Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:

The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane
in
question did have boots."

So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no
pireps reported ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?

The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."

Don't know, can't say. I do know some planes have boots et al and are still not certified for flight into *known* ice.
As soon as someone pireps 'ice' the plane cannot legally fly in..

Peter Clark wrote in
:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:

The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified
for flight into known ice, although the plane in question did have
boots."

So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice.
If it is flown into icing conditions, but no pireps reported ice, is
the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?

The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."




Might well be. I believe the airplane has had some issues with icing in the
past and I seem to recall some icing detection being made an additional
requirement for continued certification for flight into known icing
conditions. AFAIK it is certified for flight into known icing, but I know a
few guys who used to fly them and I'll ask them next time I see them.
I do remember them saying that they weren't impressed with it in icing ( I
think it has some problem with it's tail surfaces in icing) but I think it
is legal..


Bertie

"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in
:


"Yes - I have a name" wrote in message
news:3PZ4j.4090$6k1.3271@trndny02...
"Matt W. Barrow" wrote in message
...

They had a few requests, not warning, after selling tens of millions
of cups.


I heard somehwhere, I have no idea where, so cannot backup this up,
that Mickey D's had their own 'consultants' tell them their coffee
was being served too hot.

And when they tired lowering the temp, they had customer complaints
that it got cold too fast.

I don't buy coffee there. It's too damn hot. (begin a cheap *******,
I usually make my own anyway)

I don't buy anything at McD's and haven't for twenty years.

Not only is the food crap, but I don't want to subsidize Joan Croc, a
far out, goofy leftist.




She must be relling from the financial blow.



Bertie

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 01:04:47 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:


"Peter Clark" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:

The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified for flight into known ice, although the plane
in
question did have boots."

So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no
pireps reported ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?

The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."

Don't know, can't say. I do know some planes have boots et al and are still not certified for flight into *known* ice.
As soon as someone pireps 'ice' the plane cannot legally fly in..

Yes, and those aircraft do not have TCDS entries et al covering flight
into known icing. They have POH supplements covering their
"Inadvertant icing exit equipment". But the Cessna Caravan type
certainly has known ice certification.

Jose wrote:

I don't know whether we differ on the specifics (of hot water) or on the
principle of expectations, so let me ask you a different question - is
there =any= beverage which is supposed to be (and expected to be) served
hot, that should not be served (or drunk) boiling hot - that is, at 211
degrees Fahrenheit (372.6 degrees in a more civilized system)? If so,
and you were served that drink in a Styrofoam cup, expecting it to be at
its proper temperature, and through some user error spilled it on your
daughter, and only =then= found out that the liquid was =so= hot that it
would boil over if it were taken up in an elevator, then, even granted
that the error in handling was yours, would you not feel that you were
mislead into handling the beverage less carefully than you would have
had you known beforehand that it wasn't just hot, it was goddamn boiling
HOT? The difference being that an error that might have caused pain and
a lesson, instead causes serious injury and perhaps blindness?

This brings up an interesting hypothesis....involving ultimate
responsibility...personal responsibility......and responsibility based
on expectation.
There are several ways this scenario can be parsed. It is interesting to
note that an actual definition for the scenario is completely arbitrary
and subject to local standard be that legal or belief.
Personally, I favor the personal responsibility approach. Since the
actual temperature of the coffee is an unknown (and this is a given
since the drinker is not the supplier), the element of expectation can
be assumed, but is it correct? I say it isn't.
Since the temperature of the coffee will affect only the receiver and
not the supplier, there is a transaction involved in passing the hot
coffee from the supplier to the receiver.

Where lies the potential danger? To the receiver of course. Is it not
the receiver's DECISION to either accept or prove the actual temperature
of the coffee before COMMITTING to an act (drinking) involving the
coffee that can cause harm to the receiver? It's true the coffee in a
styrofoam cup is SUPPOSED to be the right temperature but it's ALSO true
that styrofoam can hide the actual temperature of what is contained in
the cup.
One side of the equation postulates that the receiver should be immune
from testing the temperature in the cup carefully before drinking based
on an assumption that the receiver's well being has been considered by
the supplier and thus the actual temperature of the coffee need not be
physically checked before committing the lips to whatever temperature is
inside the cup.
The other side of this equation postulates that the receiver has the
responsibility to ASSUME NOTHING as relates to his personal safety, thus
physically checking the temperature of the coffee before committing to
the lips.
It's an interesting conundrum, and the ultimate answer lies with
whatever the local authority dictates and in the case of damage,
whatever a lawyer can do to convince a jury.

The real rub in all this isn't the coffee or the award. It involves
issues much more complex than these mere factors. The REAL rub is in how
we as people choose to live out our lives; seeking protection from
things that can hurt us or taking the necessary steps to do all we can
to insure we don't get hurt.
I like the personal responsibility approach myself. I test the coffee
before I commit to my lips.
Perhaps education is the answer. Perhaps if we were better prepared to
take on life......perhaps if........... :-)))

Or consider shooting a rifle with cartridges that make it kick back with
such force that it breaks your shoulder. Now, rifles are =supposed= to
kick back, anybody who shoots knows this. But these particular
cartridges (the same type you've used before) generates enough force
that the rifle breaks your shoulder and the bullet goes into the next
county, hitting an accordion player.

This may very well be allowed under law. In almost every state, I
believe an argument can be made successfully for shooting an accordion
player :-))


You expected =some= kickback, but
not =that= much. You could have braced yourself better, but thought
that these cartridges were just like the others that came in the same box.

In both cases we're dealing with expectations which influence one's
actions. Sometimes the difference between reasonable expectations and
what is actually delivered are sufficient to be actionable. However, in
all cases it is easy to ridicule.

This is a little different scenario than the coffee cup. There is no way
to "test" the cartridge before pulling the trigger, therefore no lapse
in personal responsibility. In the cartridge we have a reasonable
expectation denied. The real difference is the lack of ability to test.
One could make the argument that firing the rifle and not getting the
expected response wasn't negligence since no test was available. The
only option would have been to not fire the rifle at all.

The JUDGEMENT is rendered by.... (wait for it).... a Judge.
[...] THAT is where the problem is.

I think we can all agree with that.

You think? It's much more entertaining to make fun of lawyers.

Jose


--
Dudley Henriques

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:07:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote in
:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:

The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified
for flight into known ice, although the plane in question did have
boots."

So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice.
If it is flown into icing conditions, but no pireps reported ice, is
the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?

The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."


Might well be. I believe the airplane has had some issues with icing in the
past and I seem to recall some icing detection being made an additional
requirement for continued certification for flight into known icing
conditions. AFAIK it is certified for flight into known icing, but I know a
few guys who used to fly them and I'll ask them next time I see them.
I do remember them saying that they weren't impressed with it in icing ( I
think it has some problem with it's tail surfaces in icing) but I think it
is legal..

As previously mentioned, there are a bunch of ADs running around
mandating extra icing gear and procedures because of a number of
crashes involving Caravans and ice. From what I know, never having
flown one, they really don't seem do well in it, but that's a
different animal than a blanket statement that the Cessna Caravan type
does not have known ice certification.

On Dec 3, 6:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Peter Clark wrote :



On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:

The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not certified
for flight into known ice, although the plane in question did have
boots."

So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known ice.
If it is flown into icing conditions, but no pireps reported ice, is
the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?

The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing. How
can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing? What
specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that the
Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."

Might well be. I believe the airplane has had some issues with icing in the
past and I seem to recall some icing detection being made an additional
requirement for continued certification for flight into known icing
conditions. AFAIK it is certified for flight into known icing, but I know a
few guys who used to fly them and I'll ask them next time I see them.
I do remember them saying that they weren't impressed with it in icing ( I
think it has some problem with it's tail surfaces in icing) but I think it
is legal..

Bertie

According to http://www.fedex.com/us/about/today/...ess/facts.html
FedEx operates 10 Caravan 208A'sand 243 208B's. If they weren't
certified for known ice there would be a lot of late packages. Weeks
late, sometimes.

Dan

Dan

Peter Clark wrote in
:

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 01:07:17 +0000 (UTC), Bertie the Bunyip
wrote:

Peter Clark wrote in
m:

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:

The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not
certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in question
did have boots."

So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known
ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no pireps reported
ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?

The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing.
How can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing?
What specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that
the Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."


Might well be. I believe the airplane has had some issues with icing
in the past and I seem to recall some icing detection being made an
additional requirement for continued certification for flight into
known icing conditions. AFAIK it is certified for flight into known
icing, but I know a few guys who used to fly them and I'll ask them
next time I see them. I do remember them saying that they weren't
impressed with it in icing ( I think it has some problem with it's
tail surfaces in icing) but I think it is legal..

As previously mentioned, there are a bunch of ADs running around
mandating extra icing gear and procedures because of a number of
crashes involving Caravans and ice. From what I know, never having
flown one, they really don't seem do well in it, but that's a
different animal than a blanket statement that the Cessna Caravan type
does not have known ice certification.

Xactly.


It wouldn't be the only airplane that isn't exactly happy in icing
conditions, anyway.


Bertie

wrote in
:

On Dec 3, 6:07 pm, Bertie the Bunyip wrote:
Peter Clark wrote
:



On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 00:43:07 GMT, "Blueskies"
wrote:

The original post to this thread stated "The airplane is not
certified for flight into known ice, although the plane in question
did have boots."

So, it seems this plane is *not* certified for flight into known
ice. If it is flown into icing conditions, but no pireps reported
ice, is the pilot or is Cessna responsible if the plane crashes?

The Cessna Caravan 208 and 208B have TCDS entries and AOM/POH
procedures and equipment requirements for flight into known icing.
How can that aircraft NOT be certified for flight into known icing?
What specifically am I missing here? Is someone trying to say that
the Caravan in question, even though it posessed boots, was somehow
delivered in a configuration that did not include the rest of the
known icing package? That's a completely different read than how I
took the OP, "[The Cessna Caravan] is not certified for flight into
known ice, although the plane in question did have boots."

Might well be. I believe the airplane has had some issues with icing
in the past and I seem to recall some icing detection being made an
additional requirement for continued certification for flight into
known icing conditions. AFAIK it is certified for flight into known
icing, but I know a few guys who used to fly them and I'll ask them
next time I see them. I do remember them saying that they weren't
impressed with it in icing ( I think it has some problem with it's
tail surfaces in icing) but I think it is legal..

Bertie

According to
http://www.fedex.com/us/about/today/...ess/facts.html
FedEx operates 10 Caravan 208A'sand 243 208B's. If they weren't
certified for known ice there would be a lot of late packages. Weeks
late, sometimes.

Well, just because this thread is giving me a headache..


http://rgl.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library%
5CrgAD.nsf/0/243AECE0725E4009862572DE0050A037?OpenDocument



Bertie

This brings up an interesting hypothesis.[...]
There are several ways this scenario can be parsed.

Since the temperature of the coffee will affect only the receiver and not the supplier...

Actually, that is not true. The temperature of the beverage (I did not
assume it was coffee) could be at the supplier's convenience.

Is it not the receiver's DECISION to either accept or prove the actual temperature of the coffee before COMMITTING to an act (drinking)

For drinking, yes. For carrying the drink out to the car, maybe not.
You might lift the cup over the heads of your children to get it from
the counter to the table. You could be bumped when this happens, and it
could spill. If you had ordered warm milk, gotten it in an insulated
container, got bumped, and from the screams found that it was actually
boiling hot milk, is it your fault for not making everyone wait at the
counter while you opened the lid and stuck your dirty finger (or a clean
thermometer) into the drink?

The other side of this equation postulates that the receiver has the responsibility to ASSUME NOTHING

Nothing? Really nothing? That it's not industrial strength acid? Had
the supplier given me =that= in lieu of orange juice, I think I would
have a case.

The REAL rub is in how we as people choose to live out our lives; seeking protection from things that can hurt us or taking the necessary steps to do all we can to insure we don't get hurt.

No, the real rub is how we as a people choose to =think=... whether to
actually consider the facts of an unpleasant and perhaps complex case,
or trumpet the easy thing to ridicule while scoring brownie points on
Usenet.

This is a little different scenario than the coffee cup. There is no way to "test" the cartridge before pulling the trigger, therefore no lapse in personal responsibility.

Granted. Well, almost granted... one could subject a representative
sample of cartridges to an analysis, but that would be inconvenient.
When sitting in a take-out car lane, it is also inconvenient (though
somewhat less so) to put the bag of burgers in the back while carefully
balancing the drink in order to open it and ascertain the degree to
which it might (or might not) be unexpectedly hot before taking what
would be a reasonable risk at the expected temperature. It's a matter
of degree. You preflight an aircraft, and I bet you do a more thorough
preflight if you are going to do aerobatics. Do you preflight a car? A
shopping cart?

It should also be noted that one of the purposes of the tort system is
to act as a brake against corporations taking unfair advantage of their
size by making our lives more risky to the benefit of their bottom
line. To that end, it is quite reasonable to take the corporation's
attitude into account when deciding on a verdict.

Jose
--
You can choose whom to befriend, but you cannot choose whom to love.
for Email, make the obvious change in the address.