ATC Audio of TNFlyGirl Fatal Accident Released

Status
Not open for further replies.
Lindberg said:
Who are the plaintiffs, who are they suing, and whose legal expenses are they winding up paying in this scenario?
Click to expand...
Her Mom and Dad are both gone. She was single and had no kids I recall. Her estate I guess? I really don't think any legal action will come forward.
 
Lindberg said:
Who are the plaintiffs, who are they suing, and whose legal expenses are they winding up paying in this scenario?
Click to expand...

You’d have to read before my post, others were talking litigation

I was saying if SOMEONE did, it would be a dead on arrival case
 
Barrett50 said:
From the 80s, there's a lot of truth to the worry over litigation. A nothingburger suit doesn't mean the great unwashed vegetables that serve on a jury won't award $10M
Click to expand...
A few years ago I the jury foreman on a personal injury case (auto accident). We didn't buy the plaintiff's argument, she and her sleazy lawyer were obviously milking it for all it was worth, so we awarded her the cost of medical expenses to date, and a bottle of aspirin per month for a year. The judge was having a hard time keeping a straight face as we read the verdict.
SixPapaCharlie said:
I will go out on a limb and say inspite of his goofy act, he kinda has some chops.

But mostly its his looks.
Click to expand...
I think you need to grow muttonchop sideburns like Flightchops.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
I would expect they would sue the deepest pockets…YouTube (Google), since they pay influencers for their content, they can be held responsible.
Click to expand...
I feel confidant that section 230 of the Comm act will effectively shield YT from liability. That section has been an unbendable device for many years from a lot of attacks. The Sandy Hook case was to include some online media site, but the judge tossed them as defendants. The upcoming suit over the Uvalde shooting includes Meta/FaceBook, and this may be a game-changing case WRT the section 230 protection. Even if Meta remains as a defendant, and then is found partially liable, that would almost certainly go to appeal. All the giant media players would spend literally billions to insure that shield remains ironclad. For my 2 cents, I am not a big fan of shielding media companies from liability, so we'll see how it all shakes out in a few years(suit filed in 2024, moving it's way though the prelims).
 
Even when the NTSB said the crash was caused by pilot induced oscillations, that doesn’t automatically mean TNFlyGirl was the only legally responsible party (in the eyes of an ambulance chasing lawyer). The oscillations themselves means that her control inputs caused the aircraft to oscillate and lose control. It doesn’t fully answer why that happened or whether something else made it worse... IMO the drugs she was taking was a factor in the equation.

The aircraft. Did it have a history of oscillation issues? Was there a design characteristic that made it harder to recover once oscillations started? Even though aircraft are certified by the FAA, certification doesn’t automatically shield a manufacturer from every type of lawsuit, especially if there was a manufacturing defect or a failure to warn about known handling traits.

The maintenance. If the flight controls or trim system were slightly mis-rigged, out of tolerance, or not properly adjusted, that can make an oscillation worse or harder to stop. Including the AP. In that situation, she may have overcontrolled the aircraft, but improper maintenance could have amplified the problem. The aircraft was destroyed so likely not something that can be proven easily but not out of the scope of the ambulance chaser.

The training. She had recently transitioned to complex/high performance. Are there any questions whether the instruction she received was adequate. This argument is pretty strong based on the NTSB report from one of her instructors.

The medication. If she was taking drugs that are disqualifying, the focus can turn her prescribing physician if they knew she was a pilot and failed to warn her not to fly while using the medications. Doctors aren’t responsible for policing per se, BUT they can be responsible if they failed to warn about impairment risks. Another ambulance chaser line of inquiry.

Considering the popularity of TNFlyGirl, an ambulance chaser would say "can I find a sympathetic jury?" If yes, then settlement would be in the defendant's best interest (who ever that maybe). YouTube has nothing to worry about...
 
Last edited:
My sweet summer children who think that there will be no lawsuit. Jenny's brother and sister probably have attorneys lined up already.

I'm thinking they will be asking for $10-20M. Minimum.

The defendants:

The Dr. who prescribed the meds.
The flight school.
The instructors.
Garmin.
Beech.
Century.

When the jury sees the pretty pictures of Jenny, they will side with her. Remember, she was this generation's Amelia Earhart.
 

Attachments

  • stella-liebeck.jpg
    stella-liebeck.jpg
    125.7 KB · Views: 37
FlightmechH3 said:
My sweet summer children who think that there will be no lawsuit. Jenny's brother and sister probably have attorneys lined up already.

I'm thinking they will be asking for $10-20M. Minimum.

The defendants:

The Dr. who prescribed the meds.
The flight school.
The instructors.
Garmin.
Beech.
Century.

When the jury sees the pretty pictures of Jenny, they will side with her. Remember, she was this generation's Amelia Earhart.
Click to expand...

I will agree (minus being a druggie) she was a bit like Amelia, she apparently wasn’t a very good pilot ether and messed up fair share of planes, had some issues navigating, had her name been Adam Earhart never would have been a story and probably would have lived longer

Amelia_Earhart%27s_plane_after_crashing_on_the_first_around_the_world_flight.jpg




Had she lived and her dad died, I wonder if she would have been criminally charged due to the drugs in her system.

If you are driving drunk with a passenger and crash killing your passenger, even if not due to being drunk, think the state still comes after you
 
Last edited:
FlightmechH3 said:
My sweet summer children who think that there will be no lawsuit. Jenny's brother and sister probably have attorneys lined up already.

I'm thinking they will be asking for $10-20M. Minimum.

The defendants:

The Dr. who prescribed the meds.
The flight school.
The instructors.
Garmin.
Beech.
Century.

When the jury sees the pretty pictures of Jenny, they will side with her. Remember, she was this generation's Amelia Earhart.
Click to expand...
Don't agree. The parties you list in my opinion, except Century, have little to worry about. Century closed business years ago. They be long gone so no avenue there.

Remember, checkride evaluations are "point in time".
 
FlightmechH3 said:
My sweet summer children who think that there will be no lawsuit. Jenny's brother and sister probably have attorneys lined up already.

I'm thinking they will be asking for $10-20M. Minimum.

The defendants:

The Dr. who prescribed the meds.
The flight school.
The instructors.
Garmin.
Beech.
Century.

When the jury sees the pretty pictures of Jenny, they will side with her. Remember, she was this generation's Amelia Earhart.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I don't see any way a lawsuit doesn't pop up here eventually. I might disagree with some of your defendants making it to the defense table. I think Beech/Textron has a GARA get out of jail free. That plane is many multiples of over 18 years old. As for the MD, it might be the AME, but probably not her personal MD. Or, maybe both. Flight school yes, instructors maybe, Garmin certainly, Century is a lost cause, there's no bucket left.

Other defendants more likely will be the DPE who endorsed her for the PPL, and almost sure the person who endorsed HP/complex. There seems to be a common verse from everyone looking at this that state she was beyond her capability, even if it were a Piper Colt. (maybe the easiest plane to fly and land next to an Ercoupe)
 
FlightmechH3 said:
My sweet summer children who think that there will be no lawsuit. Jenny's brother and sister probably have attorneys lined up already.

I'm thinking they will be asking for $10-20M. Minimum.

The defendants:

The Dr. who prescribed the meds.
The flight school.
The instructors.
Garmin.
Beech.
Century.

When the jury sees the pretty pictures of Jenny, they will side with her. Remember, she was this generation's Amelia Earhart.
Click to expand...

What the relevance of your attachment to this thread?
 

Attachments

  • stella-liebeck.jpg
    stella-liebeck.jpg
    125.7 KB · Views: 19
dmspilot said:
I posted a new vid which includes some footage of her flying her Cherokee, and some other various clips.
Click to expand...
Overly dramatic in spots but lots of good info. It’s obvious that she received bad information and poor instruction at times, and the she didn’t know enough to realize she had been getting bad instruction.

I’ve twice fired CFI’s when I realized they were giving poor instruction.
 
Serious question; I'm not a lawyer and don't play one on television. Why are the autopsy tox reports inadmissible?

DJTorrente said:
Their findings and conclusions are inadmissible. The data/evidence that they rely on in coming to those conclusions is not.
Click to expand...
 
dmspilot said:
I posted a new vid which includes some footage of her flying her Cherokee, and some other various clips.
Click to expand...
Wow... at 3:33 she hands controls to her non-pilot father just after departure at a super low altitude. Lots of instruction type interactions. Is it at all possible that she was giving her father instruction the day of the fatal accident?

Another wow... at 18:45 it appears the CFI has no clue what he is talking about and more of a guess rather than a high level of certainty or knowledge. A commenter said no CFI will ever be named in a lawsuit - this CFI is prime candidate. This video is proof of shabby instruction!

Overall, I think blaming the father is just pure non-sense... Jenny was PIC and her father was not a pilot. A basic pre-flight brief would include don't touch anything (at least without briefing on use and direct supervision by PIC).

Great video!
 
Her videos demonstrated that she was borderline incapable of being a pilot. I bet she edited out a lot of her egregious mistakes. The CFI's should have said no when she showed up with a bag of cameras for each flight. Sterile cockpit anyone? She had cameras all over the place.

She was not pilot. She played one.

She fits the profile of a sociopath. Successful in her business on the ground, but it didn't carry over into her flying abilities. It is quite obvious that sex sells and she used it to gain an income stream on the Tube. And really would not take instruction very well and probably was never told no by anyone. Wearing short shorts was a clue.
 
FlightmechH3 said:
She fits the profile of a sociopath. Successful in her business on the ground, but it didn't carry over into her flying abilities. It is quite obvious that sex sells and she used it to gain an income stream on the Tube. And really would not take instruction very well and probably was never told no by anyone. Wearing short shorts was a clue.
Click to expand...
This is definitely not at all misogynistic.
 
MauleSkinner said:
They aren’t.
Click to expand...
49 U.S.C. § 1154(b): No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.

BUT several cases challenged that law saying general facts are admissible (ie. toxicology report): Chiron Corp. v. NTSB, Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, Curry v. Chevron USA, Inc.

The NTSB’s determination (cause for accident) from the final report is inadmissible BUT the toxicology report (factual element) is admissible. The NTSB draws zero causation between the accident and the substances in her body, and no mention that the accident was caused by those substances in her body. If you think the toxicology report is not inadmissible so too the images and other general facts of the accident. There are many lawsuits that have used factual data from NTSB reports to argue their case. The reality is the toxicoly report is totally admissible. For example, Jenny had XYZ drugs in here system according to the NTSB toxicolgy report (fact). Admissible. Not allowed: (assume that NTSB found substances were cause - not the case but..) the NTSB report found that the substances in toxicology report caused the accident (determination).
 
Last edited:
DeltaCharlie172 said:
Read 49 U.S.C. § 1154(b): No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.

The NTSB’s determination (cause for accident) from the final report is inadmissible BUT the toxicology data (factual element) is admissible. The NTSB draws zero causation between the accident and the substances in her body, and no mention that the accident was caused by those substances in her body. If you think the toxicology report is not inadmissible so too the images and other general facts of the accident. There are many lawsuits that have used factual data from NTSB reports to argue their case. The reality is the toxicoly report is totally admissible. For example, Jenny had XYZ drugs in here system according to the NTSB toxicolgy report (fact). Admissible. Not allowed: (assume that NTSB found substances were cause - not the case but..) the NTSB report found that the substances in toxicology report caused the accident (determination).

Just a few cases challenging what is admissible and what is not: Chiron Corp. v. NTSB, Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, Curry v. Chevron USA, Inc.
Click to expand...
I think the tox report is admissible.

I stated that they aren’t inadmissible. I know, double negative and all that, but I was directly answering the question I quoted.
 
DeltaCharlie172 said:
49 U.S.C. § 1154(b): No part of a report of the Board, related to an accident or an investigation of an accident, may be admitted into evidence or used in a civil action for damages resulting from a matter mentioned in the report.

BUT several cases challenged that law saying general facts are admissible (ie. toxicology report): Chiron Corp. v. NTSB, Beech Aircraft Corp. v. Rainey, Curry v. Chevron USA, Inc.

The NTSB’s determination (cause for accident) from the final report is inadmissible BUT the toxicology report (factual element) is admissible. The NTSB draws zero causation between the accident and the substances in her body, and no mention that the accident was caused by those substances in her body. If you think the toxicology report is not inadmissible so too the images and other general facts of the accident. There are many lawsuits that have used factual data from NTSB reports to argue their case. The reality is the toxicoly report is totally admissible. For example, Jenny had XYZ drugs in here system according to the NTSB toxicolgy report (fact). Admissible. Not allowed: (assume that NTSB found substances were cause - not the case but..) the NTSB report found that the substances in toxicology report caused the accident (determination).
Click to expand...
So basically, the NTSB report is inadmissible but the NTSB docket is not?
 
asicer said:
So basically, the NTSB report is inadmissible but the NTSB docket is not?
Click to expand...

I’d have to look, but I doubt the NTSB dissected her, normally that’s the local sheriffs coroner or whatever other local resource is around
 
From years driving one of these, at 25:40 in the video above just before she says "stop, stop it" I can see her shoulder and upper body leaning forward, and using the trim wheel(above the pilot right knee). It appears, but is no way conclusive that at first she went the wrong way on the wheel, and then corrected and went the other way. Which is why the A/P de-coupled. This is a very common thing to do by a new pilot in the Beech. Edit to add - this is like a Piper driver with the trim on the roof going the wrong way at first, and then going the other way. I don't drive a Piper but I think it's clockwise, nose down, CCW nose up. I'm prepared to have it backwards...
 
Barrett50 said:
Edit to add - this is like a Piper driver with the trim on the roof going the wrong way at first, and then going the other way. I don't drive a Piper but I think it's clockwise, nose down, CCW nose up. I'm prepared to have it backwards...
Click to expand...
I resemble that remark. I have a 1966 Piper Cherokee C with the trim on the roof. Weird at first, but I absolutely love it now. When I first got it, I had to remember that when the handle is on my side of the cockpit, forward is nose-down and backward is nose-up, just like the yoke. If I tried to think in CW and CCW, I'd invariable get it confused. Now, of course, it's automatic and I prefer it to Cessna-style trim wheels.

I'm actually a couple of weeks away from getting a GFC-500 installed, including trim control. It's going to be very weird watching that little handle spin above my head without anyone touching it!
 
FlightmechH3 said:
Her videos demonstrated that she was borderline incapable of being a pilot. I bet she edited out a lot of her egregious mistakes. The CFI's should have said no when she showed up with a bag of cameras for each flight. Sterile cockpit anyone? She had cameras all over the place.

She was not pilot. She played one.

She fits the profile of a sociopath. Successful in her business on the ground, but it didn't carry over into her flying abilities. It is quite obvious that sex sells and she used it to gain an income stream on the Tube. And really would not take instruction very well and probably was never told no by anyone. Wearing short shorts was a clue.
Click to expand...
Her flights in the Cherokee weren't terrible. Not great. But not get lost immediately after departure level terrible.
 
DeltaCharlie172 said:
The NTSB determination or cause for accident is inadmissible BUT the factual elements (ie. toxicology report) are admissible.
Click to expand...
There isn't anything in the factual elements of the report that isn't in the docket.

But I suppose your typical jury is too lazy to go beyond reading the "Cliff notes".
 
I wasn't happy seeing her father take the control at less than 500AGL, and having very little understanding of coordinated flight, or stall, or such. I've let non-pilots fly a bit but over 4000AGL and while I am not distracted doing something else, but monitoring them constantly.

I have a semi-funny 'your plane' history. I had a pilot buddy in the back of the Citabria. He learned on a Cessna and never flown a stick type. I wanted to do a little paper and E6B nav work and said 'your plane'. I did my nav and E6B stuff and figured our new enroute time. I put stuff away and said 'my plane'. He never said anything during the exchange and then he said 'what?'. I replied 'my plane', and he said 'yeah, I know'. Turns out, he never took the stick when I said 'your plane' because his personal headset plug came undone. We had a chuckle about that, and how well it was trimmed.
 
dmspilot said:
I posted a new vid which includes some footage of her flying her Cherokee, and some other various clips.
Click to expand...
Wow. I assumed her dad was just a passenger, but watching him punch buttons on the autopilot... he might've killed them. That cfi spewing nonsense made me cringe too. It kinda sounds like her dad pushed her into the Beech, and maybe into flying a well. It feels like he wanted to be a pilot but never did it, so he was living through her. I actually feel bad for her after seeing that video.
 
AvNavCom said:
I resemble that remark. I have a 1966 Piper Cherokee C with the trim on the roof. Weird at first, but I absolutely love it now. When I first got it, I had to remember that when the handle is on my side of the cockpit, forward is nose-down and backward is nose-up, just like the yoke. If I tried to think in CW and CCW, I'd invariable get it confused. Now, of course, it's automatic and I prefer it to Cessna-style trim wheels.

I'm actually a couple of weeks away from getting a GFC-500 installed, including trim control. It's going to be very weird watching that little handle spin above my head without anyone touching it!
Click to expand...

I flew rental Cherokees for a while. The trim works just like a screw. Run the screw into the sky and the nose goes up. Back the screw out of the sky and the nose comes down. Very natural once you think of it that way.
 
Half Fast said:
I flew rental Cherokees for a while. The trim works just like a screw. Run the screw into the sky and the nose goes up. Back the screw out of the sky and the nose comes down. Very natural once you think of it that way.
Click to expand...
That's making the assumption that the person knows which way a screw goes in-and-out... Righty tighty lefty loosey.
 
I recall something vaguely a mnemonic about a 'screw up' for Piper trim? As in, when you turn the screw, the plane will go 'up'?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top