Kobe Bryant dead in helicopter crash

Kenny Phillips said:
And yet I cannot think of another recent clueless celeb that was killed in a helicopter crash in SoCal due to foggy weather and an incompetent pilot.
Click to expand...

David Keith Martz didn't take any celebrity customers with him when he finally flew a 182 into a mountainside. This was while the FAA was working on his fourth revocation.
 
luvflyin said:
Surprised all the Usual Suspects aren’t named also. The Deep Pockets. Lawyers, how’s this work? Can they be added later?
Click to expand...
Usually yes, within the statute of limitation period, or as may be further limited by local rules. I haven't practiced in SoCal since 1995, but when I left, by local "fast-track" rules all parties had to be joined and served within a fairly short time after the suit was filed. And if within that time the plaintiff's lawyer hasn't named all the parties whom he/she in good faith has reason to believe might be proved responsible (which might take years of investigation and formal discovery proceedings), he/she runs the risk of a legal malpractice action.

Often the defendants' insurance company lawyers will cross-complain against other "usual suspects" to try to deflect away from their own liability, or get contribution from other potentially responsible parties.
 
Pilawt said:
Usually yes, within the statute of limitation period, or as may be further limited by local rules. I haven't practiced in SoCal since 1995, but when I left, by local "fast-track" rules all parties had to be joined and served within a fairly short time after the suit was filed. And if within that time the plaintiff's lawyer hasn't named all the parties whom he/she in good faith has reason to believe might be proved responsible (which might take years of investigation and formal discovery proceedings), he/she runs the risk of a legal malpractice action.

Often the defendants' insurance company lawyers will cross-complain against other "usual suspects" to try to deflect away from their own liability, or get contribution from other potentially responsible parties.
Click to expand...
Which is why we need 'losing party pays'.
 
donjohnston said:
The aircraft manufacture, the engine manufacture, the avionics manufacture, the company that vacuumed the carpets the day before the flight, etc, etc, etc.
Click to expand...
The NTSB already ruined out mechanical, no? Do you have some other info?
 
Pilawt said:
Usually yes, within the statute of limitation period, or as may be further limited by local rules. I haven't practiced in SoCal since 1995, but when I left, by local "fast-track" rules all parties had to be joined and served within a fairly short time after the suit was filed. And if within that time the plaintiff's lawyer hasn't named all the parties whom he/she in good faith has reason to believe might be proved responsible (which might take years of investigation and formal discovery proceedings), he/she runs the risk of a legal malpractice action.

Often the defendants' insurance company lawyers will cross-complain against other "usual suspects" to try to deflect away from their own liability, or get contribution from other potentially responsible parties.
Click to expand...
Which is why CA cases always have a string of John Does, I guess.
 
Wouldn't the damages be based on the future earnings all who died in the crash could exceed any insurance policy Island Express had? Someone like Kobe Bryant could be lot more then typical middle class person. I remember reading about the Wrongful death lawsuit over John Ritter his widow claimed loss of future earnings $350k an episode of TV show he was on at the time.
 
donjohnston said:
You're confusing the issue with facts... literally.
Click to expand...

As I understand it, NTSB conclusions are specifically not allowed to be used in court. Now, the facts or conclusions they come up with are certainly good starting points to independently "discover" the same information.
 
The point (which is obviously being missed) is that in many aviation lawsuits the plaintiff will name anyone and everyone that had anything to do with just about any aspect of the flight. Which is why I added "and the company that vacuumed the carpets the day before the flight".

:rolleyes:
 
kyleb said:
As I understand it, NTSB conclusions are specifically not allowed to be used in court.
Click to expand...
FYI: the NTSB "Probable Cause" is not admissible but the "Factual Reports" are. But actual "discovery" of NTSB info and personal is limited. As for any substantiated "facts" we are still 18-24 months away from that point.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
And yet I cannot think of another recent clueless celeb that was killed in a helicopter crash in SoCal due to foggy weather and an incompetent pilot.
Click to expand...

There really are people who do this. I can't remember which case it was, but I was reading a while back about a particular accident and one of the things that shocked me was that the operator actually had two or three 135 certificates, and when one was suspended, they merely kept operating under a different one until the suspension was lifted. At that point, why do we even have the FAA?!? :eek:

Lindberg said:
The NTSB already ruined out mechanical, no? Do you have some other info?
Click to expand...

NTSB is inadmissible in court... And it doesn't matter. In the 2000 Mel Carnahan crash, Parker Hannifin was named as a defendant because they made the vacuum pump on the plane. Even though it was found that the AI was what failed, and the vacuum pump was specifically found to be working properly at the time of the accident, somehow the jury found them to still share liability and they were on the hook for millions of dollars. After that, they stopped making GA parts, at least for a while.
 
There was a crash where a guy flew into a mountain, family sued Lycoming despite which evidence shows was running...and won.


Tom
 
flyingcheesehead said:
There really are people who do this. I can't remember which case it was, but I was reading a while back about a particular accident and one of the things that shocked me was that the operator actually had two or three 135 certificates, and when one was suspended, they merely kept operating under a different one until the suspension was lifted. At that point, why do we even have the FAA?!? :eek:
Click to expand...

§119.5 Certifications, authorizations, and prohibitions.

(d) A person authorized to engage in common carriage under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter, or both, shall be issued only one certificate authorizing such common carriage, regardless of the kind of operation or the class or size of aircraft to be operated.
 
donjohnston said:
The point (which is obviously being missed) is that in many aviation lawsuits the plaintiff will name anyone and everyone that had anything to do with just about any aspect of the flight. Which is why I added "and the company that vacuumed the carpets the day before the flight".

:rolleyes:
Click to expand...
It is against the rules at POA to make a simple and frankly obvious... observation without it being picked apart by a bunch of weenies.
 
Doc Holliday said:
§119.5 Certifications, authorizations, and prohibitions.

(d) A person authorized to engage in common carriage under part 121 or part 135 of this chapter, or both, shall be issued only one certificate authorizing such common carriage, regardless of the kind of operation or the class or size of aircraft to be operated.
Click to expand...

Yes, but there's also this:

§1.1 General definitions.

Person means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, or governmental entity.

So, Bob Jones goes out and start's Bob's Aviation LLC and Jones Flying Services LLC and gets two 135 certificates...

I think it's likely much more common that you have two separate entities that start their 135s separately and then one buys the other, but it is done.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
Yes, but there's also this:

§1.1 General definitions.

Person means an individual, firm, partnership, corporation, company, association, joint-stock association, or governmental entity.

So, Bob Jones goes out and start's Bob's Aviation LLC and Jones Flying Services LLC and gets two 135 certificates...

I think it's likely much more common that you have two separate entities that start their 135s separately and then one buys the other, but it is done.
Click to expand...

It's not as easy as you try to make it sound. Plus, it's much more involved, especially when it comes to aircraft.
 
flyingcheesehead said:
So, Bob Jones goes out and start's Bob's Aviation LLC and Jones Flying Services LLC and gets two 135 certificates...
Click to expand...
As mentioned above, it's not that simple. Ole Bob would need a Part 119 vetting for each Part 135 app which would preclude his getting the second Part 135 certificate as owner of both LLCs. It would require a number of ASIs to violate the FARs for that to happen.
flyingcheesehead said:
I can't remember which case it was, but I was reading a while back about a particular accident and one of the things that shocked me was that the operator actually had two or three 135 certificates, and when one was suspended, they merely kept operating under a different one until the suspension was lifted.
Click to expand...
I can recall several similar cases but the "operator" you reference was probably a non-certified holding company that owned several Part 135 companies. Unfortunately, the certified Part 135 operators were not following their approved OpSpecs which mandated certain operational control requirements, i.e., they broke the rules to comply. There was a similar issue in the helicopter EMS field where hospitals owned the aircraft but used a Part 135 company to operate the aircraft. Any time the hospital (non-certified holding company) would try to effect control over "their" aircraft it was a OpSpecs violation and led to some interesting fines and repercussions to the Part 135 certificate holder.
flyingcheesehead said:
I think it's likely much more common that you have two separate entities that start their 135s separately and then one buys the other, but it is done.
Click to expand...
And when one certified operator is acquired or merged with another certified operator then there is a whole different process to follow which ends up with one operating certificate surrendered at the end of that process.
 
MooneyDriver78 said:
http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=main.textpost&id=5fb16b92-9026-42b9-9583-f783a59cd8c0

You can search for more articles:

“lycoming engine lawsuit mountain 26 million”
Click to expand...
Thanks. I didn't see the evidence of a running engine in the NTSB factual, but it does say the float was flooded, which was the basis for the families' claim. Whether or not we agree that was the primary cause, or that it makes the engine manufacturer responsible, the facts were at least consistent with the plaintiffs' theory. There are no known facts here that I'm aware of consistent with liability for the engine or airframe manufacturer.
 
kell490 said:
Wouldn't the damages be based on the future earnings all who died in the crash could exceed any insurance policy Island Express had? Someone like Kobe Bryant could be lot more then typical middle class person. I remember reading about the Wrongful death lawsuit over John Ritter his widow claimed loss of future earnings $350k an episode of TV show he was on at the time.
Click to expand...

Maybe. But the company has some insurance and owns 10...strike that, 9...aircraft valued as somewhere between 6 and 10 million dollars, maybe less if being sold in distress. Subtract their legal fees from that. After you take all that, what else is there? It doesn't matter what the future earnings were, once all the money is gone, it's gone.
 
Lindberg said:
There are no known facts here that I'm aware of consistent with liability for the engine or airframe manufacturer.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, facts and tort law don't always go hand-in-hand. He who convinces the jury best usually retains the upper hand.
 
Bell206 said:
Unfortunately, facts and tort law don't always go hand-in-hand. He who convinces the jury best usually retains the upper hand.
Click to expand...
Correct. I worked for a very large law office for a decade as the IT guy. It was more about emotion than facts, unfortunately.
 
Bell206 said:
Unfortunately, facts and tort law don't always go hand-in-hand. He who convinces the jury best usually retains the upper hand.
Click to expand...
That being the case, maybe Lycoming should have hired better lawyers to argue during the month-long trial. What happened to that case on appeal?
 
Lindberg said:
That being the case, maybe Lycoming should have hired better lawyers to argue during the month-long trial. What happened to that case on appeal?
Click to expand...
Sometimes it's not just the caliber of attorneys on one side but the circumstances of the plaintiff and other non-technical issues that sway a jury. I've listened to several jury specialists discuss what can motivate a juror's thought process during a trial. Throw in the "deep pockets" of various defendants and it can make for a rather unique quandary come verdict time. Don't know anything of the appeal.
 
Last edited:
flyingcheesehead said:
So, Bob Jones goes out and start's Bob's Aviation LLC and Jones Flying Services LLC and gets two 135 certificates...

I think it's likely much more common that you have two separate entities that start their 135s separately and then one buys the other, but it is done.
Click to expand...
A notorious helicopter operator in the Houston area (some of you already know of whom I speak) bought another operator, mainly for the crappy assets. Sale included the 135 certificate. The notorious operator just pulled out the "standby certificate" on occasions when his cert was suspended. I recall a couple of instances.
 
Maxnr said:
The notorious operator just pulled out the "standby certificate" on occasions when his cert was suspended. I recall a couple of instances.
Click to expand...
If talking red/black/white aircraft that was one of cases I mentioned above. There was another company that did the same. However, HH didn't "own" that "standby certificate" or aircraft as it was hidden in a holding company. Plus the circles the owner of HH ran in didn't quite care for the rules much as most were self-made people and didn't care about how their people got offshore. So to say HH would whip out a "standby" certificate and fly is not exactly correct. Regardless it caught up with him in the end especially after the red/green/yellow tag fiasco.
 
Bell206 said:
Sometimes it's not just the caliber of attorneys on one side but the circumstances of the plaintiff and other non-technical issues that sway a jury.
Click to expand...

Also, the venue where the matter is filed. Certain areas have a higher concentration of morons who would give lots of money for stupid reasons than other areas do.
 
Last edited:
Bell206 said:
Sometimes it's not just the caliber of attorneys on one side but the circumstances of the plaintiff and other non-technical issues that sway a jury. I've listened to several jury specialists discuss what can motivate a juror's thought process during a trial. Throw in the "deep pockets" of various defendants and it can make for a rather unique quandary come verdict time. Don't know anything of the appeal.
Click to expand...
The magic word is emotion, something that has no place in law, and yet is used by both sides in court.Been there, done that.
 
The S-76 is a very capable helicopter, particularly when properly equipped for IFR flight, to fly into IMC.

Perhaps this comment is a bit late but experience in forensic examinations and investigations has caused me to be a bit more circumspect when commenting on the operations of an aircraft by other PIC's and aircrew.

For whatever reasons, the civil operators of rotary-wing aircraft seem much more likely to ignore the lessons of military operators than is the case for operators of fixed-wing aircraft. This seems to occur in operations in weather at or approaching weather minimums as is reported to have existed on the date of this accident.

There are several existent hypotheses as to why accidents such as this one are now far more likely, on a per hour of operation, or in the totality of circumstances basis, to occur when civil operations of rotary-wing aircraft are compared to those of military operations. In this instance, I would suggest that "Human Factors" were more relevant to the end result than aircraft or systems failures. One of the first relevant factors is the perceived "need to go" attitude that owners seem to impress upon their aircrew members and the absence of any "intervening authority" that would support, or require that such a flight (or mission) be scrubbed due to environmental conditions. Given the marginal meteorological conditions, and the variance in terrain altitudes and abrupt elevation changes it might be concluded that there was a question as to judgment in even attempting to conduct such a flight as was planned. S-VFR Clearances can become a trap for a PIC who is not both current and qualified for flight into IMC as the potential for inadvertent penetration of such conditions would almost be a probability rather than a possibility without due diligence and a willingness to avoid same and to RTB or remain clear of same, even should it require that the aircraft descend in VFR conditions pending the receipt of the appropriate IFR clearance to a suitable destination in lieu of continuing flight marginal conditions that could result in the need for radical, or emergent maneuvers to avoid penetrating into zero, or near-zero visibility, particularly if the precise position of the aircraft relative to abrupt elevation variances is not known at all times. Operating an aircraft in such (near, and/or actual instrument) meteorological conditions can consume near or absolute concentration of the PIC which may exceed their ability to remain cognizant of weather and obstacle avoidance while successfully maintaining absolute geographical integrity in navigation and concurrent attention to aircraft systems management and airframe operational limitations. The workload can exceed the capacity of a single pilot of such an aircraft almost instantaneously, well before they would be able to "see and avoid" hazards by virtue of time delays inherent in the rates of interpretation of even the most competent airman's mental and physical capabilities. The absence of an IFR-rated co-pilot, first officer or whatever term might be most applicable to such operations can represent the proximate cause of the failure of a single pilot to avoid such an accident as, at a minimum, the pilot not actually flying the aircraft while it was being operated under visual, or special-visual flight rules would be "flying inside the cockpit", e.g. monitoring the operational factors relative to the aircraft systems, ensuring that any maneuvering would not exceed the design-specifications for the airframe and concurrently backing up the operation of the aircraft by the operational pilot by remaining on instruments and prepared to advise him as to current position as can be determined by the navigational equipment and systems onboard, proximity to obstacles both natural and man-made and to be be prepared to assume control of the aircraft should it inadvertently incur IMC so as to preclude the necessity of the pilot then operating the airframe in VFR/VMC modality to virtually immediately translate into instrument flight control and management of flying profile.

I can say, having been an Operations Officer/Approving Authority in any number of military flight units over the years that as we learned the hard way the necessity of Risk Management using pre-flight Risk Assessment Protocols and the wisdom of simply not flying, or approving the operation of an aircraft under the meteorological conditions reported to exist at the time of departure, enroute and at the expected time of arrival at the destination landing site, and crewmember population aboard the accident aircraft. Perhaps it is the "undue influence" of the owner(s) of aircraft, and those who employ flight crews, and their failure to recognize the limitations of both airframe and those who operate it that create a predicate for such incidents, however, that does not relieve the PIC of responsibility of the operation of the aircraft and the acceptance of any, and all requested missions and mission profiles. I am not being hyper-idealistic, nor absolute in my belief that the aircrew responsible for the successful completion of the flight tasks can refuse to fly them without risk as to their future employment, however, civil aircraft operators and crew members should, along with those who design, manufacture and sell these aircraft begin to find a means of conveying to the owners of same the fact that despite the best of intentions these aircraft are not able to repeal the natural laws of flight and aerodynamics, and that notwithstanding the desires of all involved in their operations to meet each and every need of the purchaser/owner/responsible party there will inevitably come a time when the PIC will simply have to say to their employer the word "No", and insist that they find an alternative means of reaching their destination if time is of the essence and the flight cannot be delayed until more suitable conditions exist for its successful completion. Perhaps that might have been a better course of action if it were to have been practicable for the PIC of this aircraft to have said to Bryant, et.al., just take a limousine and travel on the roadways and if the weather clears up that he would just pick them up in the helicopter and fly them home.
 
Kenny Phillips said:
Which is why we need 'losing party pays'.
Click to expand...

Also remove the contingency litigation make all attorneys get paid by the hour. Most lawsuits never go to court attorney's send some letters threaten a lawsuit their client has agreed to 40% cut for the attorney. The Class action lawsuit where everyone gets $10 gift card attorney's make 1-2 million. If you get rid of the motive for attorney's to make big profits probably see inflation drop a % point, and GDP go up. Lot of this is why our auto, and health insurance is so high now.
 
Palmpilot said:
NTSB news release yesterday, with links to documents:

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/press-releases/Pages/NR20200617.aspx

Associated Press article about it:

https://www.everythinglubbock.com/sports/report-kobe-bryant-pilot-may-have-been-disoriented-in-fog/
Click to expand...

another reason why CNN is complete trash (I know u didn't link CNN)…..CNN's headline reads "Text messages before the flight that killed Kobe Bryant appear to show pilot became disoriented in fog". NO, wrong AGAIN, CNN. text msgs showed him DISCUSSING the weather, and that's all they showed. CNN warped that into a blatant lie. muther effers, I hate them. fk. sorry.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top