Tim just hammered it home. The final NTSB reports aren't out yet. What I find unfortunate in our system is that this guy is allowed to sue before the facts of the incident are known. We should all be concerned about this because every time there's a suit like this (founded or not), it raises our operating costs.

Lawsuits are a necessary check and balance in our system. Frivolous and opportunistic lawsuits are incredibly irritating. In a situation like this, I don't think that drummer (talented or not, it's irrelavant) should be able to sue until the NTSB comes back with the factual findings. It would be a much more efficient use of dollars and resources. Those truly not involved in the incident would also be free from having to waste their money protecting themselves.
Click to expand...

There's no obligation that I know of for data from the NTSB to be used as evidence in a civil case. It's sure handy, but not required. If they can prove negligence* without the NTSB report, who's to stop them.

* Sounds like from Henning's post that it's not required.
 
bqmassey said:
There's no obligation that I know of for data from the NTSB to be used as evidence in a civil case. It's sure handy, but not required. If they can prove negligence* without the NTSB report, who's to stop them.

* Sounds like from Henning's post that it's not required.
Click to expand...

Correct, negligence only effects the level of punis.
 
First, I think the drummer MUST sue in order to protect his business interests. Let's say:

Travis is contractually obligated to teach 8 master clinics in the next 6 months
Travis is booked to play on 12 recording sessions in the next 6 months
Travis is supposed to produce 2 instructional DVDs in the next 6 months
Travis is supposed to go on tour in four months with the "Masters of Punk" worldwide tour.

So Travis may have already taken advance payment on a bunch of work he's supposed to perform. Let's further say that Travis burns are such that he ain't gonna be playing for at least 5 months, and even after that it's unsure if he'll be able to play again at his previous level of proficiency.

Travis needs to sue, so that he can tell all the folks that are suing him that the reason he is failing in his duty to them is that someone else failed in their duty to him, and he's taking appropriate steps to recoup his losses and their losses. This means that either the folks suing Travis will be cool and wait for their money, or at least Travis' insurance can pay out and have a chance of recouping their loss.

I'm not a lawyer, but I've spent enough time with criminal, civil, and administrative law to just think of it as a parallel universe whose reality (barely) reflects our own. It's mostly internally consistent (until juries get involved) but pretty disconnected from what we think of as "reality".

And unfortunately, the NTSB probable cause finding isn't admissible. All the factual evidence is (I believe), but the analysis/interpretation/contextual wisdom is not. So the jury will hear that the abort happened at 156 knots, and that was above V1, and that that is contrary to published normal procedures, but may not hear or understand what V1 means, or why a pilot may choose/have to abort above V1, unless the defense can put someone on the stand to testify to those points. And then, given the jury selection process, they probably won't understand half of it.

The difference between an NTSB finding and a civil trial is that in an NTSB proceeding, you really are being judged by your peers.
 
TMetzinger said:
So the jury will hear that the abort happened at 156 knots, and that was above V1, and that that is contrary to published normal procedures, but may not hear or understand what V1 means, or why a pilot may choose/have to abort above V1, unless the defense can put someone on the stand to testify to those points. And then, given the jury selection process, they probably won't understand half of it.
Click to expand...

That is where the quality of the expert witness comes in. They earn their pay by making the jury understand in terms they can comprehend what the technical evidence means. I've done this on several maritime cases, it's really not that difficult if you know your subject matter and you look at the juror questionaires to see what they do and already know and explain it in terms they can relate to.
 
Henning said:
He can sue because the accident happened. Air Carrier operations carry with them Strict Liability, that means no excuse gets you out of the wringer. He doesn't have to prove any negligence at all, the fact that the accident happened is prima facia and conclusitory all in one wrap. Air Carrier, Explosives, and Dangerous Animals, you are automatically and totally liable by default. Anything goes wrong, you're in the wind for it regardless if anything could have been done to prevent the occurance or not. The only thing that the NTSB report will do is effect the punitive damages awarded, and it didn't sound like they were going after punis, just compensatory, and all they need to show for that is their damages.
Click to expand...


NOTHING should ever be both prima facia and conclusitory in a civil trial. NOTHING.
 
tdager said:
NOTHING should ever be both prima facia and conclusitory in a civil trial. NOTHING.
Click to expand...

It's part of Strict Liability whether you like it or not. If you hold yourself out for air transport, this applies, why do you think 135 and 121 insurance is so high? Now, this does not preclude you from collecting from contributory parties, ie maintenance facility that screwed up, but you are wholely liable to the passengers of the flight and it's up to you to collect from the other parties.
 
I believe the only exceptions to Henning's statement are acts of God, Terrorism, or War. Even if you did everything right, and it was someone else's fault, you must settle your liability with the passengers first. Sometimes that might be easy, and then you (as the carrier) and the passengers BOTH go after the guilty parties.
 
Tom Parker said:
This was alluded to in one thread, then Tim just hammered it home. The final NTSB reports aren't out yet. What I find unfortunate in our system is that this guy is allowed to sue before the facts of the incident are known. We should all be concerned about this because every time there's a suit like this (founded or not), it raises our operating costs.

Lawsuits are a necessary check and balance in our system. Frivolous and opportunistic lawsuits are incredibly irritating. In a situation like this, I don't think that drummer (talented or not, it's irrelavant) should be able to sue until the NTSB comes back with the factual findings. It would be a much more efficient use of dollars and resources. Those truly not involved in the incident would also be free from having to waste their money protecting themselves.
Click to expand...

NTSB probable cause findings are inadmissible in civil trials, factual findings sometimes are admissible.

The NTSB is just another governmental organization with too much work and not enough cash or man-power. I've seen civil suits where the NTSB either drops the ball, or finds the usual cryptic "the 15,000 hour ATP pilot in command's failure to avoid hitting the ground," and the better-funded plaintiff or defense expert comes up with a vastly more plausible explanation for the reasons behind the accident.

As for juries, yes they are composed of lay people, but really with most subjects it is very difficult to find non-lay people.
For example, I work in the industry, I fly airplanes, and I like to think that I know a little about aviation, but I constantly need to be briefed by real experts on the subjects that I deal with.
Aircraft accident trials are no different. Yes, you could fill a jury with people who fly or fix airplanes, but that doesn't mean that they would have a clue about wing spar design in transport category aircraft, or the terrain clearance needed for a LPV-WAAS approach, or the dynamics of wake turbulence. With most complex technical civil trials, almost EVERYBODY is a layperson, even those who are really familiar with aviation. It's just easier to start with a completely blank sheet of paper.
Most people who know "a little bit" are really dangerous. They may not know as much as they think they do about a subject, or they still might be just flat out wrong, just like some of the opinions on our treadmill thread.
Sometimes a little bit of pre-knowledge tends to shut people's brains off, or worse make them worry "If I find liability, my airplane insurance is going to go up just a little bit."

Off the soapbox, not legal advice, blah blah blah.
 
Tom Parker said:
What I find unfortunate in our system is that this guy is allowed to sue before the facts of the incident are known.
Click to expand...
Not only allowed, but virtually required. There's no time limit on the NTSB's issuance of its findings; there is a definite time limit on when a suit may be filed. Remove either of the pieces of that disparity, and I'd agree with you. Otherwise, if the NTSB releases its report after the time for filing the suit has passed, the plaintiff would be SOL.

You won't catch me defending the frivolous crap that's turned the courts into a lottery system, but there are reasons for some things.
 
TMetzinger said:
I believe the only exceptions to Henning's statement are acts of God, Terrorism, or War. Even if you did everything right, and it was someone else's fault, you must settle your liability with the passengers first. Sometimes that might be easy, and then you (as the carrier) and the passengers BOTH go after the guilty parties.
Click to expand...

To the best of my knowledge, those issues negate the insurance, but not the liability. Not sure though, I never had to deal with any of those issues in claims I've worked.
 
First, I think the drummer MUST sue in order to protect his business interests.
Click to expand...
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b70294_travis_barker_if_something_goes.html
"I wouldn't have been in the state I was in if I wasn't in the crash," said Barker, who spoke Sunday while at the Miss California USA event with Shanna Moakler. "I wouldn't have third-degree burns all over my body or be prohibited to do certain things. I can't go swimming. I can't do some of the things that normal people can do. I didn't ask for that to happen."
...

The drummer says he doesn't know if he'll win his lawsuit.
"I don't know. I just think positive. I mean, I think so—if something goes wrong that's not supposed to go wrong or you fall victim of it, I think you should be compensated."
​
-harry
 
mantakos said:
http://www.eonline.com/uberblog/b70294_travis_barker_if_something_goes.html
"I wouldn't have been in the state I was in if I wasn't in the crash," said Barker, who spoke Sunday while at the Miss California USA event with Shanna Moakler. "I wouldn't have third-degree burns all over my body or be prohibited to do certain things. I can't go swimming. I can't do some of the things that normal people can do. I didn't ask for that to happen."
...

The drummer says he doesn't know if he'll win his lawsuit.
"I don't know. I just think positive. I mean, I think so—if something goes wrong that's not supposed to go wrong or you fall victim of it, I think you should be compensated."
​
-harry
Click to expand...

Under the law he is correct.
 
KennyFlys said:
He can't make a living at the crap produced so he's going after those who actually contribute to the economy. Nice move!
Click to expand...

I'd sue, too. Given the alleged circumstances. Someone makes a poor judgement or is negligent....it's their burden to bear...
 
Report out today.

PROBABLE CAUSE
The National Transportation Safety Board determines that the probable cause of this accident was the operator’s inadequate maintenance of the airplane’s tires, which resulted in multiple tire failures during takeoff roll due to severe underinflation, and the captain’s execution of a rejected takeoff after V1, which was inconsistent with her training and standard operating procedures.
Contributing to the accident were (1) deficiencies in Learjet’s design of and the Federal Aviation Administration’s (FAA) certification of the Learjet Model 60’s thrust reverser system, which permitted the failure of critical systems in the wheel well area to result in uncommanded forward thrust that increased the severity of the accident; (2) the inadequacy of Learjet’s safety analysis and the FAA’s review of it, which failed to detect and correct the thrust reverser and wheel well design deficiencies after a 2001 uncommanded forward thrust accident; (3) inadequate industry training standards for flight crews in tire failure scenarios; and (4) the flight crew’s poor crew resource management.
Click to expand...
http://ntsb.gov/Publictn/2010/AAR1002.htm
 
So in the "brakes vs engines at full thrust" battle, the tire got the battle underway, the engines won, the brakes lost, and the remaining tires were collateral damage.

Do I understand this right:

The first tire failure occurred 1.5s after V1. If the engines were rolled to idle and brakes "stood on" the tires would have probably still blown, but they would have been at a lower speed at impact? Instead, the reversers were deployed, brakes stood on, damage from tire fragments to a sensor in the wheel wells caused reversers to stow, engines remained at some level of power, and the impacted at high speeds?

Conversely, since this was 1.5s after V1, if they kept going maybe only one tire would have come apart and they might have been able to fly around and then re-land. . . and then what? Would they land belly up on foam after seeing the damaged tire in a fly by?

Is SOP "use the buckets in an abort"? What information is available to the pilot showing bucket position? Does SIM training cover this scenario in an aborted TO?
 
SkyHog said:
Ok then:

Amazing snare solo.

Live Solo:

I'm not posting Blink videos, because they are unbelievably gay.
Click to expand...


If this is impressive to you,... You havent seen much. The drum rudaments in the first clip are nothing that ANY 3rd year high school band drummer couldnt pull off. I worked for Gibson Guitars in Nashville, TN for several years , and gigged all over town. I was surrounded by top notch musicians, and I can tell ya , this guy does'nt hold a candle to most that I have seen on ANY given day. Loaded,.... Probably. But ya have to consider their general fanbase.

But I DO feel for the guy! And he is probably due some compensation.
 
Last edited:
Dale Young said:
If this is impressive to you,... You havent seen much. The drum rudaments in the first clip are nothing that ANY 3rd year high school band drummer couldnt pull off. I worked for Gibson Guitars in Nashville, TN for several years , and gigged all over town. I was surrounded by top notch musicians, and I can tell ya , this guy does'nt hold a candle to most that I have seen on ANY given day. Loaded,.... Probably. But ya have to consider their general fanbase.

But I DO feel for the guy! And he is probably due some compensation.
Click to expand...

Ahh, the classic musician: "That famous guy isn't that good, I'm much better and so are my friends." I am a musician, grew up around musicians, played in my fair share of bands. I can still recognize talent when I see it.

Neal Peart is not the only good drummer. There are different types of "good" and Travis Barker is one of them. Its too bad he got sucked into playing for such horrible bands.

BTW - the other drummer that you wouldn't guess is amazing? Ernie Hanson (also known as Ernie Hawkins when not playing in horrible bands with members that look like chicks). But I'd guess you'd probably have nailed "mmmmm bop" much harder than they did too :D
 
Looking over this - I can see where the captain would have had that moment of doubt about what to do - past V1, noise and acceleration decreasing.

But I think back to some of my military training - "Doctrine Defeats Doubt" was one of the mantras - any other vets remember this? The "go" decision was supposed to have been made at V1, and the sound didn't start until 1.5 seconds later. The FO (I think) had it right. Someone said "go" .4 seconds after the noise started.

Doctrine isn't supposed to guarantee a happy ending. It IS where you should place your bets in hope of the best outcome.

I wonder, though, should the crew have caught the tire underinflation on walkaround? Or is it not that detectable visually? I don't know what the process is for that aircraft/operator.
 
jhausch said:
So in the "brakes vs engines at full thrust" battle, the tire got the battle underway, the engines won, the brakes lost, and the remaining tires were collateral damage.
Click to expand...
For some reason this comment made me think of the Toyota problem. This is not a Toyota and the brakes won't overcome the thrust, especially if the airplane is already traveling at 140 knots.

jhausch said:
Do I understand this right:

The first tire failure occurred 1.5s after V1. If the engines were rolled to idle and brakes "stood on" the tires would have probably still blown, but they would have been at a lower speed at impact? Instead, the reversers were deployed, brakes stood on, damage from tire fragments to a sensor in the wheel wells caused reversers to stow, engines remained at some level of power, and the impacted at high speeds?
Click to expand...
But the thing is that you are not supposed to abort after V1 for a tire failure because it's better to take your problem flying than to try a high speed abort. In fact, you are not supposed to abort unless the airplane is unflyable. I know this is counterintuitive for people who fly small airplanes where the logic is that it is better to hit something on the ground a slow speed than to try and fly but there is a lot more momentum involved here. Could they have gotten it stopped if they had not had the problem with the TRs and the other tires blowing? Maybe, maybe not, but trying to stop was not the correct reaction.

jhausch said:
Conversely, since this was 1.5s after V1, if they kept going maybe only one tire would have come apart and they might have been able to fly around and then re-land. . . and then what? Would they land belly up on foam after seeing the damaged tire in a fly by?
Click to expand...
You can land a business jet with one blown tire and not even know it until you get out of the airplane. Ask me how I know. :redface:

Even with all four tires blown it would be better to be set up in landing configuration and speed on a long runway than trying to abort in the runway they had left.

jhausch said:
Is SOP "use the buckets in an abort"? What information is available to the pilot showing bucket position? Does SIM training cover this scenario in an aborted TO?
Click to expand...
I've never flown a Lear 60 but I've flown a Lear 55 and the TRs are "as required". I used them in practice aborts because the brakes are pretty wimpy for the weight of the airplane. I think they took the gear and brakes off the 35 and put them on the 55 which is a heavier airplane. I think the 60 also has that problem to some extent. There are unlock and deploy lights for the TRs in the 55 and I've never flown an airplane with TRs which didn't have some kind of indication of that kind. I think I have had the blown tire before V1 scenario in sim training but not after V1. That might be a good thing for them to include.
 
Everskyward said:
I've never flown a Lear 60 but I've flown a Lear 55 and the TRs are "as required". I used them in practice aborts because the brakes are pretty wimpy for the weight of the airplane. I think they took the gear and brakes off the 35 and put them on the 55 which is a heavier airplane. I think the 60 also has that problem to some extent. There are unlock and deploy lights for the TRs in the 55 and I've never flown an airplane with TRs which didn't have some kind of indication of that kind. I think I have had the blown tire before V1 scenario in sim training but not after V1. That might be a good thing for them to include.
Click to expand...

You are correct. The gear, brakes and tires are the same on the 55 as the 35. It is the same for the 60. I did an emergency landing in December in the 55. We had a hydraulic line let go and the result was a complete loss of hydraulic fluid. We made a gear down no flap landing at DFW. Someone was thinking right when they laid down all that nice several miles of concrete. We touched down at about 175 kts. There were no normal brakes available due to the fluid loss so I used the backup air bottle for breaking. There was so much heat generated that after landing the rubber was boiling on the treads of the tires.

We watch our tires and brakes like a hawk. As soon as we see something questionable we change them out. We keep a second set of wheels and tires in the maintenance bin just in case.
 
LearDriver said:
I did an emergency landing in December in the 55. We had a hydraulic line let go and the result was a complete loss of hydraulic fluid. We made a gear down no flap landing at DFW. Someone was thinking right when they laid down all that nice several miles of concrete. We touched down at about 175 kts. There were no normal brakes available due to the fluid loss so I used the backup air bottle for breaking. There was so much heat generated that after landing the rubber was boiling on the treads of the tires.
Click to expand...
That sounds exciting. :eek:

LearDriver said:
We watch our tires and brakes like a hawk. As soon as we see something questionable we change them out. We keep a second set of wheels and tires in the maintenance bin just in case.
Click to expand...
We also keep a spare set of tires and wheels even though I have moved from the Lear world to the Cessna world. In fact I have the opposite gear and brake situation now. The gear and brakes on the Sovereign were actually designed for the X which is a heavier and faster airplane so the stopping power is very effective.
 
Everskyward said:
That sounds exciting. :eek:

We also keep a spare set of tires and wheels even though I have moved from the Lear world to the Cessna world. In fact I have the opposite gear and brake situation now. The gear and brakes on the Sovereign were actually designed for the X which is a heavier and faster airplane so the stopping power is very effective.
Click to expand...

You are quite fortunate to have been able to make that move. I would love to get away from the Lear and move to the Cessna side. We call our Lear the "Kit Jet". Bill Lear must have paid off a couple of people in order to get it approved as a part 25 airplane.
 
iNdigo and LearDriver - thanks for the additional information.
 
SkyHog said:
Ahh, the classic musician: "That famous guy isn't that good, I'm much better and so are my friends." I am a musician, grew up around musicians, played in my fair share of bands. I can still recognize talent when I see it.

Neal Peart is not the only good drummer. There are different types of "good" and Travis Barker is one of them. Its too bad he got sucked into playing for such horrible bands.

BTW - the other drummer that you wouldn't guess is amazing? Ernie Hanson (also known as Ernie Hawkins when not playing in horrible bands with members that look like chicks). But I'd guess you'd probably have nailed "mmmmm bop" much harder than they did too :D
Click to expand...


I did'nt insult you personally. I'm just not impressed by this guy. No need for the smart-assed attitude.

BTW, MANY slightly skilled musicians have become famous.
 
Last edited:
Dale Young said:
I did'nt insult you personally. I'm just not impressed by this guy. No need for the smart-assed attitude.

BTW, MANY slightly skilled musicians have become famous.
Click to expand...

I didn't insult you personally either. Was mostly a joke, but as a musician, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about (hell, anyone who's even been around musicians knows that's how they are).
 
LearDriver said:
There are situations where aborting above V1 may be necessary. There is only really one reason to me that really justifies to do so. however, losing a tire is not one of them.
Click to expand...
What is that one reason?...anything other than dual engine failure?
 
SkyHog said:
I didn't insult you personally either. Was mostly a joke, but as a musician, I'm sure you know what I'm talking about (hell, anyone who's even been around musicians knows that's how they are).
Click to expand...


OOPS! Sorry!,... Mis-understood ya. Yeah,... that's true.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top