Jury did it again

[Kevin]

KANSAS CITY, Mo. - A jury found an airplane parts manufacturer negligent
in the 2000 plane crash that killed Gov. Mel Carnahan and his son, and
awarded their family $4 million.

The Carnahan family's attorney argued that a pair of vacuum pumps made
by Parker Hannifin Corp. failed, causing the plane to crash.


I would think it is unlikely there was a pilot on the jury. The defense
would not dare have someone on the jury who had a clue about flying.

[karl]

4M$ sounds like too good a deal. All Parker Hannifin Corp ever did was screw
general aviation with poorly designed vacuum pumps with possibly the worst
reliability of any aviation component.

That jury was SOFT on Parker Hannifin Corp. Fortunately, for all of us, they
are out of the pump business. The duplicitous management should be thrown in
jail for 10 years, they had zero regard for pilot's lives.

Karl

[Jay Honeck]

> That jury was SOFT on Parker Hannifin Corp. Fortunately, for all of us,
they
> are out of the pump business. The duplicitous management should be thrown
in
> jail for 10 years, they had zero regard for pilot's lives.

You know, I've shared these same sentiments privately, but never heard them
expressed publicly before.

How IS it that the FAA allowed installation of the almost completely
unreliable "dry" vacuum pumps, after so many years of success with the
bullet-proof "wet" pumps? Experience seems to show that dry pumps are just
a catastrophic failure waiting to happen, and the statistics show that a
vacuum failure in IMC often results in doom.

Anyone know the history here?
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"
"karl" > wrote in message
...
> 4M$ sounds like too good a deal. All Parker Hannifin Corp ever did was
screw
> general aviation with poorly designed vacuum pumps with possibly the worst
> reliability of any aviation component.
>
>
> Karl
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"karl" wrote:
> That jury was SOFT on Parker Hannifin Corp.

What evidence was there that the pumps had failed? The NTSB report said
they were probably working and that the primary AI had failed.

Parker Hannifin appears to have settled just to get it over with; the
portion of the judgement they will pay is not large for a case of this
kind.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Dave Stadt]

"Dan Luke" > wrote in message
...
> "karl" wrote:
> > That jury was SOFT on Parker Hannifin Corp.
>
> What evidence was there that the pumps had failed? The NTSB report said
> they were probably working and that the primary AI had failed.

NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence.

> Parker Hannifin appears to have settled just to get it over with; the
> portion of the judgement they will pay is not large for a case of this
> kind.
> --
> Dan
> C172RG at BFM
> (remove pants to reply by email)
>
>

[Dan Luke]

"Dave Stadt" wrote:
>
> NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence.

I know that. My question was what evidence *was* used. I mentioned the
NTSB report because I cannot imagine what evidence anyone else found if
the NTSB couldn't find any.
--
Dan
C172RG at BFM
(remove pants to reply by email)

[Judah]

"Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:BicOb.1355$BA2.1066
@newssvr26.news.prodigy.com:

> NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence.

Why is this? It seems to me that it would be the best evidence. A
government agency with objective, well-trained experts performs an
investigation of an accident, and the findings cannot be used as evidence?
So instead the judge has to depend on some subjective experts brought in by
each side of the suit?

[Tom Sixkiller]

"Judah" > wrote in message
...
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:BicOb.1355$BA2.1066
> @newssvr26.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence.
>
> Why is this? It seems to me that it would be the best evidence. A
> government agency with objective, well-trained experts performs an
> investigation of an accident, and the findings cannot be used as evidence?
> So instead the judge has to depend on some subjective experts brought in
by
> each side of the suit?

By Jove, I think he's got it!!!

[G.R. Patterson III]

Judah wrote:
>
> "Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:BicOb.1355$BA2.1066
> @newssvr26.news.prodigy.com:
>
> > NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence.
>
> Why is this?

An attorney recently posted that the reason is that an NTSB report is hearsay.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[Dave S]

Ok.. the report is heresay.. but what about the individual testimony of
the NTSB investigator who generated the report?

Dave

G.R. Patterson III wrote:
>
> Judah wrote:
>
>>"Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:BicOb.1355$BA2.1066
:
>>
>>
>>>NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence.
>>
>>Why is this?
>
>
> An attorney recently posted that the reason is that an NTSB report is hearsay.
>
> George Patterson
> Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
> "Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[G.R. Patterson III]

Dave S wrote:
>
> Ok.. the report is heresay.. but what about the individual testimony of
> the NTSB investigator who generated the report?

Well, one problem is that the NTSB personel don't usually do much on their own.
If they want to know if there were problems with the engine, for example, they
will call in experts from Continental or Lycoming to check it out. In some cases,
judges have ruled that evidence inadmissible because the manufacturer's experts
testimony would have been "prejudiced." Even if the judge allows Parker Hannifin
techicians to testify as to the reasons why they believe the pumps were working,
and even if a mechanic would say "yep, that proves they were working", the jury
members are likely to regard that testimony as uneducated opinion or possibly
lies.

George Patterson
Great discoveries are not announced with "Eureka!". What's usually said is
"Hummmmm... That's interesting...."

[TTA Cherokee Driver]

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Judah wrote:
>
>>"Dave Stadt" > wrote in news:BicOb.1355$BA2.1066
:
>>
>>
>>>NTSB reports cannot be used as evidence.
>>
>>Why is this?
>
>
> An attorney recently posted that the reason is that an NTSB report is hearsay.
>

I'm not an attorney but I learned that lesson when I was on a jury for
an auto accident lawsuit and we were not allowed to see the police
report. Well we were, but everything worth reading was blacked out by
the judge.

[Michael]

"Jay Honeck" > wrote
> How IS it that the FAA allowed installation of the almost completely
> unreliable "dry" vacuum pumps, after so many years of success with the
> bullet-proof "wet" pumps?

You don't really imagine FAA certification procedures do anything to
improve safety, do you?

> Experience seems to show that dry pumps are just
> a catastrophic failure waiting to happen

Yeah, basically. They're junk. But they're a few ounces lighter, a
few bucks cheaper (though of course not on a per-hour basis), and they
leave an oil slick on the belly no matter what you do.

Michael

[J]

On Mon, 19 Jan 2004 15:25:41 -0800, Michael wrote:
>and they
> leave an oil slick on the belly no matter what you do.
>

A dry pump leaves an oil slick??? If so something is wrong with the pump.
There is an oil tight seal.

[Michael]

J > wrote
> >and they
> > leave an oil slick on the belly no matter what you do.
> >
>
> A dry pump leaves an oil slick??? If so something is wrong with the pump.
> There is an oil tight seal.

Sorry. I should have said they DON'T leave an oil slick on the belly.
Wet pumps will.

Michael