Warbird Information Exchange

Hoover handled the aircraft alone

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

Nobody asked me, but I'll throw it in the mix -

My grandmother always said "neither a borrower nor a lender be."

Sage advice. I've borrowed enough stuff in my life from good meaning folk, and it always seemed to put me on the heavy end of the scale. No need to go into detail.

You borrow it and it gets broken/stolen/damaged/pregnant, whatever, you step up and take the responsibility for that action. When presented with the option of borrowing or loaning, you can always be kind and gracious and agreeable, politely disagree, or you can be a curmudgeon like me - but in the end - be accountable for your actions. Nothing more, nothing less. Period.

Pooner, classic!

'Say Mr Smith, do you mind if I borrow your daughter tonight......'

_________________
Those that can do,those that can't be bothered,TALK about it.
Volunteer with Classic Flight and a member of Beech Restorations team.
http://beechrestorations.wordpress.com/about-us/
http://www.classicflight.com.

THANK You Pooner Amen

_________________
Kind Regards,
Gary Lewis
J.A.F.O.

As many know, borrowing an aircraft (with all implications and liabilities) is much cheaper than borrowing any female.

The checkout for the airplane is easier too...

_________________
Brian

You've never been to Olongapo have you

_________________
Don't touch my junk!!

_________________
Zane Adams
There I was at 20,000 ft, upside down and out of ammunition.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Join us for the Texas Warbird Report on WarbirdRadio.com!
http://www.facebook.com/WarbirdRadio
Listen at http://www.warbirdradio.com

That's it right there. Words to live by. Doesn't matter if you are "using" someone else's lawnmower or a shovel. If you are "using" something for it's intended purpose (the odds increase if "using" for unintended purposes, so I'm simplifying for sake of making a point), then there is a 100% chance that whatever you are "using" will fail. Few things fail while not being used (exceptions not considered). Will an engine fail while not running? Will a shovel handle break while sitting in the shed? Will the lawnmower starter cord break if not being pulled (see above exemption!)? So, when someone "uses" something, there is an accepted possibility that something could fail, and with that there should be accepted responsibility to "correct" the failure however necessary (varying interpretations insert here).

Interesting is the thought that there may have been a "pre-existing condition" in the engine. Yeah, it had a "pre-existing condition". It was built!! It was doomed for failure, as all engines are. No engine will last forever - of any kind. Some go sooner, a lot sooner, than others. But, if there was a "pre-existing condition" that was "to blame" (and I say "to blame" because the only reason to bring up a possible "pre-existing condition" would be to divert any blame), ask this. Did the engine fail directly after or during start-up? That scenario would be the best way to "prove" a "pre-existing condition" (but not 100% - there are always other factors during start-up, etc). Since the engine lasted well after start-up, taxi, run-up, take-off, climb, some maneuvers, etc, etc, then the "pre-existing engine condition" is not a very valid argument. And since the engine was used in more than a "standard" flight envelope, that "pre-existing condition" thought becomes even more difficult to defend or use to divert blame.

This is a unique case in which this thread has been very interesting reading. I haven't felt that anyone has been malicious in their opinions towards or about any person. I have raised my eyebrows at some statements, totally disregarded others, and enjoyed some thought-provoking points. As stated previously, that is the point of an open forum. There is something for everyone, but not everything is for everyone. Continue!

Tommy

"And since the engine was used in more than a "standard" flight envelope, that "pre-existing condition" thought becomes even more difficult to defend or use to divert blame."


Given that the T-28's design and both military and civilian useage included aerobatics I doubt that any manuvers were outside the "standard" flight envelope. There is little doubt that all of these issues were raised in court and the jury was unconvinced.
Tom-

I should have clarified "standard" (the quote marks are a notation that were supposed to keep this from happening).

I was going to define "standard", but thought against it. I don't think there is a need. The text provides the definition. It doesn't mean doing rolls, high G maneuvers, etc.

This isn't a court of law, we don't have to over-analyze every word, phrase, fragment, sentence, paragraph, adjective, adverb, quotation, citation, preposition, exclamation, conjuction, subject, noun, pronoun, verb, object, modifier,....... darn, now I'm doing it. Sorry.

Tommy

Given Hoover's International reputation as a aerobatic pilot, given that his FAA medical problem had received similar international attention, and given that he made the first flight in a T-28 as a NAA test pilot, and subsequently the first delivery of a T-28 to the Navy, the manuvers performed should have been expected and they certainly were normal. And we have ZERO knowledge of what caused the failure, I've not read the post-incident teardown report have you?

Tom-

Pregnant????? .... not me, I didn't borrow it, you GAVE it to me ....