Cessna sued for skydiving accident.

"Peter R." wrote:
On 12/5/2007 4:42:31 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:

So heat a cup of water to 195 F and drink it. Then report back the
results.

Bland to the taste, could use flavor.

Drink, don't sip. Also, try allowing a large gulp to linger in the mouth -
that'll bring out the flavor of the water.

Peter R. wrote:
On 12/5/2007 4:42:31 PM, Jim Logajan wrote:

So heat a cup of water to 195 F and drink it. Then report back the
results.

Bland to the taste, could use flavor.

If you really just think you did that and that is all you can report your
really need to check your thermometer.

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...
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.

Doesn't look like all Caravans have ice protection installed...

Just looked up the TCDS:
"Compliance with ice protection has been demonstrated in accordance with § 23.1419 when ice
protection equipment is installed in accordance with the airplane equipment list and is operated per
the Pilot's Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual."
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/556b576d4887764e862572430067fcaf/$FILE/A37CE-12.pdf

On 2007-12-05, Matt W. Barrow wrote:

"kontiki" wrote in message
news
Jay Honeck wrote:

How 'bout the makers of the stryofoam cups? How about the lid
manufacturer? How about the driver of the car who must've jerked
suddenly to make her spill the coffee?

Where does this end?
--

You forgot the car manufacturer who designed a vehicle with
brakes that allow sudden stops or turns which caused the
coffee to spill.

Or the steel mill that made the steel that the car manufacturer used....

It ends when no one but lawyers have deep enough pockets to rape.

The English system of "loser pays" would help.

On Wed, 5 Dec 2007 18:00:57 -0500, "Blueskies"
wrote:


Doesn't look like all Caravans have ice protection installed...

Just looked up the TCDS:
"Compliance with ice protection has been demonstrated in accordance with § 23.1419 when ice
protection equipment is installed in accordance with the airplane equipment list and is operated per
the Pilot's Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual."
http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel.nsf/0/556b576d4887764e862572430067fcaf/$FILE/A37CE-12.pdf


Which, as I said a long time ago, is a different argument than the
original poster which said the TYPE is not certified for known icing.
I asked whether they meant the specific crash aircraft wasn't properly
equipped, or whether they really were trying to say the Caravan type
wasn't certified, and we went down the rathole of people asserting,
contrary to facts presented, that the type isn't certified. The type
is clearly certified, and aircraft within are permitted when equipped
per the supplement S2, "Known Icing Equipment".

On Dec 5, 4:00 pm, "Blueskies" wrote:

Doesn't look like all Caravans have ice protection installed...

Just looked up the TCDS:
"Compliance with ice protection has been demonstrated in accordance with § 23.1419 when ice
protection equipment is installed in accordance with the airplane equipment list and is operated per
the Pilot's Operating Handbook and FAA Approved Airplane Flight Manual."http://www.airweb.faa.gov/Regulatory_and_Guidance_Library/rgMakeModel...

No, they won't all have it. Some operators wouldn't often need or
use it: sightseeing and skydiving operators come to mind. There are
other airplanes the same way: you can have a 210 or many other
aircraft with or without it. De- or anti-ice equipment is expensive
and heavy and an operator wouldn't want it if he'll never need it. The
TCDS just provides the basis for certification into known ice if the
equipment is installed by either Cessna or according to whatever STC
other makers might have for it, and is maintained in an airworthy
condition.

Dan

On 2007-12-02 14:49:26 -0800, said:

On Dec 2, 2:30 pm, "Blueskies" wrote:

The airplane is NOT approved for flight into *known* icing conditions.
So when a pilot finds himself in those conditions
in one of these planes, Cessna is to blame if he/she screws up and crashes...

So, why do so many of them have boots and hot props and all
the rest? It would seem to add a lot of expensive weight if flight
through known ice is forbidden. What does FedEx do with their Caravans
when the weather is less than CAVU? Ground them?

It takes more than boots and hot props to get certification for known
ice. Pilots have lost their certificates for assuming that a plane that
had boots was certified for known ice.



--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor

Gig 601XL Builder wrote:
Jay Honeck wrote:
I don't have an opinion one way or the other. Those were the facts
of the case.
THANK YOU for sharing the facts of the case. They are very
enlightening.

None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.

How about you respond as the defendant to these.

6. In discovery, it was disclosd that McD had over 700 previous claims
by people burned in a ten year period just before this incident,
including 3rd degree burns. This establishd McD's prior knowledge of
the extent and nature of the hazard.

7. McD also said that it it intentionally held th temp between 180
and 190 F. When

11. McD admitted that it knew that any food substance served at or
above 140 F is a burn hazard, and that at the temp they served it, it
was not fit for human consumption.

12. They also admitted that they knew burns would occur, but had
decided to keep the temp at 185 anyway.

15. McD told the jury that customers buy coffee on their way to work,
intending to drink it there. However, their own research was brought
out that showed that customers intend to consume the coffee
immediately while driving.

Still nothing that makes Mickey D's liable in my opinion. As I posted
earlier, coffee is considered best brewed at about 200 degrees F and
"held" at 170 or above. It sounds like McDonald's was following sound
coffee brewing and serving practice.

Putting a cup of hot liquid between your legs is negligent and just
asking for trouble. I can see a 3 year-old not knowing this, but a 79
year-old is without excuse.

I suspect that ordinary matches burn a lot more than 700 people in a
typical decade. I suspect that makers of matches have prior knowledge
of this hazard. Does this make a match manufacturer liable for every
idiot who burns themselves with a match?

Matt

Morgans wrote:
"Ross" wrote

Kind of like the bartender that gets sued because someone leaves his place
and gets into an accident. I agree, where does it end and personal
responsibility take over.
I don't see any connection between the two. The drink the bartender is
serving has no potential for damage, unless the user decides to drive drunk.
The bartender does not know if he is gong to call a cab, ride with a friend,
or walk after leaving.

I see a nearly precise connection. The seller of alcohol knows that
everyone who drinks it will be impaired to some degree.


The coffee going out the door will burn everyone who spills a little on him.
Every time, anyone. It, in itself is a hazard, not like the drink, who only
becomes a hazard- dependent on what the person does after consuming it
safely.

The alcohol going out the door will impair the consumer every time,
anyone. The seller of coffer doesn't know that someone will do
something stupid like spill it on themselves.

Matt

Morgans wrote:
"Jay Honeck" wrote

None of the facts, IMHO, pin ANY blame on the folks who brewed the
coffee. McDonald's was wronged, plain and simple.

I'm not sure that is right, Jay. No, I'm sure that is not right.

I'm not saying I agree with the verdict or the amount awarded, but Mc D's
does serve their coffee way too damn hot. It is reasonable to assume that
some will be spilled, on occasion. Who doesn't spill a bit of coffee, on
occasion. Anyone here that can say they have never spilled a drop of
takeout coffee on them? I doubt it. It should not be so hot that it causes
deep 3rd degree burns. When I am forced to stop there for coffee, I put ICE
in it, so I can drink it!

You would have to have the coffee at 130 degrees or less to guarantee
that a large spill such as this woman had would not cause a 3rd degree
burn. And cooler than that to avoid a second degree burn. Coffee less
than 130 degrees is not good coffee and in a car you almost couldn't
drink it fast enough to get an entire cup gone before it was lukewarm.

Sorry, but I don't want my coffee to be cooler than my shower water. If
you can't handle coffee as it is meant to be served, then may I suggest
water, soda, juice, etc., and leave coffee to those of us capable of
handling its "hazards."

http://www.cqcapd.state.ny.us/newsletter/estime.htm


That would be about as reasonable as a place serving hydrochloric acid to
their customers, in flimsy cups with lids that can pop off, and when they do
pop off, sometimes some of the acid will spill on you.

That is about the dumbest analogy I've seen in a long time.


McD's has a coffee temperature policy that places them wide open for
damages. That is for places that maintain the target temperatures. This
one place was more than likely well above the target temperature.

And what do you consider to be the safe target temperature?


You should not put coffee between your legs and take off the lid, no doubt.
You should not pay for it with widespread 3rd degree burns, and skin grafts,
though.

I disagree. What if the accident had been someone lighting a cigarette
while fueling their car with similar resulting 3rd degree burns? Would
you suggest that we ban gasoline given its flammability?

Matt