Date: Sat, 25 Feb 2006 16:30:16 -0600
Reply-To: John Rodgers <inua@CHARTER.NET>
Sender: Vanagon Mailing List <vanagon@gerry.vanagon.com>
From: John Rodgers <inua@CHARTER.NET>
Subject: Re: No, but here's a good reason to do it
In-Reply-To: <4400BBDE.4020803@mchsi.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
Al,
Beechcraft Aircraft Corporation was under seige for years in lawsuits
over it's "V" tail design in the Beechcraft Bonanza. If it wasn;'t flown
with exacting perfection, the tail was prone to a failure that would
result in the wings folding. Beech did all kinds of things to try and
fix the problem but ultimately abandoned the design. The "V" tail got
rid of extra weight, reduced drag, gave the airplane an oustanding
profile so far as appearance went. I owned one and it was slicker than
owl dung in the air. For a production airplane, that thing was fast for
the horsepower. But the design killed a lot of people. Even so, it was
approved as airworth by the FAA, but over time it became a target of
lawsuits. I would not be afraid to fly one, even today, inspite of the
tail issue, but I would do so, knowing full well the limitations the
machine. And that is the key. Of course Beech always said the airplane
was built to the best engineering standards of the time. It could not be
made better. Of course advancing technology allows for better safer
design, construction, operation. Point is, If you are going to drive a
Model T in the era of modern automobiles, know what you are driving, and
it's limitations, espeially it's safety limitations.
Granted, some things about design are hidden. Issues that revolve around
that must be , and can only be, decided by the courts.
John Rodgers
88 GL Driver
Al and Sue Brase wrote:
> I've kept thinking about this lawsuit for a while and have to say some
> things about it trouble me.
> All products evolve. when a manufacturer brings out a new product that
> is safer than its previous product, does that make its previous product
> "defective"? What would be its proper obligation to bring its product up
> to a more safe specification?
> Does it need to warrant its product to be free of design flaws forever.
> Perhaps only to the original purchaser? Should it buy back the thing and
> destroy it in order to protect people that choose to drive it on black
> ice? Or does it have no continuing liability whatsoever? Or should it
> offer upgrades either free or at full or reduced price to those that
> wish to put precious cargo in the back!
> (This is mostly about lap belts compared to shoulder belts for rear seat
> occupants and VW's liability for having not furnished shoulder belts or
> possibly a front engine design)
> Al Brase
>
> Doug F wrote:
>
>> Good read, a bit "legal" and difficult to translate into English but
>> quite
>> interesting.
>>
>> Making a case that the VW was negligent by putting the engine in the
>> back,
>> to me is like saying Harley is negligent for not protecting you on a
>> motorcycle or the Mini is negligent for being small.
>>
>> Goes to show lawyers well make a case against anybody at anytime, about
>> anything so long as it makes CASH.
>>
>> Their claim that VW changed the design to front engine Eurovan
>> because they
>> "knew" the rear engine was unsafe displays this in spades. What about
>> the
>> 911, or Boxster, or any other mid engine sports car like the Ferr, or
>> Lamb,
>> Maz all with mid engine, hey thats unsafe and they should be sued for
>> it.
>>
>> What about "pusher" motorhomes? Greyhound busses.
>>
>> Gawd.
>> ----- Original Message -----
>> From: "Geza Polony" <gezapolony@SBCGLOBAL.NET>
>> To: <vanagon@GERRY.VANAGON.COM>
>> Sent: Friday, January 27, 2006 7:18 PM
>> Subject: No, but here's a good reason to do it
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>> Grim, but real.
>>>
>>> http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=98-1812.01A
>>>
>>> I'm thinking of installing them myself.
>>>
>>> Let us know how it goes...
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
|