Man who crashed snowmobile into a parked Black Hawk helicopter suing government for $9.5M

455 Bravo Uniform said:
What does that mean in mere-mortal speak? :D
Click to expand...
As described above, the stabilator is computer controlled during normal ops. Airspeed is one of the inputs for position but also uses collective position, lateral accelerometers and vertical accelerometers.

Generally if it’s last flight of the day it goes to 0 degrees. Fortunately for the snowmobile rider, it was a temporary stop so the stab is left in the full down position. He impacted about halfway up. At 0 degrees the trailing edge would’ve been head level.
 
So, next time the crew should follow procedure and slew the stab up? Save the taxpayer $3 mil?
 
I am bemused by the notion that a dark green helicopter on a snow-covered field is "camouflaged."
But, both sides had their day in court. That's how the system works.
 
Ed Haywood said:
I am bemused by the notion that a dark green helicopter on a snow-covered field is "camouflaged."
But, both sides had their day in court. That's how the system works.
Click to expand...
Well, technically, anything dark is camouflaged at night.
 
I prefer having a reckless operator of a motor vehicle award himself a Darwin Award vs three million of my (and your) money.
 
AV8R_87 said:
I prefer having a reckless operator of a motor vehicle award himself a Darwin Award vs three million of my (and your) money.
Click to expand...
I'm curious why you believe the court wouldn't still have found the government 60% (or more) responsible, or would award a lower judgment if Smith were dead.
 
Can the government sue him for his 40% of the damages to the Blackhawk?

As others do too, I disagree with this judgement. There was no way the Blackhawk crew could have predicted they would be in the way of a snowmobile. They were operating with permission of the runway owner. I can see some negligence on the runway owner, but I still feel the majority is on the snow mobile operator. He was driving at too high a speed to avoid hitting a stationary object at night. He out drove both the snowmobile and his ability to see and stop.
 
Lindberg said:
I'm curious why you believe the court wouldn't still have found the government 60% (or more) responsible, or would award a lower judgment if Smith were dead.
Click to expand...
Because a jury is a lot more impressed by the drama of the actual injured being present in the courtroom, regardless if the reason for his injuries is his own stupidity.

What if there was a disabled aircraft on that runway instead? Lands, prop strike, bent nose gear, can't move it, no way to illuminate it (for whatever reason). Airport manager knows, he NOTAMed the runway and is on his way to help move the plane.
Would this idiot have the right to sue the owner for millions because he operated the snowmobile in a reckless manner on an active runway?
 
Lindberg said:
I'm curious why you believe the court wouldn't still have found the government 60% (or more) responsible, or would award a lower judgment if Smith were dead.
Click to expand...
Dead men are less likely to file suit in the first place.
 
I think it's cute that every poster here knows to ignore any media article about anything aviation related, but is willing to come to definitive conclusions about the facts of a legal case from reporting in the same media.
 
geezer said:
Camouflaged? looks to me like basic BROWN tones, should stand out like a beached whale on the snow that this guy was zooming along on.

Surprised no one has commented on the drastic difference in actual color, snow to the damage pictures.
Click to expand...
The US has a problem with lawsuits. That's why everything is idiot proof or warning labels everywhere
 
DaleB said:
You are correct, of course. It’s usually their surviving family members who file the lawsuits.
Click to expand...
Sure, but the facts get a little muddied when the 1st-hand account is lost, not to mention the sway of an emotional plaintiff.
 
A pretty bizarre result.

Key points in the article include the fact that the snowmobiler *knew the helicopter was there*, and that the crew were at the helicopter and tried to signal the idiot with a light but he was wearing tinted goggles (at night) and going 70mph.
 
Katamarino said:
A pretty bizarre result.

Key points in the article include the fact that the snowmobiler *knew the helicopter was there*, and that the crew were at the helicopter and tried to signal the idiot with a light but he was wearing tinted goggles (at night) and going 70mph.
Click to expand...
Yeah, and the “two” beers plus drugs. But it was 60% the helicopter crew’s fault?
 
Morgan3820 said:
Growing up, near me, there was a quarry that was surrounded by cornfield. Good snow came, and everybody went out snowmobiling. This guy launched himself off the edge of the quarry because he didn’t see it in the dark. They have since surrounded the quarry with an earthen berm and trees on the top.
Click to expand...
So you can get some airtime when launching drunk into the quarry?
 
Velocity173 said:
Plenty of non towered fields with very little security in place. In this case, at least it’s private property. A lot of Army bases lease land from local farmers to use for LZ training so they don’t have to fly a great distance to a restricted area. None are very secure.
Click to expand...
Even towered fields lack security. Nothing stops me from wandering in from the land side of my nearest towered field. One gate requires you to know the ground frequency, but there's one over by the FBO that's not locked at all (I guess they figured the FBO would notice randos walking across the ramp).
 
As a taxpayer i’d like to state this is not the kind of stuff i want my taxes paying for. Government paying money in a judgement to an idiot who hit a parked military aircraft on a private runway.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top