And right on Queue... the suing begins

poadeleted21

poadeleted21

Touchdown! Greaser!
Joined
Aug 18, 2011
Messages
12,332
This was a horrible crash. Looks like pilot cut some corners and the chain began... Multiple "pilot error" findings in the NTSB. Wife is now suing Pilatus among others.

The eight-page complaint alleges that manufacturers of the Pilatus PC-12/45 that Ellison Summerfield, 65, was piloting had a defective fuel system and other components that made the aircraft “unreasonably dangerous.” The lawsuit also claims Martin Aviation failed to properly maintain the plane.
Click to expand...

...

The National Transportation Safety Board ruled in July 2011 that the crash was due to pilot error. The board determined that Summerfield cut safety corners and then did not take the appropriate action after discovering a problem with his fuel system.
Click to expand...

EDIT. Forgot link.
http://mtstandard.com/news/local/pi...cle_b8f15994-730c-11e1-b570-001871e3ce6c.html

NTSB Findings here.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows.
(1) the pilot's failure to ensure that a fuel system icing inhibitor was added to the fuel before the flights on the day of the accident;
(2) his failure to take appropriate remedial actions after a low fuel pressure state (resulting from icing within the fuel system) and a
lateral fuel imbalance developed, including diverting to a suitable airport before the fuel imbalance became extreme; and (3) a loss of
control while the pilot was maneuvering the left wing-heavy airplane near the approach end of the runway
Click to expand...

http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/fcmx2j55eoln4nzq0beqx33r1/D03212012120000.pdf
 
Last edited:
What corners can you cut that creates a "problem with his fuel system"?
 
bartmc said:
This was a horrible crash. Looks like pilot cut some corners and the chain began... Multiple "pilot error" findings in the NTSB. Wife is now suing Pilatus among others.
Click to expand...
That is normal....spouse suing MFR. Our legal system is all about who has the deep pockets to pay far more than actual responsibility.

I am actually suprised she waited this long to sue.
 
My bet is she collects from the fueling FBO's insurance, not completely undeservedly.
 
So wich is it, was the plane deffective from the factory or was it not kept in working order?

Love the double talk. Seems to me that if the system was not kept in working order Pilatus should be off the hook and that if it was working the maintainer should be.

But IANAL
 
Henning said:
My bet is she collects from the fueling FBO's insurance, not completely undeservedly.
Click to expand...

When the fuel turned to jello, it started a fuel imbalance (link 2), he decided to press on(link 3), it got worse then he was forced to divert...too late. All the warning signs were there and the opportunity to land was too.

Where does the FBO (I don't think she's suing them anyway) bear responsibility? She's suing Pilatus and the operator of the plane, the pilot filled the plane at a stop on the way.

Sorry, forgot to post the link to the full story.

http://mtstandard.com/news/local/pi...cle_b8f15994-730c-11e1-b570-001871e3ce6c.html
 
Skylane81E said:
So wich is it, was the plane deffective from the factory or was it not kept in working order?

Love the double talk. Seems to me that if the system was not kept in working order Pilatus should be off the hook and that if it was working the maintainer should be.

But IANAL
Click to expand...

They will probably say that the plane was defective as built because it requires de-icer for the fuel, as do almost all high-altitude turbines. Pilatus obviously should have built an airplane that doesn't need de-icer.
 
airguy said:
They will probably say that the plane was defective as built because it requires de-icer for the fuel, as do almost all high-altitude turbines. Pilatus obviously should have built an airplane that doesn't need de-icer.
Click to expand...
By that logic (I realize it's "theirs" not yours) all airplanes are "defective" in that if you don't operate them as expected by the manufacturer and the FAA a problem may develop.
 
bartmc said:
When the fuel turned to jello, it started a fuel imbalance (link 2), he decided to press on(link 3), it got worse then he was forced to divert...too late. All the warning signs were there and the opportunity to land was too.

Where does the FBO (I don't think she's suing them anyway) bear responsibility? She's suing Pilatus and the operator of the plane, the pilot filled the plane at a stop on the way.

Sorry, forgot to post the link to the full story.

http://mtstandard.com/news/local/pi...cle_b8f15994-730c-11e1-b570-001871e3ce6c.html
Click to expand...


The way the system works is 'contributory negligence' when there are multiple errors involved. They figure out the total damages due and then figure out each parties contribution. Back to the 6 link accident chain I have spoken of in threads past, there are multiple owners of those links and different link owner types can be graded with a multiplier index for fraudulent intent.

The average juror who pumps gas into their car will believe that the FBO/fuel supplier providing the fuel in the plane have the duty to sell them a fuel suitable for the typical flight profile of that aircraft.
 
Last edited:
I thought that an NTSB report could not be used in court? Maybe I'm not remembering right, but I thought that's part of the deal?
 
gismo said:
By that logic (I realize it's "theirs" not yours) all airplanes are "defective" in that if you don't operate them as expected by the manufacturer and the FAA a problem may develop.
Click to expand...

Correct - but she's not doing this for logic, she's doing it for money. The aircraft manufacturer cannot possibly envision all possible failure scenarios or reasons for lawsuits against them - but they damn good and well that there will be lawsuits against for problems they did not cause, and they set aside money for that from the purchase price of their products. It's a crappy way of doing business but it's a necessary evil.
 
His obvious failure to live in San Diego was probably the main contributor to the chain. His widow should sue San Diego for not providing easy access to an equivalent home here. Same for Phoenix too. She should name Phoenix as well.

John
 
I wonder if this will go to court like the Carnahan case where the wife sued everyone? I never understood what the term "jury of your peers" meant. I don't think such a concept really exists.
 
Anthony said:
I wonder if this will go to court like the Carnahan case where the wife sued everyone? I never understood what the term "jury of your peers" meant. I don't think such a concept really exists.
Click to expand...

A "jury of your peers" is a group of middle age to geriatric people who could not find a way to get out of jury duty. They feel like they have been shanghaied to work for free, and are not happy with it at all. They are even less happy when they have to sit and listen to lawyers who are dressed in suits that cost more money than they can earn in a month, in some cases, a year, while they are being paid five dollars a day for the honor of serving.

-John
 
John Baker said:
A "jury of your peers" is a group of middle age to geriatric people who could not find a way to get out of jury duty. They feel like they have been shanghaied to work for free, and are not happy with it at all. They are even less happy when they have to sit and listen to lawyers who are dressed in suits that cost more money than they can earn in a month, in some cases, a year, while they are being paid five dollars a day for the honor of serving.

-John
Click to expand...

Particularly when $5 a day doesn't even buy a decient lunch around a court house let alone cover parking.
 
John Baker said:
A "jury of your peers" is a group of middle age to geriatric people who could not find a way to get out of jury duty. They feel like they have been shanghaied to work for free, and are not happy with it at all. They are even less happy when they have to sit and listen to lawyers who are dressed in suits that cost more money than they can earn in a month, in some cases, a year, while they are being paid five dollars a day for the honor of serving.

-John
Click to expand...
Well said!!
 
Fearless Tower said:
I am actually suprised she waited this long to sue.
Click to expand...
Filing the lawsuit is not the first step. There are usually many months of settlement negotiations between the plaintiffs and the respective insurance companies before a lawsuit is filed. Settlement negotiations may have broken down; more likely, the lawsuit had to be filed because the statute of limitation was approaching. There may be many months or years before trial, and settlement negotiations can continue while the suit is pending.

And you can bet that each of the defendants is pointing their fingers at all the others. The plaintiff's lawyer has to bring in all defendants who could reasonably be liable, because he could be liable for malpractice if the case goes to trial years later and the jury finds fault with an "empty chair". It often takes extensive investigation, discovery, depositions, etc., to sort all that out.
 
Last edited:
Based on what I read, there's nobody at fault but the pilot, unless he ordered JET-A with prist and didn't get it.
 
And it is getting harder to find jet A that is not pre mixed. Incidents like this may have something to do with this.
 
ronnieh said:
And it is getting harder to find jet A that is not pre mixed. Incidents like this may have something to do with this.
Click to expand...

Why would you not want premixed? It seems at the altitudes kerosene burners fly at, It would almost always be necessary. Cost? Some Kerosene burners don't require it?
 
Last edited:
Henning said:
My bet is she collects from the fueling FBO's insurance, not completely undeservedly.
Click to expand...

He self-fueled and wasn't seen using prist on the surveillance camera recording. The fuel tested fine. Not sure there is much blame on the FBO.
 
bartmc said:
Why would you not want premixed? It seems at the altitudes kerosene burners fly at, It would almost always be necessary. Cost?
Click to expand...

It is only necessary for aircraft that don't have fuel heat exchangers. Why should the operators who don't need it pay for it?
 
weilke said:
It is only necessary for aircraft that don't have fuel heat exchangers. Why should the operators who don't need it pay for it?
Click to expand...

Wasn't suggesting they did. My pocketbook doesn't allow me to fly turbines that often.

Hmmm.... Lawsuit maybe based on Pilatus' negligence by designing an airplane that doesn't have a fuel heat exchanger?
 
weilke said:
It is only necessary for aircraft that don't have fuel heat exchangers. Why should the operators who don't need it pay for it?
Click to expand...

On another note, why do I pay for all this octane and lead that I don't need?
 
bartmc said:
On another note, why do I pay for all this octane and lead that I don't need?
Click to expand...

Because that earns you keep on an elite club of vintage flying trap collectors silly. You don't want to let the riff raff in. I hear they put cheap parts on their contraptions, even car gas on their tanks...and then *gasp* they fly the snot out of their contraptions! ...the savages. :D
 
Pilawt said:
Filing the lawsuit is not the first step. There are usually many months of settlement negotiations between the plaintiffs and the respective insurance companies before a lawsuit is filed. Settlement negotiations may have broken down; more likely, the lawsuit had to be filed because the statute of limitation was approaching. There may be many months or years before trial, and settlement negotiations can continue while the suit is pending.

And you can bet that each of the defendants is pointing their fingers at all the others. The plaintiff's lawyer has to bring in all defendants who could reasonably be liable, because he could be liable for malpractice if the case goes to trial years later and the jury finds fault with an "empty chair". It often takes extensive investigation, discovery, depositions, etc., to sort all that out.
Click to expand...

How many times do lawyers tell plaintiffs to sue people without assets?
 
weilke said:
He self-fueled and wasn't seen using prist on the surveillance camera recording. The fuel tested fine. Not sure there is much blame on the FBO.
Click to expand...

Was there a button to press to add Prist?
 
Matthew said:
I thought that an NTSB report could not be used in court? Maybe I'm not remembering right, but I thought that's part of the deal?
Click to expand...

It is a bit of a gray area. What is clear is that the Board's final determinations aren't admissable. But the factual portions of the final report, and investigators' factual reports, might be. Also a NTSB investigator can be personally deposed and questioned about his factual findings once the lawyer jumps through some hoops.
 
bartmc said:
The lengthy NTSB said, there were no provisions for it on the pump, or something like that.
Click to expand...


Yep, the jurors won't likely go for that, most everything that's burning Jet A is susceptible fuel freezing and that the pilot has a right to expect a fuel suitable for use be dispensed. That's enough for a at least 15% contributory negligence, call it between $150k and $10MM (or policy limits) depending on the guy's value and the jury's propensity.
 
Henning said:
Yep, the jurors won't likely go for that, most everything that's burning Jet A is susceptible fuel freezing and that the pilot has a right to expect a fuel suitable for use be dispensed. That's enough for a at least 15% contributory negligence, call it between $150k and $10MM (or policy limits) depending on the guy's value and the jury's propensity.
Click to expand...

FBO isn't named in the suit though. At least not from what I gathered. I wouldn't award any damages for that if I was on the jury.
 
bartmc said:
FBO isn't named in the suit though. At least not from what I gathered. I wouldn't award any damages for that if I was on the jury.
Click to expand...
If the plaintiff's attorney has his way, there won't be any pilots on the jury.
 
Picky picky picky.

gismo said:
By that logic (I realize it's "theirs" not yours) all airplanes are "defective" in that if you don't operate them as expected by the manufacturer and the FAA a problem may develop.
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top