[gmcjetpilot]

I am sick and sad all around.

Cirrus accident law suit article

This is a big reason for the decline of affordable general aviation
airplanes and manufactures of those planes. A VFR Pilot kills himself
and passenger after flying into the ground in poor visibility, than their
estate's sue the manufacture.


Yes he did not get the factory checkout lesson called "IFR Flight (Non
rated)". I am sorry for the families loss, but controlled flight into the
ground by a VFR pilot in IMC is kind of expected. No mystery, VFR
pilot+IMC=Crash. This is a case of poor judgment not training.

I hate to say things about people who can't defend themselves, but
that's the point, they sadly are not with us anymore. Something went
wrong, and that was perfectly good plane being flown into the ground.


I have not seen the lesson plan for that "IFR Flight / non-rated" (I hate
that title. IFR flight for VFR pilot? Instrument Flight Rules are for IFR
rated pilots only.)

My title for this lesson plan may not be as catchy. The lesson title
would be; "Instrument attitude practice for VFR pilots and strategies to
avoid instrument conditons, such as 180 degree tuns and immediate
landing and fun things to do while you wait the weather out"; a little long
but you get my point. At no time should VFR pilots think they can fly
in IMC.

I'm not sure if the 30 minute "lesson" would have made the difference.
May be it would have? I don't know, but could imagine a wealthy
student in a hurry to get his factory check out over with so he can get
in his new 1/4 Mil plane and go, using the course more to get
insurance than gain skill and currency. ( I don't that is the case here,
but have seen that attitude before, and its counter productive.)


The only thing I can say as a former CFI (inst/me) with about 2000 dual
given, get plenty of current hood time, and if you're a VFR pilot, don't
fly in IMC! Please. How hard is that. It's rare IMC just sneaks up on you
observing some common practices, like land if the visibility is too low.

I hate the whole deal, needless deaths and ridiculous law suites. Flying
has risk, you accept those risk every time you fly. If you are a Private
pilot and can not fly the check ride to private pilot standards today
you are not current. If you are an ATP, same thing.

I love seeing those Cessna DEATH placards. May be every plane
should have a placard, "This plane will KILL YOU if you do
something DUMB". The good news is in flight you have control of
your destiny almost always. Fly safe, please. George

PS: Don't take anything I said condemn the pilot, I have done
dumb things in my time, but I have been fortunate enough to
not have had an accident, incident or violation; learning a
lesson with out having to pay a price....that is the goal,
not to be judgmental or morose but remind our self to take care.

 

[ptrotter]

I agree George, This is ridiculous. With repect to flight experience, I am probably at the other end of the scale from you with only 180 hours, but it has always been my belief that as PIC, it is my responsibility to decide whether the aircraft and myself are capable of whatever conditions I'm going to fly in. If I do something stupid like fly into IMC, then it is my fault and my fault alone. No one should be able to sue someone else because of my stupidity. One of the problems in the US today is that people do not accept the responsibility for their actions, trying to put blame anywhere else whenever possible. If you can't accept the risk of the activity you are involved in, then you shouldn't do it.

I can understand the passenger's family blaming the pilot, but there is no justification for either the pilot's or the passenger's family to blame Cirrus for the pilot's bad judgement. It was the pilot's responsibility to determine if he had the appropriate training for the flight.

I hope Cirrus fights this as hard as they can.

 

[szicree]

I am a low time VFR pilot and admit to knowing almost nothing about IFR flying. However, on my introductory flight the instructor had me close my eyes for maybe half a minute and try to indicate the plane's attitude with my outstretched hand. I knew he would try to trick me, but thought I could outdo him. At the end of this exercise I was indicating straight and level. When I opened my eyes I was surprised to find the plane in a descending turn with the horizon at about 45 degrees. The shock to my senses was extreme. I didn't need any more than this to convince me that, as George said, IMC + Non-rated Pilot = CRASH. Since I know that flying into IMC will result in my death, I make sure it won't happen.

I have all the sympathy in the world for families who have lost loved ones, but what part of non-rated do these pilots (and lawyers) not understand? The lawsuit alleges that Cirrus failed to provide a particular lesson on VFR into IMC. If this is true, they should refund the cash value of the missing lesson and call it settled. If Van's forgot to include rudder pedals in my kit then they owe me some pedals. If I decide I can fly without them and crash, they still owe me the pedals -- and that's all.

I think that by offering training, Cirrus is probably making themselves more liable rather than less. This kind of thing just SUCKS!

 

[redbeardmark]

very sad indeed

Good post, George. It is very sad that the INCORRECT lawsuit is being filed. The lawsuit should be filed by the passenger's estate against the pilot's estate, because that is where the blame squarely falls... on the shoulders of the Pilot In Command(or his estate if he dies). The pilot robbed his passenger of his life. Ahh, but it is the aircraft manufacturer who has the deepest pockets. Who was the famous lawyer who said, "The color of justice is green."

Continued VFR flight into worsening IMC... scientifically proven to stop the aging process.

 

[JohnR]

"This plane will KILL YOU if you do something DUMB"

I think this will make a good addition as the last item on my checklist. Good reminder that there are consequences to our own actions.

My condolences to the families involved.

 

[JamesKonrad]

I am a low time VFR pilot and admit to knowing almost nothing about IFR flying. However, on my introductory flight the instructor had me close my eyes for maybe half a minute and try to indicate the plane's attitude with my outstretched hand. I knew he would try to trick me, but thought I could outdo him. At the end of this exercise I was indicating straight and level. When I opened my eyes I was surprised to find the plane in a descending turn with the horizon at about 45 degrees. The shock to my senses was extreme. I didn't need any more than this to convince me that, as George said, IMC + Non-rated Pilot = CRASH. Since I know that flying into IMC will result in my death, I make sure it won't happen.

During my PPL training I did a similar exercise, although not on the first flight, it was as I was preparing to solo into the practice area (I had already soloed in the circuit). My instructor had me fly around the practice area with my eyes closed and a ball cap over my face so that I could not see. The other 3 pilots that were in my instructor group all entered a spiral dive in less than 30 seconds. Five minutes later he had me open my eyes and I had made meandering turns (all to the left) into 3 large circles of the practice area. Now I'm not trying to say that I can handle IMC better than another low-time VFR pilot (in fact I think that the exercise was a fluke).

I don't know what training requirements are like Stateside, but in Canada we are required to do 5 hours of simulated instrument training to receive our PPL. An another 5 (plus 5 more dual and 5 solo at night) to receive a Night Rating.

 

[Roger Moore]

Stupidity

As a high time(26000 Hour) instrument rated pilot(ATP) I have observed in my 40 years as a professional pilot you cannot legislate intelligence. I personally feel it is dangerous to fly a single engine aircraft in poor weather day or night. But I see many people do. And when they screw up the lawyers are always there to cash in. That unfortunately is how our legal system works, for better or worse. Roger Moore [email protected]

 

[rv8ch]

Lawsuits

Law Suits make me sick

It's always painful to see these kinds of lawsuits, but keep in mind that our legal system is a tool, just like a hammer, a gun, or an airplane. Used correctly, it can be very helpful, and used wrongly, very dangerous. Just as you don't blame an airplane for problems caused by the one at the controls, we shouldn't blame the legal system because a few people choose to misuse it. The average person only hears about the spectacular aviation events, like crashes. They never hear about the zillions of successful flights. Same with the legal system - we're focusing on the pretty clear abuses. Thankfully these abuses are probably even more rare than airplane accidents.

 

[ericwolf]

Like Driving Drunk

I don't know what training requirements are like Stateside, but in Canada we are required to do 5 hours of simulated instrument training to receive our PPL. An another 5 (plus 5 more dual and 5 solo at night) to receive a Night Rating.

To answer your question, we are required 3 hours simulated instrument time to get a PPL. When I did it, it was natural to me because of the Microsoft flight simulator time that I put in before starting my training. I did everything under the hood, I took off once with the hood (scary, but I trusted my instructor) and I shot a simulated precision approach. When I shot the approach, the needles bounced around a bit, but at decision altitude, the needles were pegged. All of that said, I avoid IMC like the plague.

On another note, I generally try not to compare airplanes to cars and apples to oranges, but this seemed to fit. If I decided to down a bottle of vodka and go for a spin in my car, could my family sue if they found out that although the salesman at the dealership gave me some tips on safe driving of my car, he didn't train me on how to drive drunk?

 

[mdredmond]

The training Cirrus offers isn't required by law and the lack of it is irrelevent. At best, it would have been a review of what he already had getting his PPL - a 180 degree turn and better planning next time. With all respect to the dead guy, he would have flown any other plane into the ground under the same conditions - Cirrus has nothing to do with it.

I hope not to get into an overly 'political' discussion, but this is precisely why tort reform is a good thing (IMO): Win or lose, Cirrus will be saddled with huge attorney's fees in this case (in most states each side pays their own fees, win or lose). This is pretty clearly (so far) a case about a pilot that acted stupidly. His estate should have to pay Cirrus' bills if the family loses the suit.

I think I'm going to put a placard in my plane right above the AI - it will simply say 'THINK'.


Just my $0.02

 

[aadamson]

Best reform....

I hope not to get into an overly 'political' discussion, but this is precisely why tort reform is a good thing (IMO).

Win or lose, Cirrus will be saddled with huge attorney's fees in this case (in most states each side pays their own fees, win or lose). This is pretty clearly (so far) a case about a pilot that acted stupidly. His estate should have to pay Cirrus' bills if the family loses the suit.

The best reform IMHO....


He who sues pays *all* costs until judgement. If He looses, he's stuck with both sides bills, if he wins, the other side pays... I can't believe we haven't gone to this way before now, it certainly would stop all the "junk" suits!

My .02

 

[szicree]

His estate should have to pay Cirrus' bills if the family loses the suit.

Just my $0.02

I would agree (almost). I think making the loser pay legal fees makes good sense only if the case is found to be without merit. On the other hand, I'd hate to live in a system where an injured party is can be forced to pay out exhorbitant legal fees simply because their case was argued ineffectively. But you're right that this &hit is ruining everything. My $0.02.

 

[mdredmond]

But you're right that this &hit is ruining everything. My $0.02.

I can see what you're saying. I get into this with a coworker all the time. A system I think would work:

When you sue, your suit goes before a panel of lawyers and judges that give it a thumbs up or down based on the apparent merits of your case. Either way, you can proceed with your case, but if they give you a thumbs down and you subsequently lose, you pay everything. This would at least take care of the fatasses suing McDonald's and Southwest Airlines.

Side note:

Again risking politics... When cities suing gun manufacturers was in vogue (before the cities had their a$$es handed to them), I wondered if, as a consumer of firearms, I could possibly have standing to sue the cities for filing frivoulous suits and raising the prices I pay for that hobby.

It would be a hoot to see someone sue this family for raising their insurance rates and/or the price they have to pay for a Cirrus.

...or maybe I've had too many beers tonight. I'm going to bed

 

[kksutton]

I think that if the family understood what being a pilot is all about they would realize they are disrespecting his memory by trying to blame someone else! As a pilot I accept responsibility for my actions and want my family to do thr same if I do something stupid. What the court should know is the regs say I am the PIC and I am supposed to know if I and the aircraft are OK to fly!!

 

[redbeardmark]

assets?

... ... If I decided to down a bottle of vodka and go for a spin in my car, could my family sue if they found out that although the salesman at the dealership gave me some tips on safe driving of my car, he didn't train me on how to drive drunk?

If it were a BIG dealership with lots of assets... cha-ching!!!

 

[mdredmond]

If I decided to down a bottle of vodka and go for a spin in my car, could my family sue if they found out that although the salesman at the dealership gave me some tips on safe driving of my car, he didn't train me on how to drive drunk?

What a great analogy - that pegged the issue perfectly.

 

[0ptions]

Something for nothing

Welcome to the world of entitlement. There is nothing this lawsuit can do to bring their loved ones back or make it easier to go on living. Until this society makes an effort to take on personal responsibility as a virtue we can expect to see more of this kind of frivolous pursuit to happiness. Better increrase our PUP policies.

 

[N941WR]

This entire issue is so disturbing and speaks badly of what should be an honorable profession.

My wife is a DVM here in NC and a safe guard they have against malpractice claims is exactly what was espoused earlier, a claim has to go before a board of other DVM's and if they feel there is merit to the lawsuit, it will move forward, otherwise it is dropped. She is so worried about frivolous lawsuits that if they are allowed at the level of human doctors she will have to triple her rates and then no one will bring their pets in for exams as most pets are not insured. Sounds like the building of a whole new industry.

Side note:

Again risking politics... When cities suing gun manufacturers was in vogue (before the cities had their a$$es handed to them), I wondered if, as a consumer of firearms, I could possibly have standing to sue the cities for filing frivoulous suits and raising the prices I pay for that hobby.

Back when that was going on I read an article that stated these lawsuits were spawned with the money from the tobacco settlements. It want on to say that after finishing with gun makers they were going to go after auto manufactures because they built products that kill people too.

The trend is down right frightening.

 

[AZtailwind]

I would dissagree

They never hear about the zillions of successful flights. Same with the legal system - we're focusing on the pretty clear abuses. Thankfully these abuses are probably even more rare than airplane accidents.

This legal system is way broken. If Marylin Vos Savant says(after serving on a jury) that there is grave Jurist prudence problems within our system- Then I would agree 199%. One of many examples- Our Flagstaff City of Government requiring pilots to come up with 1Mill$$ in car insurance, require insurance on all aircraft(uninsurable experimental also) and sign a document stating we will be accountable to our guests and agents(!?!). This is coming to a government near you! It has taken an act of Congress to stop the other outrageous Aircraft liability lawsuits after Cessna stopped production. Remember?? (my friends love to push the above button to watch me jump up and down)
(RANT OFF)

 

[ship]

"old bold pilots" yada yada. there ain't too many old stupid pilots either.

theortically there should never be a Cirrus fatal what with the 'chute, but they do seem to have an above-average incident rate. insurance for a Cirrus is getting quite expensive.

does anyone know if the BRS was deployed in this incident?

tort is the art of removing accountability and sending the bill to the nearest wallet.

now if we could only get all the tort lawyers loaded into a plane with a stupid pilot....

 

[n41va]

I agree, Kind of...

I agree with you guys. Kind of....
My dad was killed in an RV-8 that we built. We put an engine from aero-sport in the plane. Well, Ive heard a few different conclusions, but the plane either threw a rod or there was an issue with the oil pressure. But either way the engine didnt come to us in the condition that it was claimed to be in. Which is rebuilt to the point of being able to put a new serial number on the engine (Thats what ive heard at least). Whatever it was the plane went down and my dad was killed. During our law suit against Aero-Sport they "somewhat" claimed responsibility and setled with us. Thats just my experience, if its the pilots fault, there shouldnt be a law suit, if its FOR SURE the companies fault I dont think its all bad. Just my 2 cents.
Kelby

 

[rv8ch]

Legal system

This legal system is way broken. If Marylin Vos Savant says(after serving on a jury) that there is grave Jurist prudence problems within our system- Then I would agree 199%. One of many examples- Our Flagstaff City of Government requiring pilots to come up with 1Mill$$ in car insurance, require insurance on all aircraft(uninsurable experimental also) and sign a document stating we will be accountable to our guests and agents(!?!). This is coming to a government near you! It has taken an act of Congress to stop the other outrageous Aircraft liability lawsuits after Cessna stopped production. Remember?? (my friends love to push the above button to watch me jump up and down)
(RANT OFF)

Most states already require liability insurance for cars, and I have to say I'm really surprised that liability insurance is not required for aircraft. I plan to have it, but I would never impose that on others. I can't quite figure out why the City of Flagstaff would find this to be such an important issue.

I have not seen anything created by mankind that can't be improved, and the legal system can clearly be made better. The problem is that most of the improvements that have been proposed (tort reform) will benefit large corporations, and do nothing for people that have been injured.

Sticking to specifics, every pilot knows that the vacuum pump can fail at any time, and they have to be ready for this certainty. I don't feel it is right for someone to be able sue the manufacturer of the vacuum pump if it fails.

On the other hand, there are many other systems on an aircraft that we must be able to count on not failing due to manufacturing defects. Companies know that if they don't carefully control their quality, then it will cost them where it hurts them the most - on their balance sheet. We as consumers need recourse if a company fails to meet their obligations. If the government takes that recourse away, then corporations have far less incentive to create safe products, since the cost-benefit analysis will allow them to take more shortcuts. If you don't believe this, check out this article on the Ford Pinto: http://www.engineering.com/content/ContentDisplay?contentId=41009014

 

[mdredmond]

One of many examples- Our Flagstaff City of Government requiring pilots to come up with 1Mill$$ in car insurance, require insurance on all aircraft(uninsurable experimental also) and sign a document stating we will be accountable to our guests and agents(!?!).

I'm confrused. You're saying that Flagstaff requires pilots and pilots only to have $1M in AUTOMOBILE liability insurance? Did I read that right?

 

[N941WR]

does anyone know if the BRS was deployed in this incident?

From the description of the accident it sounds like they were scud running, thus there was never time and apparently no desire to deploy the BRS.

 

[AZtailwind]

I'm confrused. You're saying that Flagstaff requires pilots and pilots only to have $1M in AUTOMOBILE liability insurance? Did I read that right?

This special Insurance rate is to drive a car through the gate at the Airport to park next to your plane. Yea, Our AZ Liability insurance is $35K min. (I think) and the City counsel has defined our aircraft as comercial activities(not private) I think we have the car insurance down to $100,000 required but still over state Mins. The ramp/hangar contract is real contentiuos as are the Airport commision meetings. - This is coming from Anti-General Aviation City officers and the like, a real mess- A group of us will not sign the new rules.

 

[rv8ch]

Anti-GA city council

...This is coming from Anti-General Aviation City officers and the like, a real mess...

Sounds like you guys need to get some GA friendly people elected...

 

[ptrotter]

The thing I find most distressing in our legal system is that most lawsuits are not brought by the injured party, but by lawyers who think they can make money off somebody else's misfortune. The ones I find most amusing are the class action suits filed by law firms who then advertise for a plaintif.

There's an old joke that says that if there is one lawyer in a city, he is broke, but if there are two, they are both rich.

People need to take responsibilty for their own actions and we need to eliminate the ability to sue everyone in sight because someone thinks they can make money off of someone's stupidity.

(No insult intended to those ethical lawyers out there)

 

[avaviat]

This special Insurance rate is to drive a car through the gate at the Airport to park next to your plane. Yea, Our AZ Liability insurance is $35K min. (I think) and the City counsel has defined our aircraft as comercial activities(not private) I think we have the car insurance down to $100,000 required but still over state Mins. The ramp/hangar contract is real contentiuos as are the Airport commision meetings. - This is coming from Anti-General Aviation City officers and the like, a real mess- A group of us will not sign the new rules.

That sounds reasonable actually. There are many ways to do a million dollars damage when driving around in a parking lot filled with other people's airplanes. Even just hitting GA planes, you could do a million dollars damage in less than 30 seconds. And you aren't required to drive to your airplane.

Me, I'd walk to the plane and feel better about leaving it parked there. There are few worse feelings than to have some yahoo do some huge amount of damage and realize they have no way at all to pay for it.

The other alternative, and one I think we should all lobby for, is to legalize the sale of body parts and organs by their birth-owners. That way the guy driving to his $14K 152 can at least sell a kidney and part of his liver to help pay the damages when he plows his crown victoria through your plane.