Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: pembquist on January 24, 2019, 11:27:02 AM
-
We all know guys like this:https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20161227X03229&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA (https://app.ntsb.gov/pdfgenerator/ReportGeneratorFile.ashx?EventID=20161227X03229&AKey=1&RType=HTML&IType=FA)
The family is suing because controllers didn't tell him there was a mountain in his way.
-
The really sad part is that some crackpot attorney will probably get the family to win the settlement too
-
Guys we live in a "I don't have to take personal responsibility for anything" day, and age. It's sad, but true....
-
Did you know i am awesome
-
In all reality, much better pilots than him have flown into mountains. Something that struck close to home was a UPS flight out of Louisville crashed and killed both pilots landing in Birmingham. Controlled flight into terrain.
Anyhow, the family shouldn't sue.
-
Not a pilot, but how is the beginning and end of it not "He flew into clouds without an IFR rating"? Seems to me that's all there is to it.
Wiley.
-
The really sad part is that some crackpot attorney will probably get the family to win the settlement too
I expect that their claim is: He was on flight following. He reasonably assumed that, because the controller had him on radar, the controller wouldn't clear him to fly into the side of a mountain. I doubt it will work, but it's there.
Hey, Darwin works in mysterious ways.
- oldman
-
If anyone gets sued, it should be the pilot’s estate by the two passenger’s families.
“The controller instructed the pilot to maintain visual flight rules flight throughout his descent. Instead, the pilot descended the airplane into a cloud layer” and it goes on from there. So many opportunities for this not to have happened.
-
I expect that their claim is: He was on flight following. He reasonably assumed that, because the controller had him on radar, the controller wouldn't clear him to fly into the side of a mountain. I doubt it will work, but it's there.
Hey, Darwin works in mysterious ways.
- oldman
He cleared him for VFR. Nothing in that clears him for committing suicide.
-
And VFR means "you are clear to point B, but its your responsibility to avoid hitting anything on the way there" And he has the responsibility to stay out of IFR conditions.
-
I think every flight instructor has had a student like that at one time or another, my guy was so bad that I lost trust in him. Grounded him and made those endorsements in his log book, he wasn't a happy camper. I went so far at to state in writing in his log book that if he continued to fly the way he did, that he would kill himself and maybe someone else, that he didn't know how to follow rules, "rules didn't apply to him", is how he put it. I made a copy of my last entry in his log book and waited, 22 years later he smoked one in flying VFR into IFR weather, he killed himself and the young women on board with him, not his wife. The family took everybody to court. The insurance companies did a fine job and educated the jury hearing the case. The family got nothing.
-
I think every flight instructor has had a student like that at one time or another, my guy was so bad that I lost trust in him. Grounded him and made those endorsements in his log book, he wasn't a happy camper. I went so far at to state in writing in his log book that if he continued to fly the way he did, that he would kill himself and maybe someone else, that he didn't know how to follow rules, "rules didn't apply to him", is how he put it. I made a copy of my last entry in his log book and waited, 22 years later he smoked one in flying VFR into IFR weather, he killed himself and the young women on board with him, not his wife. The family took everybody to court. The insurance companies did a fine job and educated the jury hearing the case. The family got nothing.
What was it that Strother Martin said in Cool Hand Luke?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
-
What was it that Strother Martin said in Cool Hand Luke?
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
"What we've got here is failure to communicate"
Some Men, you just can't reach
-
"The pilot's medical certificate was expired, and his airplane was about 2 months overdue for an annual inspection."
Case dismissed.
-
"The pilot's medical certificate was expired, and his airplane was about 2 months overdue for an annual inspection."
Case dismissed.
Exactly! Complete disregard and void of judgement. One of the multitude of senseless acts that have generated a mountain of regulations to prevent bad judgement.
-
I expect that their claim is: He was on flight following. He reasonably assumed that, because the controller had him on radar, the controller wouldn't clear him to fly into the side of a mountain. I doubt it will work, but it's there.
Hey, Darwin works in mysterious ways.
- oldman
Flight following is primarily for traffic advisories. It is not the same as being under IFR/Positive Control.
-
He cleared him for VFR. Nothing in that clears him for committing suicide.
Or taking an innocent life with him.
-
Flight following is primarily for traffic advisories. It is not the same as being under IFR/Positive Control.
Of course that's true, as are all of the other observations posted above. Seemed to me that someone raised the question: What could his estates's legal theory possibly be? Not: How likely is the estate to win? Obviously it is not an easy case for the pilot's estate. For his passengers, quite a different question.
- oldman
-
Well this is conjecture on my part but I think the lawsuit would be about apportioning blame to anybody who had any capacity to pay. The argument would be that negligence on the part of the controller contributed to the accident, sort of like if you are driving 50 on a 45 posted road and somebody pulls out in front of you from a driveway you might be considered to be partially responsible for the accident as you were speeding. As to the claim of negligence because the controller didn't warn the pilot that there were obstacles I think it is all in how you phrase it and the theater of the courtroom. From a laypersons perspective it could be confusing I guess. The other thing is that there is the old fact that often settling is cheaper than winning if you are the defendant. I don't know if that applies in a case against the government but against the manufacture of the airplane, (why no radar altimeter or air bags??????), I think it often does.
-
It will be hard to get past two things, was the aircraft airworthy, was the pilot physically able?
By his own actions, the pilot did not believe so.