Jury did it again

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.

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

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

"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)

"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)

"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)

"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?

"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!!!

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...."

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...."