Comments on: Ancient Aircraft = Liability?

By: Survival Gear

Survival Gear — Mon, 17 May 2010 07:20:32 +0000

The lawsuit is self explanatory, it is just that aging aircrafts are really risky and sadly the government is still not doing much about it. There are many aircrafts that are so old; however they are still in use. There have been incidents where employees have even protested. The government is still not doing anything for the protection of the pilots, the staff and also the people travelling with them, the same situation is with the national air planes. The only hope is that they are at least taking proper precautions in stocking survival aids. I know a website http://www.lifesupportintl.com that offers all kinds of survival kits that have helped many of my more adventurous friends.

By: Meenakshi

Meenakshi — Wed, 05 May 2010 04:45:31 +0000

The blog has been quite admirable. I like it very much.

By: Kristopher Hutton

Kristopher Hutton — Fri, 15 Jan 2010 20:15:42 +0000

I wanted to thank you for this nice read. I absolutely enjoyed every little part of it. I have you bookmarked and will be reading more.

By: Companies foundation

Companies foundation — Thu, 12 Mar 2009 07:42:18 +0000

You made some good points there. I did a search on the topic and found most people will agree with your blog.

By: Henry Niese

Henry Niese — Sun, 15 Feb 2009 04:16:18 +0000

How bout the Grumman Goose? Anybody know how many are still in operation?

By: John Cobb

John Cobb — Fri, 30 Jan 2009 21:06:54 +0000

Dave Marion has his finger on the pulse of this fiasco.

The PT 6 turbine conversion sliced the 600 hp radials out of the wing and replaced them with 720 shp with a REVERSIBLE propeller. I flew them for two and a half years (for Virgin Islands Seaplane Shuttle) and I was amazed at what they could withstand. We sometimes hit beta and the SALT water at the same instant — maybe the beta was first even. The original wing structure designers at Grumman had no idea that the wing would be power-stressed in the opposite direction. Even so, if there were cracks, maintenance is responsible for detection and proper repair. Sorry to see one of the old birds give up and take so many good people with it.

There is however a designation for the Frakes Turbo Mallard: “G73T” is listed on my ATP card separate from the G73 as it is a different type rating.

By: Karl Sutterfield

Karl Sutterfield — Wed, 21 Jan 2009 22:17:33 +0000

This lawsuit is bizarre: “Yeah, it’d been flying for 58 years but the design is defective.” When I figure out how to apply such grievously flawed engineering methods to software development, I’ll give Bill Gates a call.

By: Bobby Picker

Bobby Picker — Sat, 17 Jan 2009 00:10:06 +0000

I like most of the comments so far, but what scares me the most is if gets to a jury. The jury will not be of peers that understand aviation and can make heads or tails of all the engineering data, pictures, etc.that will be presented. Instead it will probably be of people with little to no knowledge or ability in this area. This has and continues to happen in cases daily in this country. Lawyers pick a jury for how they think a juror is going to be infulenced rather than to seek the truth inorder to get their desired result and monetary outcome. Some day this “legal system” will have to change. In any case if this goes to a jury I truely pray the the “truth” is revealed and “justice” is served.

By: Dave Marion

Dave Marion — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 19:13:32 +0000

I agree with the other comments that there is insufficient information here to know what is really going on, but I am first struck by the simple fact that there is no such thing as a “Grumman Turbo Mallard.” The turbine conversion to the G-73 is a Frakes STC and in fact Frakes has owned the TC for radial-powered Mallard for a long time too. Grumman is not responsible for the mods or Chalk’s shoddy maintenance.
This whole thing reminds me of previous travesties of aviation justice:
There was the time that an Arizona operator made illegal modifications to a Super Cub, tried to take-off from a “closed” runway, crashed, and then sued Piper for designing an “unsafe” aircraft. And won!
I also heard that Jessica Dubroff’s mother sued Cessna and Lycoming claiming the design of the C-177 Cardinal and O-360 were at fault because they wouldn’t fly safely 200 pounds overweight in weather so bad that airlines were not flying.
It’s always someone else’s fault in America, isn’t it?

By: Kristin Winter

Kristin Winter — Fri, 16 Jan 2009 18:33:14 +0000

I haven’t seen the complaint, so I don’t know the basis for Chalk’s allegations of defective design. The issue is likely to be one of fact. It would seem that an aircraft that has operated as long as this one had, can scarcely be said to be defective, but a jury will have to decide. That is our system.

That Chalk’s would bring such a suit does them no credit, but then, they are desparate.

As an aviation defense lawyer, I would be interested to know how this one comes out.