What unusual wear and tear?

Well...you seem to have strong opinions, so the question is whether you have sufficient knowledge and information on which those opinions may be reliably based.

So, Question No.1: Is an aircraft component manufacturer responsible for providing directions to operators of their of aircraft/parts on how those parts are to be maintained? Answer: Yes.

Question No. 2: Are commercial aircraft operators such as Bahamasair required by regulations to follow those directions? Answer: Yes.

Question No. 3: Are you able to demonstrate Bahamasair did not properly maintain the aircraft? Answer: You let us know. The Chief Judge was there and heard and understood all the evidence. The Court of Appeal panel was not, and it is very clear from a review of its ruling.

In terms of the "unusual wear and tear" to which you refer as associated with the operating conditions of the aircraft in question when this incident occurred, Question No. 4: What were they? Before you answer, let me tell you that the landing gear components in question are in a closed system not exposed to the elements. For your further edification, you should know, as I indicated above, that the component parts in question have to be replaced in accordance with a schedule recommended by the manufacturer. The court records reflect that Bahamasair's policy was to change the parts well ahead of the manufacture schedule to ensure the safety of its passengers.

To demonstrate why the Court of Appeal's ruling would make no sense to anyone in the aircraft maintenance industry. The ruling stated that Bahamasair should have relied on a maintenance directive the manufacturer issued for a different model aircraft in making the determination to replace the parts in question. If not a direct violation of the law, it would, at a minimum, be a breach of safety standards in most countries around the world - apparently it is now okay here. :) So before you claim flaws in the ruling, you should better acquaint yourself with the industry and what occurred. If you are in the industry, please let me know what airline so I know not to get on it.

This is a joke. Anyone following this case knows the Court of Appeal is wrong. The landing gear manufacturer knew there was a problem with this landing gear as early as 1996, but they still installed the defective parts in the landing gear on the Bahamasair aircraft. The parts were not installed by Bahamasair, but by the manufacturer. The manufactured then issued a directive, which Bahamasair was required to follow, saying that the defective parts should be replaced at the next scheduled overhaul. The parts were not scheduled to be replaced when this incident occurred. The manufacturer was the only entity that knew of the extent of the problems with the parts, but it did not tell Bahamasair to replace them. That's why Bahamasair filed suit in the first place. This was not at all a maintenance issue, it is simply a case of the big manufacturer trying to blame the small airline so the manufacturer can avoid responsibility. This same problem is not new and occurred previously on other aircraft on other airlines. The Court of Appeal referring to making a good product better is nonsense. The part had failed before and the manufacturer knows it, it just did not tell Bahamasair or other operators to replace it immediately and the manufacturer's representative admitted this at trial. This is a very curious ruling,