Porsche exec's warning fax to dealers re: GT--2004

[javadog]

FWIW, Carrera GT production was around 1,270 cars.

The fax appears to be from a PCNA regional sales rep to the dealers in his zone. Not a big deal and it's not some official document from Porsche AG. Having been a car dealer, I can say that this sort of communication is routine and no big deal.

If you read the thing, and you have adequate reading comprehension, he's telling his dealers what is schedule is going to be, for a given week in 2004, and he's essentially warning them to be careful with the handling of the cars. It's not written as a safety warning, more like a "how not to damage" a GT before it is sold.

Anybody that thinks this is a damning indictment of the dangers of driving a Carrera GT ought to have their head examined for the presence of a tin foil hat.

JR

[javadog]

Originally Posted by speeder

That CNN article is not bad-can't say that I find much in it that I disagree with.

Well, the two "experts" they quoted are a young-ish magazine editor and an equally young mechanic that works at an independent Porsche shop, that just happened to be a Porsche dealership mechanic when the Carrera GT was first sold in the US. One is probably well trained in journalism and the other wrenches on cars. Neither is what I'd call an expert on vehicle dynamics. Neither is likely to have much real world experience of the car.

But that's not the whole story. Reading the article gives you the impression that the GT is an unusually dangerous car. That's achieved by selecting comments that suit that particular narrative. How about these, from the same mechanic, in another publication:

“It’s not a dangerous car; you just have to be ready to handle the power it has,” said Trimble, who is quoted in the CNN.com story. “I wouldn’t necessarily class it a dangerous vehicle.”

If a person takes the time to understand the car, it is no different than, say, any Ferrari or Lamborghini on the market, Trimble said.

Puts a different spin on the CNN article, now doesn't it? God forbid a news source might want to sensationalize a story...

JR

[Steve Carlton]

All I can say is, when the price of these drops to $20K, I'm getting one.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by javadog

FWIW, Carrera GT production was around 1,270 cars.

The fax appears to be from a PCNA regional sales rep to the dealers in his zone. Not a big deal and it's not some official document from Porsche AG. Having been a car dealer, I can say that this sort of communication is routine and no big deal.

If you read the thing, and you have adequate reading comprehension, he's telling his dealers what is schedule is going to be, for a given week in 2004, and he's essentially warning them to be careful with the handling of the cars. It's not written as a safety warning, more like a "how not to damage" a GT before it is sold.

Anybody that thinks this is a damning indictment of the dangers of driving a Carrera GT ought to have their head examined for the presence of a tin foil hat.

JR

What's odd about the fax language is that PCNA, especially, should understand the concept of "discovery" since in the lawsuit involving the 930 back in the 70s, the internal memo calling the handling of the 930 "poisonous" weighed heavily on the jury.

Lawsuits arriving from the 930 in the late 70's

[Noah930]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

All I can say is, when the price of these drops to $20K, I'm getting one.

Heck, I don't think that smoldering wreck is down to $20K, yet.

[speeder]

I rode in a new '86 911 turbo for some hot laps with a Porsche factory driver at the old Riverside Raceway and I nearly shat in my pantaloons from the handling. A faster lap with another factory driver in a 951 ten minutes later was like sitting in a Lazyboy recliner in comparison.

The early 930s were a lot hairier in set-up from what I understand.

[Embraer]

Originally Posted by Steve Carlton

All I can say is, when the price of these drops to $20K, I'm getting one.

the values are already rising on them...

[javadog]

Originally Posted by techweenie

What's odd about the fax language is that PCNA, especially, should understand the concept of "discovery" since in the lawsuit involving the 930 back in the 70s, the internal memo calling the handling of the 930 "poisonous" weighed heavily on the jury.

I'm sure their lawyers are quite aware of the concept. I'm equally sure that 100% of the communications like that don't get reviewed by the lawyers before they go out.

It's irrelevant, in that you would have to be halfway illiterate to confuse that memo with the one used in the 930 case, which I still remember. A 930 is a different beast to a GT. I drove them for over 30 years and had no issues, mainly because I have a fair amount of driving skill and I'm not a dumbass. Frankly, it pisses me off that people win lawsuits like the 930 case. Regardless of the handling characteristics of a particular car, it's always some dumbass doing something stupid that gets them in trouble in the first place. The previous lawsuit about the GT on the track that crashed when some idiot got in the way of the GT while pulling out of the pits and another idiot couldn't deal with that small problem just pisses me off. Had I been on that jury, Porsche would not have lost anything.

It takes months of training and certification to be able to legally fly the slowest and safest airplane ever made yet any idiot with a large bank balance can legally buy a car like this and kill himself the same day.

JR

[speeder]

Originally Posted by javadog

I'm sure their lawyers are quite aware of the concept. I'm equally sure that 100% of the communications like that don't get reviewed by the lawyers before they go out.

It's irrelevant, in that you would have to be halfway illiterate to confuse that memo with the one used in the 930 case, which I still remember. A 930 is a different beast to a GT. I drove them for over 30 years and had no issues, mainly because I have a fair amount of driving skill and I'm not a dumbass. Frankly, it pisses me off that people win lawsuits like the 930 case. Regardless of the handling characteristics of a particular car, it's always some dumbass doing something stupid that gets them in trouble in the first place. The previous lawsuit about the GT on the track that crashed when some idiot got in the way of the GT while pulling out of the pits and another idiot couldn't deal with that small problem just pisses me off. Had I been on that jury, Porsche would not have lost anything.

It takes months of training and certification to be able to legally fly the slowest and safest airplane ever made yet any idiot with a large bank balance can legally buy a car like this and kill himself the same day.

JR

So you are in favor of letting anyone fly a plane with no training or license, or do you think that some advanced training should be necessary in order to purchase a supercar? Your rant has me confused.

[javadog]

I'm not sure how my intent should be anything less than painfully obvious, but...

I think even a basic license should take a lot of study and practice to get, like it does in countries like Germany. Graduated licensing has been used in countries like Japan, for things like motorcycles, and you have do demonstrate a certain level of competence to obtain a license for the higher performance sizes. Maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea. Getting a racing license to race a Miata in the SCCA requires a little training and experience yet you can legally drive something with far greater performance by answering a 20 question test (and it takes a C or D to pass it) and showing a guy you can parallel park.

Better yet, I'd like to live in a country where people had a little common sense, didn't have a sense of entitlement and were held responsible for their actions, rather than blaming everyone else. There are societies like that in the world. Just not ours...

JR

[Tervuren]

Originally Posted by speeder

So you are in favor of letting anyone fly a plane with no training or license, or do you think that some advanced training should be necessary in order to purchase a supercar? Your rant has me confused.

I think a key point, is that generally the plane manufacturer isn't sued when there is pilot error.

[javadog]

Sure they are. If they have any assets or money, they'll get dragged into it.

That's why new single engine planes can cost a half million.

JR

[speeder]

Originally Posted by javadog

I'm not sure how my intent should be anything less than painfully obvious, but...

I think even a basic license should take a lot of study and practice to get, like it does in countries like Germany. Graduated licensing has been used in countries like Japan, for things like motorcycles, and you have do demonstrate a certain level of competence to obtain a license for the higher performance sizes. Maybe that wouldn't be a bad idea. Getting a racing license to race a Miata in the SCCA requires a little training and experience yet you can legally drive something with far greater performance by answering a 20 question test (and it takes a C or D to pass it) and showing a guy you can parallel park.

Better yet, I'd like to live in a country where people had a little common sense, didn't have a sense of entitlement and were held responsible for their actions, rather than blaming everyone else. There are societies like that in the world. Just not ours...

JR

I did not even know that you had "intent"...maybe POV?

I agree that stricter licensing requirements and graduated licensing would be a good idea but it will NEVER happen in the U.S. due to the extreme pro-business climate. IE. the auto/motorcycle and insurance industry would never allow it. They would lose half their customers.

You seem a little amped-up over the whole subject, I get that you're a "personal responsibility" kind of guy. I also lament the lack of common sense in the world but it's always been so and it's never going to change. You seem unwilling to even acknowledge that certain cars are inherently dangerous. It's a given that rich idiots are going to buy most supercars, not F1 drivers who want a fast DD.

Can we agree that there is some *absolute safest* car out there to put a mediocre driver in? Maybe a 1992 Volvo 240 with thick sheet metal and a honking 4-cylinder plus a lot of airbags and safety engineering? Can we then agree that there is a class of passenger vehicles that are exactly on the other side of the scale, with 600+HP, light weight and a hair-trigger throttle response?

What's so difficult about that? Sure in a perfect world, (yours, apparently), no one would ever drive beyond their skills in one of these widow-makers. But reality dictates that a huge percentage will, and it can happen in a heartbeat, (transition from within your skills to above them). They're fking dangerous. Was that so hard?

[cashflyer]

Originally Posted by Tervuren

I think a key point, is that generally the plane manufacturer isn't sued when there is pilot error.

It happens all the time.

The Dubroff family sued Cessna when their PR stunt (letting a child fly an airplane) ended in the death of their daughter.

The family of Nancy Allen sued Cessna after she flew her Cessna Caravan into known icing conditions, lost control and died.

The family of Thurman Munson sued Cessna after he died while training to fly his new Cessna.

This is why a new Cessna 172 costs over $200k, when it is almost exactly the same as the 172 airplanes built in 1981 for ~$40k.

[speeder]

There have been racing cars, (including some made by Porsche), that are unusually and inherently dangerous. I'm talking about in the hands of the most talented drivers on earth. Particularly hairy machines. That's all I'm saying. Some cars ARE particularly dangerous.

Should they not be sold? Didn't say that. But I acknowledge that they are dangerous as fk. I know one person that I can think of off the top of my head who has a C-GT. One day, I will ask him for a ride. He was a sponsored racer for quite a while and is an extremely fast and talented racer, but I think that a ride around Malibu will be relatively safe with him. He'll probably let me drive, we go way back with Porsches. I look forward to it but I will treat that thing like a flying chainsaw.

[javadog]

I don't think you can blame the business climate. I think it starts with our culture. People don't think of a drivers license as the priviledge that it is. Most people think of it differently. Watch someone that gets their license taken away and see what they do. They usually don't quit driving...

We can argue this all day and it won't matter at all. It's sort of like the gun argument. Few guns have killed someone on their own. It's usually the idiot that's holding it that's the problem. I know a lot of responsible gun owners. I also have experienced what happens when someone you know picks up a gun and says, "here, hold my beer"...

JR

[onewhippedpuppy]

Originally Posted by cashflyer

It happens all the time.

The Dubroff family sued Cessna when their PR stunt (letting a child fly an airplane) ended in the death of their daughter.

The family of Nancy Allen sued Cessna after she flew her Cessna Caravan into known icing conditions, lost control and died.

The family of Thurman Munson sued Cessna after he died while training to fly his new Cessna.

This is why a new Cessna 172 costs over $200k, when it is almost exactly the same as the 172 airplanes built in 1981 for ~$40k.

Also why Cessna quit producing piston powered aircraft between 1986 and 1994, when Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act that limited liability for general aviation aircraft. Product liability was, and still is, a big part of airplane product cost. It's a damn shame that someone can do something stupid on their own accord, then sue the product manufacturer and win.

[techweenie]

Originally Posted by onewhippedpuppy

Also why Cessna quit producing piston powered aircraft between 1986 and 1994, when Congress passed the General Aviation Revitalization Act that limited liability for general aviation aircraft. Product liability was, and still is, a big part of airplane product cost. It's a damn shame that someone can do something stupid on their own accord, then sue the product manufacturer and win.

In which of the above lawsuits did the complainant's family win?

[sammyg2]

Cessna found liable for $480M in crash of 185 AINonline by Nigel Moll

November 27, 2007, 10:11 AM
A Florida jury has found Cessna liable for the 1989 crash of a 185 in Florida and returned a record $480 million verdict against the Wichita-based manufacturer. Nobody died in the accident, but the three occupants of the 1966-model taildragger were injured in the crash and ensuing fire. The award consists of $400 million in punitive damages and $80 million in compensatory damages.

The lawsuit, filed by Philadelphia lawyer Arthur Wolk, contended that pilot James Cassoutt’s seat suddenly slid backward while he was attempting to land at Coastal Airport, a strip near Pensacola, Fla., causing him to lose control of the airplane.
Unfortunately for Cessna, the protections of the 1994 General Aviation Revitalization Act (GARA) do not apply in this case because both the accident (in 1989) and the initiation of litigation (in 1991) preceded passage of the bill. It is ironic, too, that it was Cessna chairman Russ Meyer who led the industry assault on product-liability laws that resulted in passage of GARA.

Cessna lawyers argued that the seat did not slip and maintained that the locking mechanism was not defective. Noting that pilot Cassoutt had little experience with or instruction in the 185, they attributed the accident to pilot error.

Cessna said it “does not believe the jury’s verdict was consistent with or supported by the evidence at the trial, which included an admission by the pilot that the accident was caused by pilot error.” The company said it “intends to vigorously pursue every post-trial remedy available.”

An NTSB file on the accident obtained by AIN read as follows:
“A normal approach was made to Runway 36. The flaps were fully extended and full nose-up trim was applied, per the owner’s handbook. The wind was from the east at three to eight knots. Thick scrub trees bordered the east side of the runway. A three-point landing was planned, and touchdown occurred on the tailwheel and right mainwheel. The right wing came up as the left wheel touched, and the pilot initiated a balked landing. He and his wife, also a private pilot, said the nose pitched up abruptly, and a departure stall to the right was encountered. Both believed that the pilot’s seat slid rearward. Post-impact fire destroyed the seat rails. Examination of the wreckage showed that the front seats appeared to be in the same relative position.”

Cessna found liable for $480M in crash of 185 | Aviation International News

[sammyg2]

Mar 15, 2002, 1:45pm CST
Cessna Aircraft settles seat-rail lawsuit Wichita-based Cessna Aircraft Co. has settled a lawsuit concerning allegations that a seat-rail system used in some of its aircraft was defective.

The action was settled last month and made public Thursday in the annual report of Textron Inc., Cessna's parent company.

The amount of the settlement was not disclosed.

Jessica Myers, a Cessna spokeswoman, said Friday that nondisclosure was one of the terms of the settlement.

"We're pleased that the settlement has been completed to the satisfaction on of all parties involved," she says, declining to say any more than that.

In its report, Textron stated that "the amount of the settlement in excess of that which will be paid by Cessna's insurance carriers will be covered by our pre-existing product liability reserves."

The lawsuit was settled in state civil court in Escambia County, Fla., Myers says. It stems from an August 1989 aircraft crash in which the pilot, James M. Cassoutt, his wife, Cindy Cassoutt, and a passenger, Judy L. Kealey, were hurt during the landing of a Cessna 185.

The case underwent 10 years of litigation and the plaintiffs were awarded $480 million by a jury in August 2001. Of that amount, $400 million was for punitive damages. Cessna appealed the decision, which was the biggest jury award ever against a general aviation manufacturer.

Cessna's seat-latching system that was the basis of the lawsuit was no longer put into new aircraft after 1986.

Cessna Aircraft settles seat-rail lawsuit - Wichita Business Journal