You stopped working at Boeing a little over 18 years ago, didn’t you?
New cards
4
4
So since then, you have worked at a consulting firm, haven’t you?
New cards
5
5
So for the past 18 or so years, you have done exclusively consulting work, haven’t you?
New cards
6
6
And you did not consult with Caborite on their Model 2 design, did you?
New cards
7
7
Dr. Henderson, you would agree that the field of aeronautical engineering has changed in the past 18 years, is that right?
New cards
8
8
And so for the past 18 years, your knowledge of the industry has only been through the consulting work that you do with your clients, isn’t that also correct?
New cards
9
9
Caborite Model 2 was first sold in the summer of 2020, is that correct?
New cards
10
10
And John Jacob’s crash was only a year later on July 3, 2021, right?
New cards
11
11
So periodicals and journals about this new Model 2 could not have been published by the time of the crash, is that right?
New cards
12
11\.1
*(if no) But nothing has been written about crashes in the Model 2, has there?*
New cards
13
12
The Model 2 was built with carsonium, wasn’t it?
New cards
14
13
And because Carsonium is so new, you didn’t have any knowledge of it until this crash, isn’t that right?
New cards
15
14
So you don’t know the properties of Carsonium, do you?
New cards
16
14\.1
*(if no) But most of what you know about Carsonium has come from Caborite, hasn’t it?*
New cards
17
15
And you cannot tell the judge what the effect of Carsonium would be when subject to great amounts of g-force, can you?
New cards
18
16
The software you used is regularly relied upon by leading aircraft manufacturers like Boeing, correct?
New cards
19
17
But Caborite does not use this software, does it?
New cards
20
18
And so the software you used did not take the effects of Carsonium into account when testing, correct?
New cards
21
19
You tested well-performed and poorly-performed Triple Lindys in the Model 2 using your computer model, correct?
New cards
22
20
But pilots are able to adjust for things like wind or turning errors during flights in ways that a computer model would not take into account, is that right?
New cards
23
21
So the computer model will generate flight paths which are possibly different from those that an actual pilot would follow, correct?
New cards
24
22
So the simulation does not accurately reflect what actually happens, correct?
New cards
25
23
Now that you’ve reviewed the facts of this case, you believe the Caborite Model 2 should have been built to withstand a load factor of 7 g’s, correct?
New cards
26
24
And yet, in your simulations, you found that during an improper Triple Lindy, the Model 2 exceeded 7 g’s in multiple trials, isn’t that right?
New cards
27
25
So even a load factor of 7 g’s would not be sufficient to protect a pilot during a Triple Lindy in a Model 2, correct?
New cards
28
26
You said that the wing fell off because of g-force, correct?
New cards
29
27
But without the use of an accelerometer, you can’t tell us how many g’s the plane experienced when the wing fell off, can you?
New cards
30
28
So you don’t know the actual/exact g-force exerted on the Model 2 when it crashed, do you?
New cards
31
29
As part of your investigation, you knew about the acknowledgement (pg. 49) that John Jacob signed when buying the Caborite Model 2 plane, correct?
New cards
32
29\.1
*(If no) so you are retained to assess the safety and limits of this plane and yet you didn’t review a contract that detailed Caborite’s contract on the safety and limits of the Model 2?*
New cards
33
30
And so you know that the pilot, John Jacobs, acknowledged that he shouldn’t exceed 6 g’s, correct?
New cards
34
31
\[You testified that\] Crash happened because the plane went over 6 g’s, right?
New cards
35
32
So if the plane fell apart because it was subjected to a 6 g load force, John Jacob shouldn’t have flown the plane over the 6 g limit, wouldn’t you agree?
New cards
36
33
Now, I want to turn your attention to your investigation of the fallen Caborite Model 2.
New cards
37
34
Before you made a visual assessment of the wing damage, you thought that the wing could have also fallen off due to metal fatigue or foul play, correct?
New cards
38
35
You decided it wasn’t metal fatigue solely through your visual analysis, right?
New cards
39
36
And you used the same visual analysis to determine that it wasn’t foul play, correct?
New cards
40
37
So your opinion that excessive g-forces were the sole cause of the plane’s crash was a process of elimination from your visual analysis, correct?
New cards
41
38
Thank you, Dr. Henderson. Your Honor, I have no further questions.