Good news for private pilots' spouses

[Skylune]

This was inexplicably not reported by the AOPA or EAA.

Woman Settles With FAA In Connection With Husband's Death
WWBA-AM Tampa | 8 hrs ago
The wife of a man who died in a mid-air plane crash before the "Sun N'
Fun" air show in 2002 has just settled with the Federal Aviation
Administration and the event's sponsor......

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"Skylune" > wrote in message
lkaboutaviation.com...
> This was inexplicably not reported by the AOPA or EAA.
>
> Woman Settles With FAA In Connection With Husband's Death
> WWBA-AM Tampa | 8 hrs ago
> The wife of a man who died in a mid-air plane crash before the "Sun N'
> Fun" air show in 2002 has just settled with the Federal Aviation
> Administration and the event's sponsor......
>


The story was 8 hours old when you read it. Neither AOPA nor EAA are news
gathering organization I'll bet they report it.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 May 2006 14:43:47 -0400, "Skylune"
> wrote in
utaviation.com>::

>Woman Settles With FAA In Connection With Husband's Death
>WWBA-AM Tampa

In case anyone is interested in reading the whole story:

http://ap.staugustine.com/pstories/state/fl/20060510/3864478.shtml
Widow settles lawsuit over husband's air show death

LAKELAND, Fla. (AP) — The wife of a man who died in a mid-air
plane crash before an air show in 2002 has settled with the
Federal Aviation Administration and the event sponsor for
$700,000, an attorney said.

Deborah Morrison, who sued after her 63-year-old husband Jerry was
killed flying into Lakeland Linder Regional Airport for the annual
Sun 'n Fun Fly-In, was paid $650,000 by the FAA and $50,000 from
the event's insurance carrier, Sun 'n Fun's lawyer John Wendel
said.
....

[C. Massey]

"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
> On Thu, 11 May 2006 14:43:47 -0400, "Skylune"
> > wrote in
> utaviation.com>::
>
>>Woman Settles With FAA In Connection With Husband's Death
>>WWBA-AM Tampa
>
> In case anyone is interested in reading the whole story:
>
> http://ap.staugustine.com/pstories/state/fl/20060510/3864478.shtml
> Widow settles lawsuit over husband's air show death
>
> LAKELAND, Fla. (AP) - The wife of a man who died in a mid-air
> plane crash before an air show in 2002 has settled with the
> Federal Aviation Administration and the event sponsor for
> $700,000, an attorney said.
>
> Deborah Morrison, who sued after her 63-year-old husband Jerry was
> killed flying into Lakeland Linder Regional Airport for the annual
> Sun 'n Fun Fly-In, was paid $650,000 by the FAA and $50,000 from
> the event's insurance carrier, Sun 'n Fun's lawyer John Wendel
> said.
> ....



In the article, it states:

"Air traffic controllers said both pilots failed to heed commands from the
control tower that could have prevented the crash. The National
Transportation Safety Board ruled that the failure of both pilots to follow
air traffic control instructions contributed to the accident."


If the two pilots "failed to heed commands", I don't understand how the FAA
and the promoter can be at fault. I realize the word "contributed" was used,
but the way the article reads, it sounds like pilot error.




---
avast! Antivirus: Outbound message clean.
Virus Database (VPS): 0619-2, 05/11/2006
Tested on: 5/11/2006 2:59:23 PM
avast! - copyright (c) 1988-2006 ALWIL Software.
http://www.avast.com

[Montblack]

("Larry Dighera" wrote)
> http://ap.staugustine.com/pstories/state/fl/20060510/3864478.shtml
> Widow settles lawsuit over husband's air show death
>
> LAKELAND, Fla. (AP) - The wife of a man who died in a mid-air
> plane crash before an air show in 2002 has settled with the
> Federal Aviation Administration and the event sponsor for
> $700,000, an attorney said.
>
> Deborah Morrison, who sued after her 63-year-old husband Jerry was
> killed flying into Lakeland Linder Regional Airport for the annual
> Sun 'n Fun Fly-In, was paid $650,000 by the FAA and $50,000 from
> the event's insurance carrier, Sun 'n Fun's lawyer John Wendel
> said.


This stuff bugs me. Always has.

$250,000. That's what loved ones get for you in the courts. Hope you have
insurance.

Airliner crash .....................250K
Hit by drunk ............,...........250K
Implant implodes ...............250K
Cancer from asbestos ......250K
Killed by co-worker ...........250K
Cigarettes + death ............250K
Building falls on you ...........250K
Baby swallows toy .............250K
GA plane augers in ...........250K

I've been told it'll be more expensive this way because people/lawyers chase
limits. I don't buy it.

$350K tops. I don't care. Just cap it somewhere - so it's equal for
everyone. Personal insurance is for the difference. If you're worth more
alive than the next guy - prove it ...buy a bigger insurance policy.


Montblack
I don't want this to be the only tort reform out there - but it's got to
start somewhere.

[Larry Dighera]

On Thu, 11 May 2006 19:59:25 GMT, "C. Massey" >
wrote in >::

>
>"Larry Dighera" > wrote in message
...
>> On Thu, 11 May 2006 14:43:47 -0400, "Skylune"
>> > wrote in
>> utaviation.com>::
>>
>>>Woman Settles With FAA In Connection With Husband's Death
>>>WWBA-AM Tampa
>>
>> In case anyone is interested in reading the whole story:
>>
>> http://ap.staugustine.com/pstories/state/fl/20060510/3864478.shtml
>> Widow settles lawsuit over husband's air show death
>>
>> LAKELAND, Fla. (AP) - The wife of a man who died in a mid-air
>> plane crash before an air show in 2002 has settled with the
>> Federal Aviation Administration and the event sponsor for
>> $700,000, an attorney said.
>>
>> Deborah Morrison, who sued after her 63-year-old husband Jerry was
>> killed flying into Lakeland Linder Regional Airport for the annual
>> Sun 'n Fun Fly-In, was paid $650,000 by the FAA and $50,000 from
>> the event's insurance carrier, Sun 'n Fun's lawyer John Wendel
>> said.
>> ....
>
>
>
>In the article, it states:
>
>"Air traffic controllers said both pilots failed to heed commands from the
>control tower that could have prevented the crash. The National
>Transportation Safety Board ruled that the failure of both pilots to follow
>air traffic control instructions contributed to the accident."
>
>
>If the two pilots "failed to heed commands", I don't understand how the FAA
>and the promoter can be at fault. I realize the word "contributed" was used,
>but the way the article reads, it sounds like pilot error.
>

Perhaps there's a clue here:
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20020411X00499&key=1

ATL02FA074A

HISTORY OF FLIGHT

On April 5, 2002, about 1505 eastern standard time, a Piper PA-16,
N5293H, and a Betts RV6A, N3333S, registered to private owners,
operating as 14 CFR Part 91 personal flights, collided in flight while
landing to runway 27 right at Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport,
Lakeland, Florida. Visual meteorological conditions prevailed and no
flight plan was filed for either airplane. Both airplanes sustained
substantial damage. The private pilot in the PA-16 was seriously
injured injuries and the private pilot in the RV6A was fatally
injured. The PA-16 flight originated from Perry, Florida, on April 5,
2002, at 1330. The RV6A flight originated from Cross City, Florida, on
April 5, 2002, at an undetermined time.

The Sun N' Fun Fly-In, Lakeland, Florida, Notice to Airman, effective
April 7-13, 2002, states that controllers will contact pilots on the
aircraft radio using the pilots aircraft color and type of aircraft to
provide sequencing and other arrival and traffic information. The
controllers may ask the pilots to rock their wings as an
acknowledgement for instructions.

The air traffic controller working as the local controller in the
Lakeland tower stated that several airplanes were approaching from the
north. The maroon RV6A was in front of the gray PA-16 on the downwind
for runway 27 right. He called the base leg for the RV6A and the pilot
was slow to respond. He called the base leg for the PA-16 and the
separation looked good between the two airplanes. He observed the
PA-16 overtaking the RV6A on final and instructed the RV6A to side
step to runway 27 left, but the pilot did not respond to his
instructions. He repeated the instructions but the RV6A pilot did not
respond. He then informed the PA-16 pilot, "blue and white high wing
keep it up keep it higher cause there's someone behind you keep it
higher." The PA-16 pilot did not respond to the instructions. The nose
of the RV6A was observed to pitch up violently and both airplanes
collided in flight about 100 feet above the ground.

PERSONNEL INFORMATION

Review of information on file with the FAA Airman's Certification
Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, revealed the pilot of the PA-16 was
issued a private pilot certificate on October 24, 1997 with ratings
for airplane single engine land, and airplane multiengine land. The
pilot held a third class medical certificate issued on November 3,
2001 with a special restriction and waiver issued on a basis of
demonstrated medical fitness. The pilot stated on his application for
the FAA third class medical certificate that he had accumulated 1,300
hours. The pilot stated on the NTSB Pilot/Operator Aircraft Accident
Report that he had accumulated 1,336 total flight hours with 1,086 in
the PA-16. The pilot's last recorded biennial flight review was
conducted on July 3, 2001.

Review of information on file with the FAA Airman's Certification
Division, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, revealed the pilot of the RV6A was
issued a private pilot certificate on July 25, 1996, with ratings for
airplane single engine land, and instrument airplane. Review of the
pilot's logbook revealed the last recorded biennial flight review was
on May 1, 2001. The last recorded entry in the pilot's logbook was on
March 24, 2002, and 1,605.2 hours had been recorded. The pilot held a
third class medical certificate issued on March 21, 2002, stating he
must wear corrective lenses. The pilot stated on his application for
the FAA third class medical certificate that he had accumulated 1,700
hours. The pilot was issued a statement of demonstrated ability on
October 7, 1988 with the limitation must wear corrective lenses with
the following physical defects, no useful vision in the right eye.

AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

Review of airplane logbooks for the PA-16 revealed the last recorded
engine overhaul was conducted on September 3, 1977, and the engine had
accumulated 1,525 hours since major overhaul. The last recorded annual
inspection was conducted on April 4, 2001. The total recorded airframe
hours at the time of the accident were 3,134.

Review of the airplane logbooks for the RV6A revealed the last
recorded condition inspection was conducted on November 5, 2001 at
310.9 hours. The hour meter at the crash site indicated 343.1 hours.
The airplane had flown 32.2 hours since the last recorded condition
inspection.

METEOROLOGICAL INFORMATION

The nearest weather reporting facility at the time of the accident was
Lakeland-Linder Regional Airport, Lakeland, Florida. The 1455 surface
weather observation was: wind 350-degrees at 7 knots, visibility 10
miles, 5,000 scattered, temperature 79 degrees Fahrenheit, dew point
temperature 57 degrees Fahrenheit, and altimeter 30.04.

WRECKAGE AND IMPACT INFORMATION

The wreckage of the PA-16 and the RV6A was located in the grass 38
feet south of the runway center line adjacent to runway 27 right and
about 480 feet from the taxiway A sign. Plexiglas was noted on the
runway 81 feet down the crash debris line. Numerous pieces of RV6A
cockpit canopy were along the crash debris line. A propeller blade
strike was present on the runway, and an indentation from the
propeller spinner of the PA-16 was noted on the runway 446 feet down
the crash debris line and about 30 feet south of runway centerline.

Examination of the crash site revealed the RV6A was heading about
268-degrees magnetic descending to the left while the PA-16 was on a
heading of 270-degrees magnetic, and the left main landing gear of the
PA-16 collided with the upper surface of the RV6A empennage behind the
cabin area. The propeller blades struck the cockpit area. Both
airplanes collided with the runway in a right wing low attitude. The
RV6A came to rest on a heading of 328-degree sitting up right. The
PA-16 came to rest in a nose down right wing low attitude on a heading
of 012-degrees magnetic with its left wing above the tail section of
the RV6A.

Examination of the PA-16 revealed the engine assembly was displaced to
the left and pushed aft into the left side of the engine firewall. The
forward fuselage tank sustained impact damage. The fuel tank and fuel
lines were not ruptured, but fuel was leaking on the grass. The
propeller spinner exhibited evidence of rotational scoring. Both
propeller blades remained attached to the propeller hub. One propeller
blade tip was curled aft with numerous propeller blade strikes/impact
marks noted on the leading edge of the propeller blade, and chordwise
surface scratches were present. The remaining propeller blade tip was
curled aft and twisted with a propeller blade strike present on the
trailing edge of the propeller tip.

The cabin windshield was broken and the forward windshield support
mounts were displaced to the left. The forward fuselage skin forward
of the right windshield pillar was crushed inward and displaced to the
left. The main landing gear remained attached to the fuselage. The
lower fuselage aft of the cabin area on the right side was displaced
upward and rearward. Both horizontal stabilizers, elevators, rudder,
and vertical stabilizer were not damaged. No damage was noted to the
lower fuselage aft of the cabin area on the left side.

The right wing was displaced aft. The leading edge of the right wing
sustained compression damage extending inward to the forward spar and
extending outboard from the wing root to the right wing tip. The right
wing struts were attached to the forward and aft spar and to the
fuselage attach points.

The left wing leading edge sustained leading edge compression near the
center wing section 4- feet 4-inches outboard of the wing root
extending outboard 8-feet 5-inches. The compression damage extended
inward to the leading edge spar. A faint paint transfer of maroon
paint was noted on the leading edge skin. A fuel stain was present on
the top of the left wing in the vicinity of the fuel filler cap. The
left wing main fuel tank and lines were not ruptured. The forward lift
strut on the left wing was bent downward 12-inches from the wing
attach point. A gray paint transfer was noted on the leading edge of
the lift strut. The left main landing gear had a gray paint transfer
on the tire.

All components necessary for flight were present at the crash site.
Continuity of the flight controls was confirmed for pitch, roll, and
yaw. There were no separated or disconnected flight control cables.
Control continuity was established to the primary and secondary flight
controls. The control stick assembly, elevator tube and elevator bell
crank were intact and attached to one another. The aileron cables were
routed around the bell cranks in the left and right wing through
pulleys to the control stick.

Examination of the engine assembly revealed no evidence of a precrash
mechanical failure or malfunction. The crankshaft was rotated by hand
and internal engine continuity was confirmed. All four cylinders
produced compression. Fuel was present in the carburetor and in the
fuel lines forward of the engine firewall. All spark plugs exhibited
light gray carbon deposits in color. Both magnetos sparked at all
towers. The ignition harness sustained impact damage.

Examination of the wreckage of the RV6A revealed the engine assembly
and the propeller assembly remained attached to the airframe. The
engine assembly was displaced to the left. The nose wheel was
collapsed and displaced to the left. The composite spinner exhibited
evidence of rotation. One propeller blade was bent aft about
15-degrees with some twisting towards the low pitch, a blue paint
transfer was present and chord wise scoring was present. The remaining
propeller blade was not damaged. A blue paint transfer was present on
the upper right side of the engine cowling. A blue paint transfer was
present on upper right side of the lower engine cowling.

The cabin windshield was broken and four propeller strikes were
present on the upper windshield support brace which was displaced to
the right. The aft sliding canopy was broken; the support brace
separated and had evidence of a propeller strike. The fuselage skin
forward of the right windshield brace was crushed inward and displaced
to the left. The right side of the cabin area was crushed downward on
the right side level with the right wing. The lower fuselage aft of
the cabin area on the right side was displaced upward and inward. The
upper surface of the empennage located behind the cabin area was
crushed inward on the top 3 feet aft of the cabin. A gray paint
transfer was present. The left and right horizontal stabilizer and
elevators were compressed downward. The vertical stabilizer was
displaced to the left. The lower fuselage aft of the cabin area on the
left side was compressed inward to the right.

The right wing was bent aft and sustained upward and outward diagonal
crushing along the leading edge of the wing 3 feet 5 inches outboard
of the wing root. The right wing tip was partially separated. The
right main fuel tank was ruptured and fuel leaked on the grass. The
right main landing gear was compressed upward into the lower surface
of the right wing. The flaps were extended one notch and the flight
control surface was attached.

The left wing was bent downward 5 feet outboard of the wing root. The
left main fuel tank was not ruptured. The flaps were extended one
notch and the flight control surface was attached. The left main
landing gear was compressed upward.

All components necessary for flight were present at the crash site.
Continuity of the flight controls was confirmed for pitch, roll, and
yaw. There were no separated or disconnected flight control cables.
Control continuity was confirmed to the primary and secondary flight
controls.

Examination of the engine assembly revealed no evidence of a pre-crash
mechanical failure or malfunction. The crankshaft was rotated by hand
and internal engine continuity was confirmed. All four cylinders
produced compression. Fuel was present in the carburetor and in the
fuel lines forward of the engine firewall. All spark plugs exhibited
light grayish brown carbon deposits in color. The bottom spark plugs
exhibited heavy lead deposits. Both magnetos sparked through the
ignition leads.

MEDICAL AND PATHOLOGICAL INFORMATION

The Associate Medical Examiner, District 10, Bartow, Florida,
conducted a postmortem examination of the RV6A pilot on April 5, 2002.
The cause of death was blunt force trauma. Postmortem toxicology of
specimens from the pilot was performed by the Forensic Toxicology
Research Section, Federal Aviation Administration, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma. The results were negative for carbon monoxide, cyanide and
ethanol. Atropine, lebetalol, lidocaine, pentobarbital, glucose and
hemoglobin were detected and attributed to treatment provided by
emergency medical personnel.

The pilot of the PA-16 was transported to Lakeland Regional Medical
Center with serious injuries. No toxicology specimens were taken from
the pilot.

ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

Review of a video taken by a spectator revealed the PA-16 was behind
and above the RV6A. The RV6A was about the height of the trees on
final approach. The initial collision between the PA-16 and the RV6A
was not captured on video. The RV6A was subsequently observed in about
a 45-degree nose up attitude and a left 45-degree bank. The PA-16 was
in about a 5 to 10-degree right bank above the RV6A in the vicinity of
the tail section. Both airplanes were observed in a steep nose up
attitude. The RV6A left wing was down about 45-degrees. The PA-16
wings were at about a 15-degree left bank. Following the collision,
both airplanes descended intermeshed while rotating to the left around
the vertical axis. The RV6A collided with the ground upright right
wing low. The PA-16 collided with the ground in a nose-down right wing
low attitude.

A waiver to FAA Order 7110.65 Air Traffic Control, for the Lakeland
Temporary Air Traffic Control Tower was approved on March 6, 2002. The
waiver requested deviation to Air Traffic Control, Paragraph 3-9-6a1
and 2, Same Runway Separation (departures), Paragraph 3010-3a1a and b,
Same Runway Separation (arrivals), and Paragraph 3-8-3c, Simultaneous
Same Direction.

The waiver authorizes Lakeland temporary Airport Traffic Control Tower
(ATCT) personnel to conduct operations using reduced same runway
separation and same direction centerline minima between arriving and
departing categories I and II aircraft in support of the activities
associated with the Experimental Aircraft Association's (EAA) annual
Sun n' Fun Fly-In, at the Lakeland Linder Regional Airport in
Lakeland, Florida.

Review of 14 CFR Part 91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and
instructions states in Para (a), "When an ATC clearance has been
obtained, no pilot in command may deviate from the clearance unless an
amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the deviation
is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system
resolution advisory."

Review of 14 CFR Part 91.113 Right-of-way rules: Except water
operations states in Para (b) General. When weather conditions permit,
regardless of weather an operation is conducted under instrument
flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by
each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other
aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the
right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not
pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear. (f) Overtaking.
Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each
pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to
pass well clear. (g) Landing. Aircraft while on final approach to land
or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight
operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of
this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has
already landing is attempting to make way for an aircraft on final
approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the
purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the
right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in
front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft."

The wreckage of the PA-16 and the RV6A was released to the Lakeland
Police Department on April 6, 2002. The logbooks for the PA-16 were
released to LAD (Aviation) USA, Orlando, Florida on May 8, 2002. The
logbooks for the RV6A were released to an Attorney at Law, Austin,
Texas, on behalf of the estate of the deceased pilot on April 23,
2002.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

> In the article, it states:
>
> "Air traffic controllers said both pilots failed to heed commands
> from the control tower that could have prevented the crash. The
> National Transportation Safety Board ruled that the failure of both
> pilots to follow air traffic control instructions contributed to the
> accident."
>
>
> If the two pilots "failed to heed commands", I don't understand how
> the FAA and the promoter can be at fault. I realize the word
> "contributed" was used, but the way the article reads, it sounds like
> pilot error.

The way I read it, the controllers probably made mistakes beforehand,
not separating the planes properly. When they became aware of the
situation, they issued urgent commands, which were then not as promptly
followed, as would have been neccessary to avoid the collision. So part
of the blame lies with the controllers for letting the planes come so
close in the first place. But that's just a guess.

BTW: The ex-Russian airline involved in the airliner midair crash near
Ueberlingen/Germany is now sueing for the destroyed plane. In this case
also separation was not properly maintained by the controller. In this
case, the Russian Pilot FOLLOWING the controllers last second
sink-command led to catastrophy, as his TCAS had just issued a climb
warning (and a sink-warning to the oncoming DHL-757).

Nevertheless, in my view, his contribution to the crash has to be
judged even stronger than that of the above pilots. Or rather his
company, which installed the TCAS to comply with European regulations,
but failed to train their crews on it's implications. An Airliner
captain has to understand the implications of a TCAS warning, and why
it has to superseed even controller commands. Tragically, the Copilot
understood the situation but the Captain would not listen to him.

regards,
Friedrich

--
for personal mail please remove 'entfernen' from my emailadress

[kontiki]

I totally agree. We are getting to the point where whwnever someone
dies, no matter what the cause or who was at fault there's a lawyer
out there offering to sue.

It just serves to illustrate how inane and impotent this country has
become.

[Jay Honeck]

> >>>I don't want this to be the only tort reform out there - but it's got to start somewhere<<<
>
> I'm with ya on that. It's gone beyond stupid in this country, when
> juries award ridiculous amounts because some scumbag lawyer talked a
> grieving widow/widower into suing for damages.

Amen. And let's not forget: It's me, and you, and ALL of us here that
is paying for these awards. That seems to be something no one
remembers anymore...

I've flown into Sun N Fun, and I've flown into Oshkosh. It's a high
stress, high aircraft density situation. Everyone who has ever
observed arrivals or departures at either fly-in knows that failure to
instantly obey a controller's commands can, and will, get you -- or
someone else -- killed.

For this woman to sue "We the People" for her own husband's error as a
pilot seems to be the highest irony of all. To actually WIN such a
lawsuit defies belief.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

[Jim Macklin]

Trial lawyers will bring a suit anytime they feel that they
can find a stupid jury. I recall a case in the Miami area;
a pilot left the bar with a pretty heavy load of alcohol and
went to the airport. He pulled his Cherokee out of the
hanger about 4 AM and took off. He was sightseeing when the
fog rolled in. He flew around waiting for the fog to burn
off, which was mid-morning. Unfortunately he ran out of
fuel about an hour before and he crashed and died.
The widow and her lawyer sued, because the fuel tanks were
not big enough to let him stay aloft until the fog burned
off. I understand they won.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Jay Honeck" > wrote in message
ups.com...
|> >>>I don't want this to be the only tort reform out
there - but it's got to start somewhere<<<
| >
| > I'm with ya on that. It's gone beyond stupid in this
country, when
| > juries award ridiculous amounts because some scumbag
lawyer talked a
| > grieving widow/widower into suing for damages.
|
| Amen. And let's not forget: It's me, and you, and ALL of
us here that
| is paying for these awards. That seems to be something no
one
| remembers anymore...
|
| I've flown into Sun N Fun, and I've flown into Oshkosh.
It's a high
| stress, high aircraft density situation. Everyone who has
ever
| observed arrivals or departures at either fly-in knows
that failure to
| instantly obey a controller's commands can, and will, get
you -- or
| someone else -- killed.
|
| For this woman to sue "We the People" for her own
husband's error as a
| pilot seems to be the highest irony of all. To actually
WIN such a
| lawsuit defies belief.
| --
| Jay Honeck
| Iowa City, IA
| Pathfinder N56993
| www.AlexisParkInn.com
| "Your Aviation Destination"
|

[RA Samos]

"Kingfish" > wrote:

>It's gone beyond stupid in this country, when
>juries award ridiculous amounts because some scumbag lawyer talked a
>grieving widow/widower into suing for damages.

We have here a situation in which there was (probably) one
scumbag lawyer fighting on behalf of the grieving widow, one
(or more) scumbag lawyers fighting on behalf of the FAA and
one scumbag lawyer fighting on behalf of Sun n Fun. The
case couldn't even have been filed without the permission of
the grieving widow, and no damages could have been awarded
without the agreement of the jury and approval of the judge.
Further, this was a settlement, so no money had to be paid
unless the FAA, Sun n Fun and/or their insurance companies
agreed. I'm not a fan of the results we are seeing in cases
like this, but given that there were more scumbags fighting
to stop this than to push it forward, I'm inclined to lay
the blame on juries, judges, the applicable law, grieving
widows/plaintiffs and those who are so willing to settle
rather than fight before I'm going to blame the "scumbags."

YMMV

[Matt Barrow]

"Jim Macklin" > wrote in message
news:vX09g.18419$ZW3.5002@dukeread04...
> Trial lawyers will bring a suit anytime they feel that they
> can find a stupid jury. I recall a case in the Miami area;
> a pilot left the bar with a pretty heavy load of alcohol and
> went to the airport. He pulled his Cherokee out of the
> hanger about 4 AM and took off. He was sightseeing when the
> fog rolled in. He flew around waiting for the fog to burn
> off, which was mid-morning. Unfortunately he ran out of
> fuel about an hour before and he crashed and died.
> The widow and her lawyer sued, because the fuel tanks were
> not big enough to let him stay aloft until the fog burned
> off. I understand they won.
>
Many years ago, Cessna was successfully sued by the estate of a pilot that
flew into a shear rock wall (CFIT). The basis of the suit was that better
shoulder harnesses would have saved his life. This in the days before three
point harnesses, just lap belts and the model he was flying was well before
the three-point harness years.

IWLTB, that this was the case that broke the camels back and led Cessna to
drop out of the industry until the 1994 law was enacted.

Side note: the reason Ruger started stamping their guns with that verbose
warning (late 1970' or early 80's) was due to losing a suit to the estate of
a guy who was playing Russian Roulette. I suppose the warning would have
stopped him...

[Gig 601XL Builder]

"RA Samos" > wrote in message
...
> "Kingfish" > wrote:
>
>>It's gone beyond stupid in this country, when
>>juries award ridiculous amounts because some scumbag lawyer talked a
>>grieving widow/widower into suing for damages.
>
> We have here a situation in which there was (probably) one
> scumbag lawyer fighting on behalf of the grieving widow, one
> (or more) scumbag lawyers fighting on behalf of the FAA and
> one scumbag lawyer fighting on behalf of Sun n Fun. The
> case couldn't even have been filed without the permission of
> the grieving widow, and no damages could have been awarded
> without the agreement of the jury and approval of the judge.
> Further, this was a settlement, so no money had to be paid
> unless the FAA, Sun n Fun and/or their insurance companies
> agreed. I'm not a fan of the results we are seeing in cases
> like this, but given that there were more scumbags fighting
> to stop this than to push it forward, I'm inclined to lay
> the blame on juries, judges, the applicable law, grieving
> widows/plaintiffs and those who are so willing to settle
> rather than fight before I'm going to blame the "scumbags."
>
> YMMV


I'd almost agree with you BUT the scumbags work real hard to keep a group of
SUPER scumbags from passing any laws that would help fix the problem.

[Ben Smith]

>I totally agree. We are getting to the point where whwnever someone
> dies, no matter what the cause or who was at fault there's a lawyer
> out there offering to sue.
>
> It just serves to illustrate how inane and impotent this country has
> become.

I went on a date with a lawyer once, and I ranted in the same manner. (I
figured I was pretty safe because she was a former prosecutor, and not
involved in ambulance chasing.) But then she mentioned she comes from a
family of lawyers, and her brother was specifically in the business of going
after airplane manufacturers. I never heard from her again. :)

[John Gaquin]

"C. Massey" > wrote in message news:xIM8g.15858
>
> If the two pilots "failed to heed commands", I don't understand how the
> FAA and the promoter can be at fault. I realize the word "contributed" was
> used, but the way the article reads, it sounds like pilot error.

Of course it was, predominantly. As the pilot, you just have to pay
attention. Its that simple. I'm sure the Fed and the event insuror settled
because it was cheaper and lower risk than going to trial, where a weeping
widow giving testimony would make short shrift of objective legal analysis.

[John Gaquin]

"kontiki" > wrote in message news:7xZ8g.859

>.... We are getting to the point where whwnever someone
> dies, no matter what the cause or who was at fault there's a lawyer
> out there offering to sue.

I recall seeing a billboard in Miami several years ago touting some shyster
ambulance chaser. The text simply read "If you've been hurt in an accident,
somebody somewhere owes you money. CALL 555.........................."

Its just a bunch of low-class slime appealing to the basest instincts of
other low-class slime. An easy sell........

[Matt Barrow]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "kontiki" > wrote in message news:7xZ8g.859
>
>>.... We are getting to the point where whwnever someone
>> dies, no matter what the cause or who was at fault there's a lawyer
>> out there offering to sue.
>
> I recall seeing a billboard in Miami several years ago touting some
> shyster ambulance chaser. The text simply read "If you've been hurt in an
> accident, somebody somewhere owes you money. CALL
> 555.........................."
>
> Its just a bunch of low-class slime appealing to the basest instincts of
> other low-class slime.

Unfortunately, polls indicate that the "other low-class slime" is about 80%+
of the US populace.

>An easy sell........

The apparent propensity to overindulge in credit cards and such indicates
it's more widespread than you give credit for.

[Jim Macklin]

There was a military troop flight that crashed in Gander on
take-off [if I remember the details]. The plane had landed
to refuel and when it departed, the wheels were frozen and
did not roll. But on the ice, the crew did not notice and
they began the take-off roll [slide?]. The runway was
patchy and the acceleration was uneven. The crew finally
decided to abort and they went off the end of the runway.
The accident report said that the plane skidded off the
runway and some lawyer was looking at the plane's equipment
list and saw that it was equipped with anti-skid brakes.

Since the plane skidded off the runway, the brakes MUST have
failed so he sued.



--
James H. Macklin
ATP,CFI,A&P

--
The people think the Constitution protects their rights;
But government sees it as an obstacle to be overcome.
some support
http://www.usdoj.gov/olc/secondamendment2.htm
See http://www.fija.org/ more about your rights and duties.


"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message
...
|
| "Jim Macklin" > wrote
in message
| news:vX09g.18419$ZW3.5002@dukeread04...
| > Trial lawyers will bring a suit anytime they feel that
they
| > can find a stupid jury. I recall a case in the Miami
area;
| > a pilot left the bar with a pretty heavy load of alcohol
and
| > went to the airport. He pulled his Cherokee out of the
| > hanger about 4 AM and took off. He was sightseeing when
the
| > fog rolled in. He flew around waiting for the fog to
burn
| > off, which was mid-morning. Unfortunately he ran out of
| > fuel about an hour before and he crashed and died.
| > The widow and her lawyer sued, because the fuel tanks
were
| > not big enough to let him stay aloft until the fog
burned
| > off. I understand they won.
| >
| Many years ago, Cessna was successfully sued by the estate
of a pilot that
| flew into a shear rock wall (CFIT). The basis of the suit
was that better
| shoulder harnesses would have saved his life. This in the
days before three
| point harnesses, just lap belts and the model he was
flying was well before
| the three-point harness years.
|
| IWLTB, that this was the case that broke the camels back
and led Cessna to
| drop out of the industry until the 1994 law was enacted.
|
| Side note: the reason Ruger started stamping their guns
with that verbose
| warning (late 1970' or early 80's) was due to losing a
suit to the estate of
| a guy who was playing Russian Roulette. I suppose the
warning would have
| stopped him...
|
|
|

[John Gaquin]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message news:_V29g.19

>>
>> Its just a bunch of low-class slime appealing to the basest instincts of
>> other low-class slime.
>
> Unfortunately, polls indicate that the "other low-class slime" is about
> 80%+ of the US populace.

I'm not sure where you're going, matt. Do you mean that 80% of the US
population has filed a frivilous or baseless lawsuit?

>
>>An easy sell........
>
> The apparent propensity to overindulge in credit cards and such indicates
> it's more widespread than you give credit for.

????

[Matt Barrow]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Matt Barrow" > wrote in message news:_V29g.19
>
>>>
>>> Its just a bunch of low-class slime appealing to the basest instincts of
>>> other low-class slime.
>>
>> Unfortunately, polls indicate that the "other low-class slime" is about
>> 80%+ of the US populace.
>
> I'm not sure where you're going, matt. Do you mean that 80% of the US
> population has filed a frivilous or baseless lawsuit?

Would.

According to a couple surveys, given even minor occurances, nearly four out
of five said they would sue.

>
>>
>>>An easy sell........
>>
>> The apparent propensity to overindulge in credit cards and such indicates
>> it's more widespread than you give credit for.
>
> ????

Evidently most things are an easy sell...especially on credit.

Oh, for the "Keep up with the Jones'" of the 60's.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "C. Massey" > wrote in message news:xIM8g.15858
>>
>> If the two pilots "failed to heed commands", I don't understand how
>> the FAA and the promoter can be at fault. I realize the word
>> "contributed" was used, but the way the article reads, it sounds
>> like pilot error.
>
> Of course it was, predominantly. As the pilot, you just have to pay
> attention. Its that simple. I'm sure the Fed and the event insuror
> settled because it was cheaper and lower risk than going to trial,
> where a weeping widow giving testimony would make short shrift of
> objective legal analysis.

might be true. What a sad state of a legal system.

regards,
Friedrich


--
for personal mail please remove 'entfernen' from my emailadress

[John Gaquin]

"Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in
>
> might be true. What a sad state of a legal system.

Not the whole system. Don't be tempted to throw out the baby with the
bathwater. Tort Reform: serious, deep, systemic tort reform.

[Friedrich Ostertag]

John Gaquin wrote:
> "Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in
>>
>> might be true. What a sad state of a legal system.
>
> Not the whole system. Don't be tempted to throw out the baby with
the
> bathwater. Tort Reform: serious, deep, systemic tort reform.

ACK

What strikes me most about the amounts payed in compensation for some
peoples own stupidity ist the fact, that few seem to realize that this
money is payed out of everyones pocket. The general public seems to go
along with such claims, siding with the "little man" against big, bad
corporations. But as the requirement to pay ridiculous claims now and
then to avoid even more expensive lawsuits is the same for all
corporations, none of them gains any advantage nor disadvantage from
it. The cost is just calculated into the pricing of all products.

regards,
Friedrich


--
for personal mail please remove 'entfernen' from my emailadress

[Matt Barrow]

"John Gaquin" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in
>>
>> might be true. What a sad state of a legal system.
>
> Not the whole system. Don't be tempted to throw out the baby with the
> bathwater. Tort Reform: serious, deep, systemic tort reform.

Instituted by tort lawyers? Good luck!

[John Gaquin]

"Matt Barrow" > wrote in message news:9Os9g.17

>>
>> Not the whole system. Don't be tempted to throw out the baby with the
>> bathwater. Tort Reform: serious, deep, systemic tort reform.
>
> Instituted by tort lawyers? Good luck!

Difficult, to be sure, but note that I did use the word systemic to describe
the reform.

[Stella Starr]

Dear, dear -- lawyers don't sue, clients sue. Remember, they're just a
tool, and should be handled only by responsible individuals with the
proper training.

Darn shame so many people think when someone dies, they've won the
lottery. You're not going to pass a law to change that.



John Gaquin wrote:
> "Friedrich Ostertag" > wrote in
>> might be true. What a sad state of a legal system.
>
> Not the whole system. Don't be tempted to throw out the baby with the
> bathwater. Tort Reform: serious, deep, systemic tort reform.
>
>

[Matt Barrow]

"Stella Starr" > wrote in message
news:iqR9g.730827$084.110853@attbi_s22...
> Dear, dear -- lawyers don't sue, clients sue.

Funny, I don't see too many cases where clients went into court alone.

>Remember, they're just a tool, and should be handled only by responsible
>individuals with the proper training.
>
> Darn shame so many people think when someone dies, they've won the
> lottery. You're not going to pass a law to change that.

Wow! Some really strained analogies.

[Steve Pierce]

"Of course it was, predominantly. As the pilot, you just have to pay
attention. Its that simple. I'm sure the Fed and the event insuror settled

because it was cheaper and lower risk than going to trial, where a weeping

widow giving testimony would make short shrift of objective legal
analysis."

The RV6A pilot didn't follow the FAA published arrival NOTAM and wasn't on
CTAF. Never seen a PA16 that could overtake an RV either. Funny how the
eye whitnesses that were in the airplane behind the two accident aircraft
had a different account than the controllers. Infact the controllers
account changed from the day of the accident 180 degrees 10 days later.




____________________________________
Posted via Aviatorlive.com
http://www.aviatorlive.com

[Morgans[_2_]]

"Steve Pierce" > wrote in message
news:bdb60699c2718201cc6d7163d271f4a2@aviatorlive. com...
> "Of course it was, predominantly. As the pilot, you just have to pay
> attention. Its that simple. I'm sure the Fed and the event insuror settled
>
> because it was cheaper and lower risk than going to trial, where a weeping
>
> widow giving testimony would make short shrift of objective legal
> analysis."
>
> The RV6A pilot didn't follow the FAA published arrival NOTAM and wasn't on
> CTAF. Never seen a PA16 that could overtake an RV either. Funny how the
> eye whitnesses that were in the airplane behind the two accident aircraft
> had a different account than the controllers. Infact the controllers
> account changed from the day of the accident 180 degrees 10 days later.

What is this post in reference to?

[Larry Dighera]

On Fri, 7 Jul 2006 16:55:47 -0400, "Morgans"
> wrote in >::

>What is this post in reference to?

http://ap.staugustine.com/pstories/state/fl/20060510/3864478.shtml

[Steve Pierce]

http://www.aero-news.net/news/sport.cfm?ContentBlockID=F5193082-323E-483F-8D73-BB40594A7C08&Dynamic=1

____________________________________
Posted via Aviatorlive.com
http://www.aviatorlive.com