Pilot claims no blame in July crash

Pilot claims no blame in July crash

By Andrew Dys
The Herald

http://www.heraldonline.com/local/st...-5022727c.html

The Ohio man who federal officials say was the pilot in a Rock Hill plane crash
claims he is being wrongly blamed for the July accident, which left two other
men dead.
Matthew Sullivan, 24, of Dublin, Ohio, told federal investigators and The Herald
he did not remember the flight or the crash and said he was not the pilot and
wasn't acting as a flight instructor that day. But he did remember the day
leading up to the flight, he said.

"I was strictly a passenger," Sullivan said in an phone interview from Ohio,
where he is recovering from serious injuries received in the crash.

Sullivan was one of three men on board the single-engine plane, which crashed
July 24 in a subdivision off Rawlinson Road, nearly one mile from the Rock
Hill/York County Airport. The others on board, Rock Hill native Eric Johnson and
Ohio dentist Bill Coulman, died.

Johnson was coming to Rock Hill for a Northwestern High School class reunion,
and Coulman owned the plane.

Federal regulators reported that fuel mismanagement by the pilot was likely
responsible for the crash. The mismanagement "resulted in fuel starvation and
subsequent loss of engine power," a National Transportation Safety Board report
states.

The NTSB identifies the pilot as Sullivan, who was sitting in the right front
seat of the plane and was the only one on board rated to fly under instrument
flight rules. The plane flew on instrument flight rules until changing to visual
flight rules four miles from the airport.

Instrument flight rules flying requires a higher licensing level and radio
contact between the plane and airport alerting the airport of the impending
landing, federal officials have said.

But Sullivan said he was invited by Coulman to be a passenger on the flight.
Sullivan said he had known Coulman for about a year but met Johnson for the
first time that morning at the Ohio State Airport in Columbus.

Sullivan said he did not know he was the only one on board with an instrument
flight rating and was not asked to be a flight instructor. He said he assumed
Johnson had an instrument rating and was in charge.

Coulman presented Johnson, who sat in the left front seat, as an Air Force
veteran and an experienced pilot, he said. "I was picturing a 'Top Gun.'"

The NTSB report describes Johnson and Coulman as "pilot rated passengers."
Another part of the NTSB report describes the two as "passenger" and "student
pilot." FAA records showed Johnson had been a licensed pilot since 1988.

Sullivan blames Coulman and Johnson.

"Dr. Coulman owned the plane, filed the flight plan and made the decision as to
who would fly the aircraft," Sullivan wrote to the NTSB. "Mr. Johnson actually
flew the plane knowing he did not have the certification or authority to do so.
It would be an injustice to blame me (as an invited guest) for their errors."

Sullivan said he is a flight instructor by training but was not acting as one
that day for either Johnson or Coulman.

"Matthew does not do for-hire flight instruction," his lawyer, Joe Coulter,
said.

Another lawyer for Sullivan, aviation law specialist Mark McDermott of
Washington, D.C., said the government is making Sullivan a "scapegoat" for the
crash. Both lawyers said Sullivan is being targeted by the federal government
because he is the sole survivor of the crash.

Federal officials declined to respond to the claims of Sullivan and his legal
team.

The Federal Aviation Administration, which has enforcement and pilot licensing
authority, confirmed it investigated Sullivan but took no action against him.
Because there was no action taken, there is nothing for Sullivan to appeal,
Southern region spokesperson Kathleen Bergen said.

NTSB spokesperson Lauren Peduzzi reaffirmed both agencies show that Sullivan was
flying the plane at the time of the accident and that the other two were
passengers. The NTSB, which handles crash investigations, has closed its case
and does not publicly respond to claims like Sullivan's, Peduzzi said.

Sullivan can appeal the NTSB ruling and is taking the right steps to do so if he
wants to be able to fly in the future, said Mike Hynes, who runs a Frederick,
Okla., aviation consulting business that does investigations for pilots and
their lawyers after crashes. Hynes is a former FAA examiner with more than
16,000 hours of flight time.

It's not surprising the FAA decided not to cite Sullivan because, with the other
men on board dead, it is hard to prove if he was acting as the flight
instructor, Hynes said.

However, Hynes is not surprised the NTSB ruled Sullivan was the flight
instructor.

"The normal rule of thumb is unless there is very clear evidence he was not the
flight instructor, he would be assumed to be the flight instructor," Hynes said.

The fuel selector switch is on the left part of the plane where Johnson was
sitting, said both Hynes and Erik Rigler of San Antonio, Texas, another aviation
expert who is a consultant in crashes and investigations.

The pilot in command designation does not mean that person was handling all the
controls, Hynes said, although the right hand seat does have access to some
flight controls.

The left front seat is generally called the pilot's seat, Hynes said.

However, Johnson, in the left front seat, couldn't be considered the pilot in
command if he was not instrument flight plan certified, Hynes said. Further,
only an instrument rated pilot is supposed to be able to file an instrument
flight plan, Hynes said.

The question of whether an on-board flight instructor is responsible comes up
often, Rigler said. A flight instructor himself, Rigler has had those concerns
personally when flying with pilots who don't have his high ratings.

A legal battle over liability is likely, both Hynes and Rigler said. The FAA
taking no enforcement against Sullivan makes a very strong case against
liability, Rigler said.

Most similar cases end up in civil courts and can take five years or more to
conclude, Hynes said.



--
Mortimer Schnerd, RN

VE

Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:

"Dr. Coulman owned the plane, filed the flight plan and made the decision
as to who would fly the aircraft," Sullivan wrote to the NTSB.

How could this be in question? If a flight plan was filed, it has a pilot's
name.

- Andrew

You file a flight plan by telephone, or perhaps a computer
on the Internet. Nobody really knows what name is on the
flight plan and if that person is legal and who is claimed.
Only after an accident or other investigation is the actual
identity of the people on the airplane established.

If your passengers know your name and they want to use your
name and certificate, there is nothing but their ethics to
stop them. If you are a pilot riding as a passenger and
want to be sure, make a call to FSS/ATC before the flight
departs and state that you are NOT the PIC and you did not
file the flight plan. ATC might not have the full details
of the flight plan, such as the name of the pilot. But if
you care, make it a FACT.


--
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.


"Andrew Gideon" wrote in message
online.com...
| Mortimer Schnerd, RN wrote:
|
| "Dr. Coulman owned the plane, filed the flight plan and
made the decision
| as to who would fly the aircraft," Sullivan wrote to the
NTSB.
|
| How could this be in question? If a flight plan was
filed, it has a pilot's
| name.
|
| - Andrew
|

Jim Macklin wrote:

You file a flight plan by telephone, or perhaps a computer
on the Internet. Nobody really knows what name is on the
flight plan and if that person is legal and who is claimed.
Only after an accident or other investigation is the actual
identity of the people on the airplane established.

If your passengers know your name and they want to use your
name and certificate, there is nothing but their ethics to
stop them. If you are a pilot riding as a passenger and
want to be sure, make a call to FSS/ATC before the flight
departs and state that you are NOT the PIC and you did not
file the flight plan. ATC might not have the full details
of the flight plan, such as the name of the pilot. But if
you care, make it a FACT.

One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR flight plan, do
they? What about a pilot that is working toward their instrument rating?
Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them, filing is all part
of the training, no?

The name on the flight plan must be a legal and current IFR
rated pilot. When a CFI is giving training in IMC or on an
IFR flight plan, the custom is for the student to plan the
flight and file the flight plan using the instructor's name
[with permission of the CFI] and the CFI will know this. The
flight plan and clearance will be thoroughly understood by
each pilot and the CFI is PIC of record.

When a pilot is taking the IFR practical test, they are
presumed to be legally qualified and that is the first time
they can legally file IFR under their own name.

But the point is, that if you are a pilot and another person
on the airplane files the flight plan and uses your name you
will be considered to be the PIC, even if you are in the
back seat. Further, the NTSB/FAA will consider the highest
rated pilot on the airplane to be PIC unless there is clear
evidence to the contrary.


--
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.


wrote in message
...
| Jim Macklin wrote:
|
| You file a flight plan by telephone, or perhaps a
computer
| on the Internet. Nobody really knows what name is on
the
| flight plan and if that person is legal and who is
claimed.
| Only after an accident or other investigation is the
actual
| identity of the people on the airplane established.
|
| If your passengers know your name and they want to use
your
| name and certificate, there is nothing but their ethics
to
| stop them. If you are a pilot riding as a passenger and
| want to be sure, make a call to FSS/ATC before the
flight
| departs and state that you are NOT the PIC and you did
not
| file the flight plan. ATC might not have the full
details
| of the flight plan, such as the name of the pilot. But
if
| you care, make it a FACT.
|
| One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR
flight plan, do
| they? What about a pilot that is working toward their
instrument rating?
| Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them, filing
is all part
| of the training, no?

In article NZiRf.117149$QW2.26358@dukeread08,
"Jim Macklin" wrote:

Further, the NTSB/FAA will consider the highest
rated pilot on the airplane to be PIC unless there is clear
evidence to the contrary.

yet another of example of stupidity in government.

--
Bob Noel
trim posts? bah, who needs thats?

On Mon, 13 Mar 2006 12:37:28 -0600, "Jim Macklin"
wrote in
NZiRf.117149$QW2.26358@dukeread08::

Further, the NTSB/FAA will consider the highest
rated pilot on the airplane to be PIC unless there is clear
evidence to the contrary.

So on each flight, if one finds himself to hold the highest rating
among the occupants of a flight, he should scrutinize all aspects as
though he were PIC, as well as taking a position at which there are
flight controls, and even taking over those controls if he deems it
prudent?

wrote in message
...
One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR flight plan, do
they? What about a pilot that is working toward their instrument rating?
Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them, filing is all part
of the training, no?

I suspect a lot of pilots have filed and flown IFR flight plans with little
more than some IR training. This may be another such case.

--
Matt
---------------------
Matthew W. Barrow
Site-Fill Homes, LLC.
Montrose, CO

"Matt Barrow" wrote in message
...

wrote in message
...
One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR flight plan, do
they? What about a pilot that is working toward their instrument rating?
Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them, filing is all part
of the training, no?

I suspect a lot of pilots have filed and flown IFR flight plans with
little more than some IR training. This may be another such case.

Evidence? Reasoning?

m

On 2006-03-13, unicate wrote:

One doesn't have to be instrument rated to file an IFR flight plan, do
they? What about a pilot that is working toward their instrument rating?
Their CFII doesn't file the flight plan *for* them, filing is all part
of the training, no?

No they don't. While training and doing IFR flights under IFR flight
plans as a student, I always filed with my own name (even though the
CFII was the PIC). I had to file an IFR flight plan for my checkride,
too. The DE didn't even comment when I filed it under my own name.

--
Dylan Smith, Port St Mary, Isle of Man
Flying: http://www.dylansmith.net
Oolite-Linux: an Elite tribute: http://oolite-linux.berlios.de
Frontier Elite Universe: http://www.alioth.net