2nd crash---

U

Unregistered

Guest
I am posting this anonymously since if anyone from the type club spots my name they will know instantly who I am talking about.
I got a call last night from a chap that I have known for years. He had his second crash a short time ago. This will probabily be ruled pilot error it was a DA related crash into trees at the end of the runway. He will be in a wheel chair for the rest of his life and his passenger suffered lesser injuries.

He asked me for advice concerning possible enforcement action from the FAA. He got a letter from the FAA concerning the fact that his transponder was out of certification and that he had told law enforcement right after the crash that he had changed is air speed indicator himself and that it wasn't logged since he didn't know how to do it. (He is NOT a mechanic)

He asked me what would the FAA do to him ? Would they try to fine him, put him in jail or simply pull his ticket ?

What about insurance--would they pay his claim?

My advice was to call an attorney. He said he was going to call AOPA Legal. I questioned this since his insurance is also through AOPA. I told him to get an independent lawyer. Since AOPA also is his insurance agent that there might be a conflict of interests.
Was I correct with this advice?

Will the FAA likely hang him up to dry? I feel that he really screwed up telling law enforcement about the ASI. Since he went into trees it could be easily said that an inaccurate ASI could have contributed.

In addition his passenger was injured so this will be held against him in the case of him being sued.

Does the FAA try to put people in jail? If they only take is ticket it will be a small loss since he is crippled.

Both crashes involve pilot error.

I am an IA and used to work on his plane. However I moved to an airpark a couple of years ago so my name hasn't been in his log book for at least three annuals.

I'll be interested in hearing comments.
 
AOPA is only his broker not his insurance carrier. Any attorney that he is assigned through the AOPA Legal Services Plan must keep anything that the pilot tells him confidential so he can't go running back to AOPA and tell them that he changed the ASI himself. Further the Legal Plan Attorneys are not even AOPA employees but rather private counsel.

The FAA cannot prosecute him crimially. If he is unfortunatly paralyized they he is not going to fly again unless he can work out something with an organization like Able Flight or buys an Ercoupe.

The fact that he chaged his ASI on his own and that the Transponder was out of cert does not in and of itself mean that they caused the accident. They may have had nothing to do with the accident. His biggest concern is that his aviation insurance carrier not deny coverage due to something that he did.
 
Last edited:
Unregistered said:
Will the FAA likely hang him up to dry?
Click to expand...
Based on what you wrote, let us hope so.

They will not look for jail time, but they can attempt to pull his ticket. From the sound of him I would say that is warranted. He is not only a danger to himself but to the public. The evidence of that is his actions and apparent flagrant anti-authority behavior has injured his passenger.

As for talking to an attorney that is wise advise. I am willing to be that his insurance is NOT really through AOPA. AOPA just acted as the service that hooked up his insurance company to him. IOW they are a referral agency. His call to a lawyer through AOPA legal service also is not actually an AOPA employed lawyer. AOPA will just be acting as a referral agent. The real lawyer will be working for him. AOPA legal services is somewhat of a scam, all that you are really getting is an introductory meeting. The follow on work is all out of your pocket.
 
Last edited:
By the way as a follow up the AOPA Legal Services Plan attorney will most likely work with him on the enforcment action if he decides to fight it. The Insurance Carrier will assign an attorney to defend him in the civil law suit by the PAX. If his carrier denys coverage then he is going to need another attorney to deal with the insurance carrier.
 
I've never heard of an insurance company denying coverage for anything short of fraud. My guess is the FAA will pull his certificate, like the others said. He could save some fuss and bother if he just surrendered it, he won't be flying anymore. I don't think the FAA can send anyone to prison, and it doesn't sound like he broke any criminal statutes. I suppose they could fine him, though I've never heard of them doing that to a hobbyist pilot. Do they?
 
steingar said:
I've never heard of an insurance company denying coverage for anything short of fraud. My guess is the FAA will pull his certificate, like the others said. He could save some fuss and bother if he just surrendered it, he won't be flying anymore. I don't think the FAA can send anyone to prison, and it doesn't sound like he broke any criminal statutes. I suppose they could fine him, though I've never heard of them doing that to a hobbyist pilot. Do they?
Click to expand...
You can get away with quite a bit with the FAA, as long as you're willing to play their game. My guess is that this guy could fly again if he really wanted to jump through all the hoops.
 
The FAA won't throw him in jail. This guy has other worries. Insurance will probably pay, if not whatever. The guy is alive and in a wheelchair everything else is small potatoes.
 
ScottM said:
Based on what you wrote, let us hope so.

They will not look for jail time, but they can attempt to pull his ticket. From the sound of him I would say that is warranted. He is not only a danger to himself but to the public. The evidence of that is his actions and apparent flagrant anti-authority behavior has injured his passenger.
Click to expand...

I agree that his actions in regards to the ASI are not what we expect from a pilot who isn't an AMT or avionics tech. But they may have had zilch to do with the accident.

So until the cause of the accident is known, I'm not gonna pile on, though the facts presented do not paint an impressive picture of this particular airman.
 
It's me again the original poster.

If this chap should decide to buy an Ercoupe and fly again I really think I'd contact the FSDO
in his area and do my best to prevent it. He rolled the first plane up into a ball and both he and his passenger walked away with cuts and bruises. Now this. I'm not aware of just how badly his passenger was injured. There was hospitalization involved.

Over the years I've really seen some flying from him that in my opinion was quite unsafe.

I will pass the comments from you guys on to him. I'm gonna log back in and not comment further lest I identify myself and the chap who crashed.
 
TMetzinger said:
I agree that his actions in regards to the ASI are not what we expect from a pilot who isn't an AMT or avionics tech. But they may have had zilch to do with the accident.

So until the cause of the accident is known, I'm not gonna pile on, though the facts presented do not paint an impressive picture of this particular airman.
Click to expand...
Well I certainly never claimed the the ASI was the cause of the accident. But I am saying that this is his 2nd accident, which is being shown to be pilot error due to high DA operation, that he willingly violated FARs as indicated by the failure to abide by maintenance rules even though he admits he knows not how to do the work. This all indicates to me a person who is anti-authority, careless and reckless. Put all of that together and it paints a picture of person who needs to be removed from the cockpit. That Darwinism may have intervened is probably a good thing in that others will not be killed, hurt or affected by his future actions.
 
You folks need to MYOB about activities that may or may not happen in the future. The FAA knows about his/her accidents the FAA will decide if he/she is competent to exercise pilot privileges.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You folks need to MYOB about activities that may or may not happen in the future. The FAA knows about his/her accidents the FAA will decide if he/she is competent to exercise pilot privileges.
Click to expand...

Good thing we have you here to tell us how you think we should conduct ourselves, eh?
 
ClimbnSink said:
You folks need to MYOB about activities that may or may not happen in the future. The FAA knows about his/her accidents the FAA will decide if he/she is competent to exercise pilot privileges.
Click to expand...

I wasn't aware that the OP posted this incident and its context to we could all MOOB. Would make for a short thread.
 
Rip on the pilot all you want, Mon. morning quarterback away- I'm all for it. Morbid jokes are good as well, spare no mercy and be funny. But this is absurd: "If this chap should decide to buy an Ercoupe and fly again I really think I'd contact the FSDO
in his area and do my best to prevent it."
Now the hall monitors can step up defend this stupidity.:sad:
steingar said:
I wasn't aware that the OP posted this incident and its context to we could all MOOB. Would make for a short thread.
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
Rip on the pilot all you want, Mon. morning quarterback away- I'm all for it. Morbid jokes are good as well, spare no mercy and be funny. But this is absurd: "If this chap should decide to buy an Ercoupe and fly again I really think I'd contact the FSDO
in his area and do my best to prevent it."
Now the hall monitors can step up defend this stupidity.:sad:
Click to expand...
The pilot in question appears to be a menace. Why do you think applying some common self policing is "stupidity"
 
AOPA Legal Services (if he has the AOPA legal services plan) may tell him he doesn't need a lawyer or as above, will refer him to a lawyer he does. Even if you don't have the AOPA legal plan, any member can call AOPA for (non legal) advice. It's a membership benefit.

AOPA Insurance is the insurance broker AON and will tell him to call his insurance company.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You folks need to MYOB about activities that may or may not happen in the future. The FAA knows about his/her accidents the FAA will decide if he/she is competent to exercise pilot privileges.
Click to expand...

Look, we're not the NTSB but what we do know about this pilot is a pattern of poor decision making and involvement in two crashes. I'm thinking he might want to quit while he's still alive!

If he got his certificate back, turning him into the FSDO would be pointless. If he tried to fly without a certificate, turning him into the FSDO would be an obligation.
 
ScottM said:
Well I certainly never claimed the the ASI was the cause of the accident. But I am saying that this is his 2nd accident, which is being shown to be pilot error due to high DA operation, that he willingly violated FARs as indicated by the failure to abide by maintenance rules even though he admits he knows not how to do the work. This all indicates to me a person who is anti-authority, careless and reckless. Put all of that together and it paints a picture of person who needs to be removed from the cockpit. That Darwinism may have intervened is probably a good thing in that others will not be killed, hurt or affected by his future actions.
Click to expand...
Since it just happened, we don't know if it's pilot error due to high DA, that was suggested by the OP but not a given.

Please understand - all I'm saying is that the conclusion you've reached may not be justified by the facts. If it is, then I am in full agreement that this person shouldn't be flying.
 
steingar said:
I've never heard of an insurance company denying coverage for anything short of fraud.
....
Click to expand...

90% of the time, that's what it's based on. I.E., "you lied on your application."

The other 10% of the time, it'll be based on the terms of your coverages. For instance, your home insurance might exclude coverage for damage resulting from "an act of war." That means if the Germans bomb your house in 1944, your home insurance won't cover it.

Here, there very well might be a clause in the policy saying, "if you perform maintenance for which certification is required and you don't have certification, this policy will not apply in cases of any damage."

Put differently, reading insurance contracts is my punishment for some transgression in a past life. Ugh.
 
ClimbnSink said:
You folks need to MYOB about activities that may or may not happen in the future. The FAA knows about his/her accidents the FAA will decide if he/she is competent to exercise pilot privileges.
Click to expand...

LOL!

And when he takes his Ercoupe with the wing that he ducktaped on himself without any signoff, and hits your house when the wing falls off, I assume you'll still feel the same?
 
How is he going to duck tape a wing on from his wheelchair?
 
ClimbnSink said:
Rip on the pilot all you want, Mon. morning quarterback away- I'm all for it. Morbid jokes are good as well, spare no mercy and be funny. But this is absurd: "If this chap should decide to buy an Ercoupe and fly again I really think I'd contact the FSDO
in his area and do my best to prevent it."
Now the hall monitors can step up defend this stupidity.:sad:
Click to expand...

You're kidding, right? From what I can gather the OP has a lot of experience with the pilot in question. Probably knows a lot more about his capabilities and risk factors more than, say, you or I do. If he is sufficiently concerned about this dude, who already has 2 wrecks to his name, to forward said concerns to the FAA IF the guy were ever to try to fly again, I think that's not unreasonable.

We aren't born with a god-given right to fly. It has to be earned.
 
Pilots need to drop the holier than thou hall monitor attitude. I don't doubt that the pilot in question might be below average but we haven't seen a NTSB report. Do you want your precious privileges determined by the opinion of other pilots? Jealous petty ones? Or just ones with different standards of risk? Stop being stupid the feds will stop most of these guys. A handful will slip through the cracks or fly sans license and insurance no way to stop them. Trying to stop them is anti American and harms us all.
 
ClimbnSink said:
Pilots need to drop the holier than thou hall monitor attitude. I don't doubt that the pilot in question might be below average but we haven't seen a NTSB report. Do you want your precious privileges determined by the opinion of other pilots? Jealous petty ones? Or just ones with different standards of risk? Stop being stupid the feds will stop most of these guys. A handful will slip through the cracks or fly sans license and insurance no way to stop them. Trying to stop them is anti American and harms us all.
Click to expand...

Anti-American?

IMHO, following the rules designed for the benefit and saftey of all and expecting one's fellow citizens to do the same fits within my definition of "American". I think social pressure can be a very effective control on the behavior of one's peers.

Flying is a privilege, not a right. We agree here.
 
I have no problem with social pressure, I believe that is the best(only) way to promote safety amongst ourselves. The problem is with self declared aviation judges reporting other pilots. No matter whether the pilot in the OP sucks or is just unlucky, he is currently without a plane and learning to live in a wheelchair. Yet the OP is ready to turn him in(for what?) if he should start flying again. Ridiculous.
COFlyBoy said:
Anti-American?

IMHO, following the rules designed for the benefit and saftey of all and expecting one's fellow citizens to do the same fits within my definition of "American". I think social pressure can be a very effective control on the behavior of one's peers.

Flying is a privilege, not a right. We agree here.
Click to expand...
 
ClimbnSink said:
I have no problem with social pressure, I believe that is the best(only) way to promote safety amongst ourselves. The problem is with self declared aviation judges reporting other pilots. No matter whether the pilot in the OP sucks or is just unlucky, he is currently without a plane and learning to live in a wheelchair. Yet the OP is ready to turn him in(for what?) if he should start flying again. Ridiculous.
Click to expand...

You must be the type of person who doesn't call the police when he sees his neigbor's house being robbed. I wouldn't want you for a neigbor.
 
Missa said:
You must be the type of person who doesn't call the police when he sees his neigbor's house being robbed. I wouldn't want you for a neigbor.
Click to expand...
No. That is not what he is saying at all....
 
TMetzinger said:
What he's saying is when he sees his neighbor breaking into someone else's house, he doesn't call the police?
Click to expand...

He is saying...

If the guy decides to fly again and he has a route to do so legally - which he likely will - provided he jumps through the right hoops..Let the guy fly again. Don't go complain to the FAA just because you don't like him.

Trying to take the above and compare it to ignoring a crime in progress is pretty ridiculous.
 
Last edited:
ClimbnSink said:
Stop being stupid the feds will stop most of these guys. A handful will slip through the cracks
Click to expand...

Hah! Sadly, the feds stop almost nobody. Unless they actually SEE you screw up, or you're talking to a controller and do something to **** them off, or there is other proof, the feds can't do a damn thing to you. That is why there are so many ****ty pilots in the sky.

Trying to stop them is anti American and harms us all.
Click to expand...

NOT trying to stop them, and having them crash and injure and kill innocent people and end up on the front page of every newspaper within 300 miles harms us all WAY worse. :incazzato:
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Hah! Sadly, the feds stop almost nobody. Unless they actually SEE you screw up, or you're talking to a controller and do something to **** them off, or there is other proof, the feds can't do a damn thing to you. That is why there are so many ****ty pilots in the sky.
Click to expand...

That's how it works - innocent until proven guilty, and we don't punnish people just because someone else says so, regardless of whether or not that person is right.

Not saying there aren't people who drive me nuts and I think have no business being at the control of an airplane, but everyone is thought to be a crappy pilot by someone. That alone shouldn't allow anyone to lose their ticket.

If the guy goes through his investigation and the Feds give him his ticket back, then just choose not to fly with him.
 
Ted DuPuis said:
That's how it works - innocent until proven guilty, and we don't punnish people just because someone else says so, regardless of whether or not that person is right.

Not saying there aren't people who drive me nuts and I think have no business being at the control of an airplane, but everyone is thought to be a crappy pilot by someone. That alone shouldn't allow anyone to lose their ticket.

If the guy goes through his investigation and the Feds give him his ticket back, then just choose not to fly with him.
Click to expand...

And I don't have a problem with that, Ted, as long as they fly solo. But as soon as someone without a medical, license, or who is non-compliant in another way takes up an unknowing passenger, I'll narc them out in a minute. Kill yourself if you want to but don't take an innocent with you.

OTOH I didn't report the crop duster that landed opposite direction over the top of me as I was rolling out on the runway one day...I should have...I let his crying wife with a new baby at home talk me out of it. I hope he doens't kill a fellow pilot one day because I didn't report his ignorant ass.
 
timwinters said:
And I don't have a problem with that, Ted, as long as they fly solo. But as soon as someone without a medical, license, or who is non-compliant in another way takes up an unknowing passenger, I'll narc them out in a minute. Kill yourself if you want to but don't take an innocent with you.
Click to expand...
Notice how Ted said IF the FAA gives him his ticket back. First off, they haven't even TAKEN his ticket yet. They have to take it first. Most likely they'll give him a 709 ride and let him take to the sky again.

We're not saying to ignore those that are operating illegally.
 
jesse said:
Notice how Ted said IF the FAA gives him his ticket back. First off, they haven't even TAKEN his ticket yet. They have to take it first. Most likely they'll give him a 709 ride and let him take to the sky again.

We're not saying to ignore those that are operating illegally.
Click to expand...

that's not the part of his post I disagreed with Jesse. The part I disagreed with was

we don't punnish people just because someone else says so, regardless of whether or not that person is right.
Click to expand...
 
timwinters said:
that's not the part of his post I disagreed with Jesse. The part I disagreed with was
Click to expand...

I said nothing about legal. If they're operating illegally, that is a completely different matter.

There are a couple of people who I think have no business being at the controls of a car, much less an airplane. However nobody takes those pilots' certs away just because I call up the FSDO and say "Hey, this guy sucks." That's how it ought to be, even if I'm right in saying that guy is an idiot. I have plenty of other avenues that I can take to try to get that person either out of the sky or a better pilot that is no longer dangerous.

A lot of people seem to think that excessive regulation should exist for the rest of the population, just not for them. It doesn't work that way.
 
Old Thread: Hello . There have been no replies in this thread for 365 days.
Content in this thread may no longer be relevant.
Perhaps it would be better to start a new thread instead.
Back
Top