Judge Awards $11.9 Million in Suit Against Civil Air Patrol

[Ernst]

Frivolous.

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202795092726/Judge-Awards-119-Million-in-Suit-Against-Civil-Air-Patrol?slreturn=20170710230651

Let's go fishing.

Ernst

[AS]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:24:12 PM UTC-4, Ernst wrote:
> Frivolous.
>
> http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202795092726/Judge-Awards-119-Million-in-Suit-Against-Civil-Air-Patrol?slreturn=20170710230651
>
> Let's go fishing.
>
> Ernst

One has to sign up to read the article cited in the link above. I found this full text article about this accident.
Be careful out there!
Uli
'AS'

_______________
On Aug. 3, Batten awarded $11.9 million to Karen J. Curtis, the widow of Peachtree City physician Jeffrey Van Curtis, and to her late husband's estate..

In a 41-page order, Batten held members of the U.S. Civil Air Patrol solely responsible for the crash that killed the Beechcraft Baron's occupants, including Curtis—a pilot and a co-owner of the aircraft who was sitting in the rear passenger seat when it crashed. Batten determined that the Baron's pilot, Michael Rossetti, crashed while trying to abort a landing to avoid a Civil Air Patrol aircraft taking off—with a glider in tow—on an intersecting runway. Rossetti and another passenger, Willy Lutz, were both killed instantly. Pulled from the burning wreckage, Curtis died at the hospital several hours later.

The Civil Air Patrol is a U.S. Air Force auxiliary that conducts search-and-rescue missions and other emergency support. It also offers aerospace education and sponsors youth cadet programs. When the Baron crashed, Civil Air Patrol members were performing glider flights for youth cadets.

In his order, Batten said he laid responsibility for the crash squarely on Air Patrol pilots who the judge said disregarded federal aviation regulations assigning the right-of-way to aircraft approaching or executing a landing. The judge also said Air Patrol pilots, all of them experienced, ignored long-standing local rules governing glider operations at the Lagrange-Callaway airport where the crash occurred.

"What makes this case so tragic is that it was such a needless accident. It was really a case of clear negligence by the government pilots," Partin said. "Had they just followed the rules at the local airport this accident would never have happened. Had they just had a spotter as required by local airport rules to inform them of incoming air traffic, there never would never have been an imminent collision.

"What was more frustrating was that the Civil Air Patrol pilots knew about rules, discussed whether they should abide by rules, and decided the rules didn't apply to them."

The government's lead counsel, DOJ attorney Eric Johnson, did not respond to voice mail and email messages. A Justice Department spokesman in Washington would not comment on the case or say whether the government intends to appeal. Before the trial, government lawyers stipulated that the Air Patrol pilots were aware of—but did not follow—the Lagrange-Callaway airport's rules prohibiting glider takeoffs when an aircraft is approaching to land and requiring them to employ a spotter to warn of possible air traffic at the airport, which has no air traffic control tower. They also failed to file a formal notice to other airmen that they intended to conduct glider takeoffs and landings. But government lawyers argued that the rules did not apply to Civil Air Patrol flights, according to Batten's order.

The government also presented experts claiming that the Baron could have landed and still avoided any collision, as the Air Patrol aircraft was able to stop just short of the intersection of the two runways. But Batten held that the Civil Air Patrol's imminent takeoff precipitated the Baron's crash.

Witnesses testified that, as the Civil Air Patrol aircraft was approaching, the intersection with the runway on which the Baron was landing, the Baron could be heard accelerating to full power just seconds before it would have touched down. "The most—if not the only—logical conclusion is that Rossetti saw the [Civil Air Patrol] aircraft and made an attempt to avoid a collision," the judge said. "This maneuver by Rossetti, while the Baron was configured for landing, ultimately led the Baron to pitch up sharply, stall, roll over, and then crash."

"Moreover," the judge said, "Rossetti did not have the luxuries of time and detachment that the [government's] expert witnesses enjoyed when estimating whether a collision would have occurred. Any attempt after the fact to point a finger at Rossetti is unfounded."'

Batten also dismissed the government's contention that there was insufficient evidence to show that Curtis had suffered any emotional distress prior to the crash. Curtis was an experienced pilot, the judge said. "Such a person would understand that something was terribly wrong during the landing approach when the plane increased power and pulled up sharply and to the left. Such a person would also understand what was happening in the aircraft when it stalled and would understand the near certainty of a crash at that time. Sadly, such a person would know that he was about to be severely injured or killed. In those few seconds, Curtis would have gone from hopeful that a collision had been avoided to pure dread as the aircraft stalled and approached the ground."

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:52:20 PM UTC+3, AS wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:24:12 PM UTC-4, Ernst wrote:
> > Frivolous.
> >
> > http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202795092726/Judge-Awards-119-Million-in-Suit-Against-Civil-Air-Patrol?slreturn=20170710230651
> >
> > Let's go fishing.
> >
> > Ernst
>
> One has to sign up to read the article cited in the link above. I found this full text article about this accident.
> Be careful out there!
> Uli
> 'AS'
>
> _______________
> On Aug. 3, Batten awarded $11.9 million to Karen J. Curtis, the widow of Peachtree City physician Jeffrey Van Curtis, and to her late husband's estate.
>
> In a 41-page order, Batten held members of the U.S. Civil Air Patrol solely responsible for the crash that killed the Beechcraft Baron's occupants, including Curtis—a pilot and a co-owner of the aircraft who was sitting in the rear passenger seat when it crashed. Batten determined that the Baron's pilot, Michael Rossetti, crashed while trying to abort a landing to avoid a Civil Air Patrol aircraft taking off—with a glider in tow—on an intersecting runway. Rossetti and another passenger, Willy Lutz, were both killed instantly. Pulled from the burning wreckage, Curtis died at the hospital several hours later.
>
> The Civil Air Patrol is a U.S. Air Force auxiliary that conducts search-and-rescue missions and other emergency support. It also offers aerospace education and sponsors youth cadet programs. When the Baron crashed, Civil Air Patrol members were performing glider flights for youth cadets.
>
> In his order, Batten said he laid responsibility for the crash squarely on Air Patrol pilots who the judge said disregarded federal aviation regulations assigning the right-of-way to aircraft approaching or executing a landing. The judge also said Air Patrol pilots, all of them experienced, ignored long-standing local rules governing glider operations at the Lagrange-Callaway airport where the crash occurred.
>
> "What makes this case so tragic is that it was such a needless accident. It was really a case of clear negligence by the government pilots," Partin said. "Had they just followed the rules at the local airport this accident would never have happened. Had they just had a spotter as required by local airport rules to inform them of incoming air traffic, there never would never have been an imminent collision.
>
> "What was more frustrating was that the Civil Air Patrol pilots knew about rules, discussed whether they should abide by rules, and decided the rules didn't apply to them."
>
> The government's lead counsel, DOJ attorney Eric Johnson, did not respond to voice mail and email messages. A Justice Department spokesman in Washington would not comment on the case or say whether the government intends to appeal. Before the trial, government lawyers stipulated that the Air Patrol pilots were aware of—but did not follow—the Lagrange-Callaway airport's rules prohibiting glider takeoffs when an aircraft is approaching to land and requiring them to employ a spotter to warn of possible air traffic at the airport, which has no air traffic control tower. They also failed to file a formal notice to other airmen that they intended to conduct glider takeoffs and landings. But government lawyers argued that the rules did not apply to Civil Air Patrol flights, according to Batten's order.
>
> The government also presented experts claiming that the Baron could have landed and still avoided any collision, as the Air Patrol aircraft was able to stop just short of the intersection of the two runways. But Batten held that the Civil Air Patrol's imminent takeoff precipitated the Baron's crash.
>
> Witnesses testified that, as the Civil Air Patrol aircraft was approaching, the intersection with the runway on which the Baron was landing, the Baron could be heard accelerating to full power just seconds before it would have touched down. "The most—if not the only—logical conclusion is that Rossetti saw the [Civil Air Patrol] aircraft and made an attempt to avoid a collision," the judge said. "This maneuver by Rossetti, while the Baron was configured for landing, ultimately led the Baron to pitch up sharply, stall, roll over, and then crash."
>
> "Moreover," the judge said, "Rossetti did not have the luxuries of time and detachment that the [government's] expert witnesses enjoyed when estimating whether a collision would have occurred. Any attempt after the fact to point a finger at Rossetti is unfounded."'
>
> Batten also dismissed the government's contention that there was insufficient evidence to show that Curtis had suffered any emotional distress prior to the crash. Curtis was an experienced pilot, the judge said. "Such a person would understand that something was terribly wrong during the landing approach when the plane increased power and pulled up sharply and to the left. Such a person would also understand what was happening in the aircraft when it stalled and would understand the near certainty of a crash at that time. Sadly, such a person would know that he was about to be severely injured or killed. In those few seconds, Curtis would have gone from hopeful that a collision had been avoided to pure dread as the aircraft stalled and approached the ground."

It doesn't say which runways were in use, but at Lagrange-Callaway airport I measured on Google maps a distance of 530 meters from the threshold markings to the runway intersection on both 03 and 13. On 21 and 31 there is 900 - 1000 m to the intersection.

It boggles the mind that a competent pilot can't execute a safe go-around in a light aircraft in 500 meters of space.

The Baron is spec'd to takeoff and clear a 50 ft obstacle in 2300 ft (700 m) FROM A STANDING START. They already had flying speed.

[BobW]

>> One has to sign up to read the article cited in the link above. I found
>> this full text article about this accident. Be careful out there!

>> On Aug. 3, Batten awarded $11.9 million to Karen J.
>> Curtis, the widow of Peachtree City physician Jeffrey Van Curtis, and to
>> her late husband's estate.
>>
>> In a 41-page order, Batten held members of the U.S. Civil Air Patrol
>> solely responsible for the crash that killed the Beechcraft Baron's
>> occupants, including Curtis—a pilot and a co-owner of the aircraft who
>> was sitting in the rear passenger seat when it crashed. Batten determined
>> that the Baron's pilot, Michael Rossetti, crashed while trying to abort a
>> landing to avoid a Civil Air Patrol aircraft taking off—with a glider in
>> tow—on an intersecting runway. Rossetti and another passenger, Willy
>> Lutz, were both killed instantly. Pulled from the burning wreckage,
>> Curtis died at the hospital several hours later.
>>
>> The Civil Air Patrol is a U.S. Air Force auxiliary that conducts
>> search-and-rescue missions and other emergency support. It also offers
>> aerospace education and sponsors youth cadet programs. When the Baron
>> crashed, Civil Air Patrol members were performing glider flights for
>> youth cadets.
>>
>> In his order, Batten said he laid responsibility for the crash squarely
>> on Air Patrol pilots who the judge said disregarded federal aviation
>> regulations assigning the right-of-way to aircraft approaching or
>> executing a landing. The judge also said Air Patrol pilots, all of them
>> experienced, ignored long-standing local rules governing glider
>> operations at the Lagrange-Callaway airport where the crash occurred.
>>
>> "What makes this case so tragic is that it was such a needless accident.
>> It was really a case of clear negligence by the government pilots,"
>> Partin said. "Had they just followed the rules at the local airport this
>> accident would never have happened. Had they just had a spotter as
>> required by local airport rules to inform them of incoming air traffic,
>> there never would never have been an imminent collision.
>>
>> "What was more frustrating was that the Civil Air Patrol pilots knew
>> about rules, discussed whether they should abide by rules, and decided
>> the rules didn't apply to them."
>>
>> The government's lead counsel, DOJ attorney Eric Johnson, did not respond
>> to voice mail and email messages. A Justice Department spokesman in
>> Washington would not comment on the case or say whether the government
>> intends to appeal. Before the trial, government lawyers stipulated that
>> the Air Patrol pilots were aware of—but did not follow—the
>> Lagrange-Callaway airport's rules prohibiting glider takeoffs when an
>> aircraft is approaching to land and requiring them to employ a spotter to
>> warn of possible air traffic at the airport, which has no air traffic
>> control tower. They also failed to file a formal notice to other airmen
>> that they intended to conduct glider takeoffs and landings. But
>> government lawyers argued that the rules did not apply to Civil Air
>> Patrol flights, according to Batten's order.
>>
>> The government also presented experts claiming that the Baron could have
>> landed and still avoided any collision, as the Air Patrol aircraft was
>> able to stop just short of the intersection of the two runways. But
>> Batten held that the Civil Air Patrol's imminent takeoff precipitated the
>> Baron's crash.
>>
>> Witnesses testified that, as the Civil Air Patrol aircraft was
>> approaching, the intersection with the runway on which the Baron was
>> landing, the Baron could be heard accelerating to full power just seconds
>> before it would have touched down. "The most—if not the only—logical
>> conclusion is that Rossetti saw the [Civil Air Patrol] aircraft and made
>> an attempt to avoid a collision," the judge said. "This maneuver by
>> Rossetti, while the Baron was configured for landing, ultimately led the
>> Baron to pitch up sharply, stall, roll over, and then crash."
>>
>> "Moreover," the judge said, "Rossetti did not have the luxuries of time
>> and detachment that the [government's] expert witnesses enjoyed when
>> estimating whether a collision would have occurred. Any attempt after the
>> fact to point a finger at Rossetti is unfounded."'
>>
>> Batten also dismissed the government's contention that there was
>> insufficient evidence to show that Curtis had suffered any emotional
>> distress prior to the crash. Curtis was an experienced pilot, the judge
>> said. "Such a person would understand that something was terribly wrong
>> during the landing approach when the plane increased power and pulled up
>> sharply and to the left. Such a person would also understand what was
>> happening in the aircraft when it stalled and would understand the near
>> certainty of a crash at that time. Sadly, such a person would know that
>> he was about to be severely injured or killed. In those few seconds,
>> Curtis would have gone from hopeful that a collision had been avoided to
>> pure dread as the aircraft stalled and approached the ground."

I remember when this happened.

Geez...assuming the article is 100% factually accurate (BIG assumption), and
commenting upon *only* the apparent circumstances of the situation (and not on
any apparent second-guessing of piloting skills involved), I wondered then -
and now - if any of the ground-based participants had any little voices in
their heads whispering about Murphy prior to deciding to push out onto the
runway and launch...

"It's all good...what could *possibly* go wrong?"

Indeed...be careful out there!

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com

[Duster[_2_]]

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot's overreaction to a perceived conflict with a tow plane and glider on an intersecting runway, which resulted in a loss of control during an attempted aborted landing. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the glider tow operator to follow and the airport operator to ensure compliance with published airport rules and regulations for glider tow operations..

https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140222X51922&ntsbno=ERA14FA128&akey=1

[Duster[_2_]]

At Sandhill, the towplane didn't move until the wing runner did a 360 deg sweep of the pattern after the glider pilot gave the thumbs up signal. Present club has a habit of not performing this check, in which case I would pull the release.

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 6:07:42 PM UTC+3, Duster wrote:
> The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
> The pilot's overreaction to a perceived conflict with a tow plane and glider on an intersecting runway, which resulted in a loss of control during an attempted aborted landing. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the glider tow operator to follow and the airport operator to ensure compliance with published airport rules and regulations for glider tow operations.
>
> https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140222X51922&ntsbno=ERA14FA128&akey=1

Interesting reading.

They were landing on one of the *long* legs, and (had they not been coming in too "hot") should have been able to complete the landing and stop in less than half the distance to the intersection.

The flaps were found still in +30, when the POH says to use 0 for a go around.

Bad of the CAP guys to not know and follow the local rules, of course, but it sounds as if the guys in the Baron would have crashed if a dog had wandered onto the runway.

[Steve Leonard[_2_]]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:41:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
>
> Interesting reading.
>
> They were landing on one of the *long* legs, and (had they not been coming in too "hot") should have been able to complete the landing and stop in less than half the distance to the intersection.
>
> The flaps were found still in +30, when the POH says to use 0 for a go around.
>
> Bad of the CAP guys to not know and follow the local rules, of course, but it sounds as if the guys in the Baron would have crashed if a dog had wandered onto the runway.

Yes, well, the NTSB doesn't have all things right on that airport, either. If you look at it and use the google measuring tool, it is roughly 3600 feet from the approach end of 31 to the intersection with 3. Not sure how 3600 feet to the intersection -2200 feet to clear a 50 foot obstacle, land and stop, equals 2300 feet remaining. And the "roughly 2000 feet down the runway and still not on the ground" is probably, "The plane was near the taxiway, and still hadn't touched down." That intersection is about 2300 feet down runway 31.

As for the flaps, well, he shoved the power up and probably got too focused on trying to do something else (pitched up way too aggressively) and never bothered with touching gear or flap handles.

Sad situation for all involved.

Steve Leonard

[WB]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:41:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 6:07:42 PM UTC+3, Duster wrote:
> > The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
> > The pilot's overreaction to a perceived conflict with a tow plane and glider on an intersecting runway, which resulted in a loss of control during an attempted aborted landing. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the glider tow operator to follow and the airport operator to ensure compliance with published airport rules and regulations for glider tow operations.
> >
> > https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140222X51922&ntsbno=ERA14FA128&akey=1
>
> Interesting reading.
>
> They were landing on one of the *long* legs, and (had they not been coming in too "hot") should have been able to complete the landing and stop in less than half the distance to the intersection.
>
> The flaps were found still in +30, when the POH says to use 0 for a go around.
>
> Bad of the CAP guys to not know and follow the local rules, of course, but it sounds as if the guys in the Baron would have crashed if a dog had wandered onto the runway.

This was just a horrible situation all the way around and definitely a case of an over-reaction to what should have been a minor distraction. However, having landed gear up because of a "minor" distraction, I very much understand how a minor distraction can become an accident.

The guys in the Baron were actually doing practice instrument approaches with touch-and-go's rather than full stop landings and knew that CAP was doing cadet glider training on the crossing runway. Most traffic at Lagrange uses the "main" runways 13-31 even if crosswind. However, occasionally some traffic will use 03-21 if favored by wind. Transient traffic, taildraggers, even some biz jet drivers would often use 03-21. Gliders were forbidden by the airport admin from using 13-31 so, of course always operated on 03-21.

The "spotter" rule at Lagrange was written by former airport authority members who were hostile to glider operations. The rule was specifically written to make glider operations more difficult. The rule applied only to gliders and did not apply to the other traffic using the crossing runway. This "local rule" mandating a "spotter" for gliders had been ruled unenforceable (in writing) by the local FSDO. FAR's state that airport rules cannot mandate extra aircrew (or something to that effect).

Nobody comes out ahead in cases like this except for lawyers and failed lawyers (otherwise known as judges).

[Bruce Hoult]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 10:54:37 PM UTC+3, WB wrote:
> On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 11:41:29 AM UTC-5, Bruce Hoult wrote:
> > On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 6:07:42 PM UTC+3, Duster wrote:
> > > The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
> > > The pilot's overreaction to a perceived conflict with a tow plane and glider on an intersecting runway, which resulted in a loss of control during an attempted aborted landing. Contributing to the accident was the failure of the glider tow operator to follow and the airport operator to ensure compliance with published airport rules and regulations for glider tow operations.
> > >
> > > https://www.ntsb.gov/about/employment/_layouts/ntsb.aviation/brief2.aspx?ev_id=20140222X51922&ntsbno=ERA14FA128&akey=1
> >
> > Interesting reading.
> >
> > They were landing on one of the *long* legs, and (had they not been coming in too "hot") should have been able to complete the landing and stop in less than half the distance to the intersection.
> >
> > The flaps were found still in +30, when the POH says to use 0 for a go around.
> >
> > Bad of the CAP guys to not know and follow the local rules, of course, but it sounds as if the guys in the Baron would have crashed if a dog had wandered onto the runway.
>
> This was just a horrible situation all the way around and definitely a case of an over-reaction to what should have been a minor distraction. However, having landed gear up because of a "minor" distraction, I very much understand how a minor distraction can become an accident.
>
> The guys in the Baron were actually doing practice instrument approaches with touch-and-go's rather than full stop landings and knew that CAP was doing cadet glider training on the crossing runway. Most traffic at Lagrange uses the "main" runways 13-31 even if crosswind. However, occasionally some traffic will use 03-21 if favored by wind. Transient traffic, taildraggers, even some biz jet drivers would often use 03-21. Gliders were forbidden by the airport admin from using 13-31 so, of course always operated on 03-21..
>
> The "spotter" rule at Lagrange was written by former airport authority members who were hostile to glider operations. The rule was specifically written to make glider operations more difficult. The rule applied only to gliders and did not apply to the other traffic using the crossing runway. This "local rule" mandating a "spotter" for gliders had been ruled unenforceable (in writing) by the local FSDO. FAR's state that airport rules cannot mandate extra aircrew (or something to that effect).
>
> Nobody comes out ahead in cases like this except for lawyers and failed lawyers (otherwise known as judges).

If I was going to fly a glider from that airport, on 03, I think I'd start the roll from just past the intersection! The remaining 900 meters is way more than enough.

[Tom[_21_]]

And the armchair quarterback analysis, finger pointing and blame game continues.......

Horrible and avoidable tragedy.

[2G]

On Friday, August 11, 2017 at 4:53:45 PM UTC-7, Tom wrote:
> And the armchair quarterback analysis, finger pointing and blame game continues.......
>
> Horrible and avoidable tragedy.

FWIW, this was an easy decision for the judge: by FARs, the landing aircraft has right of way, period, end of story. The landing pilot's ineptitude does not negate that. Depending upon radio calls for aircraft separation is a risky business at best. Pilot's may be on the wrong frequency, have too much squelch or may just not be using the radio at all. I have witnessed all of these.

Tom

[Charlie M. (UH & 002 owner/pilot)]

You are PIC, break any rule, just be willing to defend it. You may not know local rules.
As an aside, you're PIC, expect the unexpected, BUT. Maintain control of your aircraft.

Sorry this happened, rules don't make up for loss of people.

[[email protected]]

Read here for free, no sign up required...

http://www.kathrynsreport.com/2017/08/judge-awards-119-million-in-suit.html

http://auxbeacon.org/district-court-rules-civil-air-patrol-negligent-in-2014-lagrange-airport-crash-12m-judgment/comment-page-1/

https://www.reddit.com/r/flying/comments/6t5mla/judge_awards_119_million_in_suit_against_civil/

Andre

[WB]

>
> If I was going to fly a glider from that airport, on 03, I think I'd start the roll from just past the intersection! The remaining 900 meters is way more than enough.

The ground rises off the end of 03, lots of development, nowhere to land. Better to go from the end.

[firsys]

On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:24:12 PM UTC-4, Ernst wrote:
> Frivolous.
>
> http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202795092726/Judge-Awards-119-Million-in-Suit-Against-Civil-Air-Patrol?slreturn=20170710230651
>
> Let's go fishing.
>
> Ernst

Is there no mandatory frequency/ unicom in use at this a/p?
Surely the CAP use radio!

JMF

[WB]

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 7:59:14 AM UTC-5, firsys wrote:
> On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:24:12 PM UTC-4, Ernst wrote:
> > Frivolous.
> >
> > http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202795092726/Judge-Awards-119-Million-in-Suit-Against-Civil-Air-Patrol?slreturn=20170710230651
> >
> > Let's go fishing.
> >
> > Ernst
>
> Is there no mandatory frequency/ unicom in use at this a/p?
> Surely the CAP use radio!
>
> JMF

Yes. Of course there is. However, the same frequency is in use at other airports in the area. Transmissions get stepped on, some radios don't transmit well, some don't recieve well, microphones are of varying quality, people get distracted and miss a transmission, both transmitting and receiving, sometimes people switch frequencies and forget to switch back. In other words, lots of reasons why radios, and other technologies are not perfect answers to aviation safety issues.

[2G]

On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 4:02:30 PM UTC-7, WB wrote:
> On Sunday, August 13, 2017 at 7:59:14 AM UTC-5, firsys wrote:
> > On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:24:12 PM UTC-4, Ernst wrote:
> > > Frivolous.
> > >
> > > http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=1202795092726/Judge-Awards-119-Million-in-Suit-Against-Civil-Air-Patrol?slreturn=20170710230651
> > >
> > > Let's go fishing.
> > >
> > > Ernst
> >
> > Is there no mandatory frequency/ unicom in use at this a/p?
> > Surely the CAP use radio!
> >
> > JMF
>
> Yes. Of course there is. However, the same frequency is in use at other airports in the area. Transmissions get stepped on, some radios don't transmit well, some don't recieve well, microphones are of varying quality, people get distracted and miss a transmission, both transmitting and receiving, sometimes people switch frequencies and forget to switch back. In other words, lots of reasons why radios, and other technologies are not perfect answers to aviation safety issues.

Use of the CTAF is OPTIONAL, not mandatory, at uncontrolled a/p's. This is why you can't depend upon radio communication. If you believe otherwise then cite the FAR that is your basis.

Tom