problem is the district court found there was no nexus shown by mr curtis between the alleged defective propeller and the cause of the crash so perhaps you might address yes the evidence up next  yes and hard self we have no idea fourteen errors like it all is that if there is a defect then the defect discovered at the time of the accident is imputed to the manufacturer as of the time they left the manufacture and that that's what the powerball that's was the three year three years and the hundreds of flight hours comes into play here because mr curse and his maintenance people had have the propeller in their sole possession for that period of time had checked the propeller on multiple occasions and never found any loose screws or anything like that so again i ask what evidence do you have to establish a nexus between a defective propeller and the cause torque properly he is not allowed to touch the prop that way because he doesn't have a prop shop license i so you're relying on what the doctrine of receptor loquitur it must have been defective because there was a crash i mean i think you have to the bolt holding the clamp came off in flight and i suggested that the courts use of the term suggestion is weak mr morse said there is conclusive evidence that  came apart in flight before the crash and that i guess the big problem and i haven't i'm trying to get the same point that it's tallman is that if i'm looking at used bolts as the defect you're alleging against hard sell and i'm looking at what evidence did you introduce that the bolts were loose or that they were used when they left hard so that's the kind comments inspectors if that's what they found they found somebody eyeballed the boat on the ground and said it could have been used or it could have been for us monkeying around with it that  inspected this if you say could look at it or he couldn't do anything about it that makes it every more speculation no it means he didn't touch those bolts so if they were found to be loose and one of them came  plane because there was no reason to he's not allowed to and if you had any any indication that those poles were loose he would have grounded the airplane and taken it off it also he is not allowed to because that prop comes out of the shop with with a service life of about two thousand five hundred hours and only a prop shop can start campaigning with those bolts and he said he did not tamper with them in the three and a half years unit itself if i'm using that term correctly was damaged when the propeller blade contacted the ground when the plane crashed there was significant damage done to the to the propeller unit remaining blade right at the zero was never found right and and then we have the f a a inspector who who made that comment about you know it was either it could have been we need to look into whether or not it was used or whether or not it was loose but this is after the propeller has now been in contact with the ground and the inspectors trying to figure out what might have caused the crash oh yes but by that time the other blade was still there so they were the ones have removed the bolts holding it and found them to loose but the the day after the crash two inspectors went up there and made exhaustive search for the other blade because they knew it was important and find and then some weeks or months later that seems to just drop out of significance but the fact that the blade is not there well the the f a a to i and i realize there's a question of how much we can rely on the f a a report but the know i understand as given i understand it and the other hearing where they take as license the administrative law judge specifically said he is not finding whether the promptly left or not i saw that as we're talking about roads a props they required inspections and the requirement of inspections instead of they could have recalled the props and that their decision to require inspections repeated inspections is what caused the dealer artisan to be removing and replacing removing and placing these bolts and nuts that hold the plant fact that there was a service bulletin two hundred and ninety two that made clear that the propeller never suffered from the corrosion problem that was found in other ninety two said but for my st the st seven years it required the dealers to inspect these props repeated i thought that was only after a certain number of hour is flown which this plane did is that r yes i think that's incorrect i thought they said it was only after like it was like a one thousand hours or something like that and this was only four hundred dollars in their service bulletin  there has to be inspections looking for corrosion even when the prop is in the possession of the dealer and that there's another set of inspections required for a prop that is in storage longer than two years so in a way you look at it often had to do inspections and the inspections wouldn't have happened if the if hartzell had recalled the problem which was an option they took very expensive option but they decided to manage their risk by leaving these props with the dealers and service and hoping to catch the corrosion before happen but i do that a bit of the corrosion is not really seems to me that you really are left what this service bulletin even says because the service bulletin is judge you could have points out only requires the inspections with over a one thousand flying hours which this plane did now and then the service will some further said that disassembly was not required right for some of the inspections corrosion and i couldn't get anywhere because they destroy the records until all they've what is clear is that they switch blades unbeknownst to mr kersten which would have prevented him from from buying this prop and switching the blades they would have to have taken the balls off and put them back on and so i don't know which whether it was an inspection or the switching of the blades that caused the end result when you left office and for cursed he gets his work from them they want to know what happened they don't care who wins so it is reported by the way he says conclusive evidence that this problem all left and the the sequence would be the blade left to is to be viewed not as an advocate taking a position but as somebody looking to get to the truth of the fact directed verdict this is not what happened here we have a lot of speculation we have a lot of convoluted arguments about repeat inspections due to corrosion but the the theories are not the evidence so quickly it's look at what the evidence was hartsell saw the propeller to addison in two thousand and kept it in storage for eleven years and then prior to the sale it pulled out the storage hartzell did is there any contemporaneous work record in the manufacturer's files or the you know the manufacturer has the record of releasing the propeller in two thousand and certifying it was some records we don't have all the records just because of routine project practices by addison the answered her question is those records are not available i mean what  have all the records as to what i did so we are relying on the testimony of augustine's manager roy henderson which is in the records as to distance practices and procedures  that's there was a g p s aboard mr kurz aircraft that shows in fact mr curst did fly directly to the side of mountain because he entered a mountain pass that's too low  judgments and said you know we want you to prove it up mr crist couldn't to do that is this given that it didn't even require that the balls be taken apart to some others cause there to be used bolts when the when it was inspected is entirely irrelevant nor does mr christie even provide evidence that was i do we supervised audits and to make sure it had properly trained mechanics audited sure that the mechanics were properly trained and qualified they were united found that to be the correctly all the time so we're again the negligent supervision thing there's no connection between anything on our website and this accident while i want to just says in the alternative we have or argument regarding collateral estoppel the f a a took license action against mr curst there was a hearing held and the n t s b supplies the judge for where they are where there's a good morning in may it please the court my name has been west i'm here on behalf of the awesome propeller and accessories in the austin family foundation the key case law dealing with these claims comes  from this court and says that mere allegation and speculation do not create a factual dispute for purposes of summary judgment that's a nelson v pima community college and the court has also stated conclusory speculative testimony in affidavits and moving papers is not sufficient to raise genuine issues of material fact and sorra me can be thrifty payless i'd like to address some of the issues have been raised here regarding  records that aren't in existence regarding the propeller simply because they're not required to keep those not because of any malicious intent to destroy records that gets you around the adverse inference from  what do you have to rely on than just the testimony of august and employees as to what did or did not happen to the propeller for the eleven years that it was in their custody well to some extent yes but then the key record is going to be the overhauling and preparing the propeller for service and so that is the record that certifies that the specifications established by hartsell were followed by august you have a witness who actually performed the work or or was it just  practices and procedures type with that this is what we usually do the deponent for artists in this roy henderson was involved with the preparation of the propeller and in his deposition did testify but the st time anybody says they looked loose after the crash that is correct and as a point point of clarification your honor there is reference in the record to little marks regarding looseness and so when the propeller blade is attached to the hub which is the portion that holds the blade essentially to the park to the airplane when the installer does that they will take paint and mar propeller were to come loose those marks would not match any longer that would be offset and the record clearly indicates from mr curse that those marks were straight even during the preflight on the day of the incident evident thing know he does your honor but there is nothing that would tie that back to even if taken is true nothing that would tie that back to the condition of the propeller at the time that it left the office and facility there is nothing but speculation  that would show there was any looseness of bolts or any problems with the clamps at the time that it left the office and didn't do any check inspections or anything after the propeller was sold to mr that's correct when that propeller left the o possession of the propeller after it left its facility three years and four hundred some odd flight hours before the incident propellers and then us and change it all in that case they were new so flip flopping back and forth means we've got used bolts and loose balls on here and esther the the three hundred and forty seven hours wouldn't the maintenance stripe not line up not until the ball comes loose well now i'm not sure i understand what you just said because you you said that it occurred over a long period of time but if that so then wouldn't the so you're saying they could come loose but if but the stripe would still be matched up it would be matched up until the bolt leaves and the clamp spreads and the prop plays starts wobbling and breaks the fly off