Not good (FL crash)

Fearless Tower said:
Good news folks- we can do away with our whole criminal justice system and due process! We've got a one man internet legal show right here!
Click to expand...

And he has a Cherokee that he flys in freezing rain showing the great judgement he is displaying here.
 
An old timer told me once..... Don't argue with fools.... People from afar can't tell who is who :dunno:
 
With a 20/20 hindsight, I would have sacrificed the 30k older than me Bug smasher by putting it in the sea rather than risk hitting someone. Anyways, it was a sad and tragic accident and it is impossible to know if anyone here including myself, no matter experience or hero level, would have done otherwise in that situation.
 
It was an accident. nothing more. nothing less.
We live in a time where we are not allowed to have accidents.

It Effing sucks. but it was an Effing accident.
 
BG305 said:
An old timer told me once..... Don't argue with fools.... People from afar can't tell who is who :dunno:
Click to expand...
That's attributed to Mark Twain, there is also this one: Don't argue with a stupid person, they'll drag you down to their level and beat you with experience.
 
SixPapaCharlie said:
It was an accident. nothing more. nothing less.
Click to expand...
Not quite, he made a decision to land on the beach, that was a deliberate act, not an accident, and now we see it was the wrong decision. Maybe he tried to avoid them and it stalled, maybe they walk out into his path, maybe they were in water and he didn't see them, or maybe he said to hell with everybody else....we just don't know and we may never know without black boxes to tell us what happen those last few seconds. I believe the term NTSB will use is "pilot error"
 
and yet another expert has saved the NTSB time and money.
 
Yea double manslaughter.

Great idea to land on a beach.
 
thehulk06 said:
Yea double manslaughter.

Great idea to land on a beach.
Click to expand...
But, but, but the passenger is fine and as we know from our pilot comrades the pilot's responsibility ends there.:rolleyes2:
Oh and no judging until the investimegation is done.:rolleyes:
 
I'm curious. What degree of risk to people on the ground should pilots take before just deciding to kill themself. I understand that you don't land on a crowded beach, or even a mildly populated beach. How about if you only see one or two people that don't appear to be in your path. Do you put it in the trees or the surf with the full expectation of dying. And what if there is someone in the trees taking a dump or swimming in the surf. Do you fly out as far from land as you can until you can be sure nobody else will suffer? Every one of us has made a decision to fly. We therefore accepted the risk that at some point we have to come down and sometimes that means without power and an empty runway nearby. Do we just kill ourselves if our engine dies?

What happened is horrible. I assume the pilot screwed up and will wind up paying for this for the rest of his life. So will his family. I just hope the pilot had insurance to help the family of the deceased. The funny thing is that one of the biggest critics of the pilot in this case was also one of those that was vehemently against a requirement that pilots carry liability insurance for situations like this. So unless that pilot has a huge personal fortune that can be forfeited, then the family of the deceased will suffer even more.
 
Last edited:
You guys want all traffic to be required by law to show up on your inflight TV, and everyone be forced to have insurance so if you kill anybody you can feel ok. How about looking where you are going and not being incompetent pilots. No amount of insurance will bring that family back. You want insurance to exist so you can feel better about a fellow pilot wiping out a family, pathetic.
 
Greg, I find your position to be positively childish. I suppose that you think cars should not have seatbelts, because all they do is encourage people to crash instead of drive safely?

No matter how hard people try, mistakes or mechanical failures happen. In that situation, it's a heck of a lot better for mitigations to be available, rather than entirely shafting the innocent victim.

I don't agree that people should be forced to have insurance, but I damn well think they should be forced to prove that they can fulfill their obligations to any innocent bystander that they might maim or kill. Not to "make them feel better", but because not to do so is simply unacceptable. If the pilot happens to be a multi-millionaire who can afford that then great. Most people aren't.
 
So what is money going to fix? Everyone is dead. What is childish is the idea that you can make killing OK if there is insurance money. And Peltzman suggests those seatbelts are not the panacea everyone thinks they are.
 
And I thought it was bad enough to post a thread about reporting low flying aircraft :rolleyes2: some people really do come out swinging
 
Last edited:
This is sad all around. Two fatalities for one family and one family with a person who will undoubtedly face double manslaughter charges. Cherish life while we have it.
 
ClimbnSink said:
So what is money going to fix? Everyone is dead. What is childish is the idea that you can make killing OK if there is insurance money. And Peltzman suggests those seatbelts are not the panacea everyone thinks they are.
Click to expand...
That is an idiotic argument and doesn't deserve a response.
But I'll reply anyway.
EVERYONE isn't dead. The victim had a family. I assume he was a major contributor to that families income, if not the sole provider. And I am sure he contributed in many non-monetary ways. He probably cut the grass, painted the bathroom. Fixed the care. Who is going to do that now? Will they charge? I am sure the girl ran up extensive medical expenses. There will be funeral services. There will be pain and suffering and lost income.

Insurance money is not going to make it alright, but it will sure alleviate a lot of additional problems that will now be heaped upon that family. Convict and execute the pilot if you want, but the victim's family deserves compensation. Where is that going to come from?
 
JOhnH said:
That is an idiotic argument and doesn't deserve a response.
But I'll reply anyway.
EVERYONE isn't dead. The victim had a family. I assume he was a major contributor to that families income, if not the sole provider. And I am sure he contributed in many non-monetary ways. He probably cut the grass, painted the bathroom. Fixed the care. Who is going to do that now? Will they charge? I am sure the girl ran up extensive medical expenses. There will be funeral services. There will be pain and suffering and lost income.

Insurance money is not going to make it alright, but it will sure alleviate a lot of additional problems that will now be heaped upon that family. Convict and execute the pilot if you want, but the victim's family deserves compensation. Where is that going to come from?
Click to expand...

On top of that argument, if it won't bring the family back, why even apologize? Why consider passing some kind of regulation to prevent it happening again and killing someone else so that it won't bring them back either :dunno:
 
thehulk06 said:
I think I clearly expressed I was not an expert. Your selective reading is awesome.

I continue to learn and get better, as a low time pilot I would still hold innocent life above mine.

You act as if I'm not allowed to form my own opinion. Sorry for you, but I do and will always voice it.

America is free right? Thanks
Click to expand...

How is the pilot guilty of manslaughter ?
 
Everyone who thinks the pilot will face manslaughter please explain why. Because you clearly have no criminal law background or experience in the courts.
 
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death.


Whether or not his lawyer gets him off of criminal charges doesn't change the fact that he can't run from the Civil Charges. Count on that.
 
We don't know if there is a widow, ex-wife, or baby momma. Doesn't matter GA policies stop you may not mind if someone negligently kills your wife and kid, if you get a million bucks, but most people would.
JOhnH said:
That is an idiotic argument and doesn't deserve a response.
But I'll reply anyway.
EVERYONE isn't dead. The victim had a family. I assume he was a major contributor to that families income, if not the sole provider. And I am sure he contributed in many non-monetary ways. He probably cut the grass, painted the bathroom. Fixed the care. Who is going to do that now? Will they charge? I am sure the girl ran up extensive medical expenses. There will be funeral services. There will be pain and suffering and lost income.

Insurance money is not going to make it alright, but it will sure alleviate a lot of additional problems that will now be heaped upon that family. Convict and execute the pilot if you want, but the victim's family deserves compensation. Where is that going to come from?
Click to expand...
 
JOhnH said:
EVERYONE isn't dead. The victim had a family. I assume he was a major contributor to that families income, if not the sole provider. And I am sure he contributed in many non-monetary ways. He probably cut the grass, painted the bathroom. Fixed the care. Who is going to do that now? Will they charge? I am sure the girl ran up extensive medical expenses. There will be funeral services. There will be pain and suffering and lost income.

Insurance money is not going to make it alright, but it will sure alleviate a lot of additional problems that will now be heaped upon that family. Convict and execute the pilot if you want, but the victim's family deserves compensation. Where is that going to come from?
Click to expand...

+1 to every word written here. Which is why I think liability insurance should be mandatory. It's required for cars, but not airplanes?

The only mistake John made in his comment are the non-monetary examples. Those are expenses that are calculated for liability purposes because there is a cost to the family who now has to hire those tasks out. Money will not replace the loved ones the family lost, but it will help ease some of the practical suffering that they would otherwise be burdened with.

The responsibility and liability for this tragedy lies squarely on the pilot's shoulders. I'm not saying he deliberately caused this tragedy. I doubt he saw the people he hit. That's why they are called accidents. But the responsibility is 100% his to bear.
 
B350ATP said:
Everyone who thinks the pilot will face manslaughter please explain why. Because you clearly have no criminal law background or experience in the courts.
Click to expand...

I think people are confusing manslaughter (a criminal charge) with wrongful death ( a civil case $$$).
 
thehulk06 said:
Criminally negligent manslaughter occurs where there is an omission to act when there is a duty to do so, or a failure to perform a duty owed, which leads to a death.

Whether or not his lawyer gets him off of criminal charges doesn't change the fact that he can't run from the Civil Charges. Count on that.
Click to expand...

What do you mean "gets him off" ? There have been no criminal violations to start with. This does not say a vote-hungry District Attorney can't seek prosecution (to be defeated in court anyway). However, based on the news reports and public information, there is nothing to indicate the pilot violated any criminal laws.

Lets take a look at some Florida laws (this occurred in the State of Florida), regarding this accident involving the non-intentioned / non-planned deaths of two people. There are no indications that the pilot was drunk, on drugs, unlicensed, buzzing the beach, or other such behavior which could be considered in this case. In your post, you mentioned the term "negligence", which I will highlight below.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.07.html

[SIZE=-1]782.07 Manslaughter; aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult; aggravated manslaughter of a child; aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic.—(1) The killing of a human being by the act, procurement, or culpable negligence of another, without lawful justification according to the provisions of chapter 776 and in cases in which such killing shall not be excusable homicide or murder, according to the provisions of this chapter, is manslaughter, a felony of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(2) A person who causes the death of any elderly person or disabled adult by culpable negligence under s. 825.102(3) commits aggravated manslaughter of an elderly person or disabled adult, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(3) A person who causes the death of any person under the age of 18 by culpable negligence under s. 827.03(2)(b) commits aggravated manslaughter of a child, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
(4) A person who causes the death, through culpable negligence, of an officer as defined in s. 943.10(14), a firefighter as defined in s. 112.191, an emergency medical technician as defined in s. 401.23, or a paramedic as defined in s. 401.23, while the officer, firefighter, emergency medical technician, or paramedic is performing duties that are within the course of his or her employment, commits aggravated manslaughter of an officer, a firefighter, an emergency medical technician, or a paramedic, a felony of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084.
[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.05.html

[SIZE=-1]784.05 Culpable negligence.—(1) Whoever, through culpable negligence, exposes another person to personal injury commits a misdemeanor of the second degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(2) Whoever, through culpable negligence, inflicts actual personal injury on another commits a misdemeanor of the first degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082 or s. 775.083.
(3) Whoever violates subsection (1) by storing or leaving a loaded firearm within the reach or easy access of a minor commits, if the minor obtains the firearm and uses it to inflict injury or death upon himself or herself or any other person, a felony of the third degree, punishable as provided in s. 775.082, s. 775.083, or s. 775.084. However, this subsection does not apply:(a) If the firearm was stored or left in a securely locked box or container or in a location which a reasonable person would have believed to be secure, or was securely locked with a trigger lock;
(b) If the minor obtains the firearm as a result of an unlawful entry by any person;
(c) To injuries resulting from target or sport shooting accidents or hunting accidents; or
(d) To members of the Armed Forces, National Guard, or State Militia, or to police or other law enforcement officers, with respect to firearm possession by a minor which occurs during or incidental to the performance of their official duties.
When any minor child is accidentally shot by another family member, no arrest shall be made pursuant to this subsection prior to 7 days after the date of the shooting. With respect to any parent or guardian of any deceased minor, the investigating officers shall file all findings and evidence with the state attorney’s office with respect to violations of this subsection. The state attorney shall evaluate such evidence and shall take such action as he or she deems appropriate under the circumstances and may file an information against the appropriate parties.

[/SIZE]
Click to expand...
Florida Bar journal discussion on Culpable Negligence and its definition

http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/9C02B4F15213ECB185256ADB005D6187

Manslaughter by culpable negligence, a second degree felony,3 involves the killing of a human being where the defendant engages in:

a course of conduct showing reckless disregard of human life, or of the safety of persons exposed to its dangerous effects, or such an entire want of care as to raise a presumption of a conscious indifference to consequences, or which shows wantonness or recklessness, or a grossly careless disregard of the safety and welfare or the public, or such an indifference to the rights of others as is equivalent to an intentional violation of such rights.4 While manslaughter by culpable negligence may be committed in a variety of contexts,5 motor vehicle examples include killing an infant passenger when the defendant was fleeing from law enforcement and lost control of the car;6 causing the death of a person after attempting to demonstrate the acceleration of a car on a wet highway and consequently losing control;7 and killing a child pedestrian after the defendant had been drinking alcohol, boasted of the car’s speed, spun the wheels, accelerated along a narrow street, and shifted around in his seat before striking the child.8
Click to expand...
As you can see here, the prosecutor must show RECKLESS, GROSS CARELESSNESS, WANTON DISREGARD, or a COURSE OF CONDUCT.

In this example, none of this appear to be the case. In addition, the actor (the pilot) was not voluntarily at the location of the death, his engine failure left him with basically no choice of landing site (he could have gone into the ocean I suppose but this is splitting hairs for showing criminal intent and state of mind/carelessness). If he was buzzing the beach and showing off to his sunbathing girlfriend, this would be different.

Regarding a civil suit, anyone can sue anybody. In this situation, a civil suit may be unsuccessful against the pilot. On the OWNER of the airplane or MECHANIC, if maintenance was shoddy or inspections skipped, they are wide open for civil suit (successful suits).

Regarding Wrongful Death, negligence or a general lack of regard needs to be demonstrated for this to be successful.

It seems like some of the posters on this thread are representative of how our great country is becoming, sue everybody, arrest everybody (everyone is a jack-booted thug unless proven otherwise not to be), and convict first, listen later.

Years ago, pilots were allowed to have things called "accidents" but apparently not anymore.

God Bless America, this country needs it.
 
Last edited:
Btw. this is one of the cases were you dont want to have Avemco as your insurer. While they will defend you, their payout is limited to 200k as their sublimits are 'per person' and not 'per passenger'.
 
Guess the wrongful death bit might hinge on how much gas was in the tanks.
 
weilke said:
Btw. this is one of the cases were you dont want to have Avemco as your insurer. While they will defend you, their payout is limited to 200k as their sublimits are 'per person' and not 'per passenger'.
Click to expand...

Doesn't that depend on the particular policy? Smooth?
 
B350ATP said:
What do you mean "gets him off" ? There have been no criminal violations to start with. This does not say a vote-hungry District Attorney can't seek prosecution (to be defeated in court anyway). However, based on the news reports and public information, there is nothing to indicate the pilot violated any criminal laws.

Lets take a look at some Florida laws (this occurred in the State of Florida), regarding this accident involving the non-intentioned / non-planned deaths of two people. There are no indications that the pilot was drunk, on drugs, unlicensed, buzzing the beach, or other such behavior which could be considered in this case. In your post, you mentioned the term "negligence", which I will highlight below.

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0782/Sections/0782.07.html

http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes...ing=&URL=0700-0799/0784/Sections/0784.05.html

Florida Bar journal discussion on Culpable Negligence and its definition

http://www.floridabar.org/divcom/jn/jnjournal01.nsf/Author/9C02B4F15213ECB185256ADB005D6187

As you can see here, the prosecutor must show RECKLESS, GROSS CARELESSNESS, WANTON DISREGARD, or a COURSE OF CONDUCT.

In this example, none of this appear to be the case. In addition, the actor (the pilot) was not voluntarily at the location of the death, his engine failure left him with basically no choice of landing site (he could have gone into the ocean I suppose but this is splitting hairs for showing criminal intent and state of mind/carelessness). If he was buzzing the beach and showing off to his sunbathing girlfriend, this would be different.

Regarding a civil suit, anyone can sue anybody. In this situation, a civil suit may be unsuccessful against the pilot. On the OWNER of the airplane or MECHANIC, if maintenance was shoddy or inspections skipped, they are wide open for civil suit (successful suits).

Regarding Wrongful Death, negligence or a general lack of regard needs to be demonstrated for this to be successful.

It seems like some of the posters on this thread are representative of how our great country is becoming, sue everybody, arrest everybody (everyone is a jack-booted thug unless proven otherwise not to be), and convict first, listen later.

Years ago, pilots were allowed to have things called "accidents" but apparently not anymore.

God Bless America, this country needs it.
Click to expand...


Nice write up, but, I disagree. As the PIC he had 100% control of his airplane he decided to land on the beach and this is why I see a manslaughter charge being thrown at him.

He willing became a pilot, he willingly went on the flight, he is PIC and trained to make decision in times of emergency and deliberately decided to land on the beach.

As a pilot, that's how I see it. It is an accident, but one is responsible for his/her own actions. In this case, it sucks all the way around!
 
BillyBH said:
Doesn't that depend on the particular policy? Smooth?
Click to expand...

Unless something has changed, Avemco doesn't do smooth.

The issue I wanted to point out is that with a Avemco 1mil policy with 100k 'per person' sublimits you are completely hosed if you hurt someone outside of the plane. That is the policy they write and they dont offer either smooth or per-passenger sublimits. With the 'per passenger' sublimit common with most other aviation insurers, the entire million would be available to satisfy the claims of both the injured daughter and the estate of the deceased. Given the damage done in this particular accident, even a mil is pocket change and wouldn't be likely to settle the claims. The pilot may well lose everything that is not protected by statute (e.g. his 'homestead' in FL and some retirement fund type assets).
 
weilke said:
Unless something has changed, Avemco doesn't do smooth.

The issue I wanted to point out is that with a Avemco 1mil policy with 100k 'per person' sublimits you are completely hosed if you hurt someone outside of the plane. That is the policy they write and they dont offer either smooth or per-passenger sublimits. With the 'per passenger' sublimit common with most other aviation insurers, the entire million would be available to satisfy the claims of both the injured daughter and the estate of the deceased. Given the damage done in this particular accident, even a mil is pocket change and wouldn't be likely to settle the claims. The pilot may well lose everything that is not protected by statute (e.g. his 'homestead' in FL and some retirement fund type assets).
Click to expand...

Good point about sublimits.
 
NOTE: There is no doubt that some question exists on "why not" landing it in the water.

Whether a successful criminal prosecution will happen, is another story.
 
So here is a question for the lynch mob here:

Should the Captain of Southwest 1248 have been charged with manslaughter? I mean, using the arguments here, he was 100 percent responsible for the aircraft and the family of the 6 year old who was killed should have had a reasonable expectation that a 737 would not blow through the fence and run over their car.

Or how about the young Marine Hornet pilot who punched out of his jet a few years ago at Miramar at around 100' AGL believing he had cleared all of the residential area only to find that after the ejection his jet nosed into one of the last homes in the neighborhood taking out a family. Should he be in jail too?
 
Fearless Tower said:
Good point about sublimits.
Click to expand...

100k, 1mil, 2mil makes little difference if you take out someone who was the breadwinner for a family and had a reasonably good income. If there was little risk of settlements above 1mil, aviation insurance with 2 or 5 or 10mil limits wouldn't cost much more than 1mil.
 
I shake my head at most of the respondents to this thread. . . It reads as though a bunch of USA Today reporters hacked into this site and started posting. . .
 
Fearless Tower said:
So here is a question for the lynch mob here:

Should the Captain of Southwest 1248 have been charged with manslaughter?
Or how about the young Marine Hornet pilot... ?
Click to expand...

I'm certainly not part of a lynch mob advocating criminal prosecution in any of these circumstances. They are all terrible tragedies but I don't see ill-intent by any of the pilots. Unless this guy comes out saying he saw them and yet still decided to land there...
 
MooneyDude said:
I shake my head at most of the respondents to this thread. . . It reads as though a bunch of USA Today reporters hacked into this site and started posting. . .
Click to expand...

Bah, it's an internet forum, not a news site. That's why you come into HT, so you can express your personal thoughts on such subjects.
 
Fearless Tower said:
So here is a question for the lynch mob here:

Should the Captain of Southwest 1248 have been charged with manslaughter? I mean, using the arguments here, he was 100 percent responsible for the aircraft and the family of the 6 year old who was killed should have had a reasonable expectation that a 737 would not blow through the fence and run over their car.

Or how about the young Marine Hornet pilot who punched out of his jet a few years ago at Miramar at around 100' AGL believing he had cleared all of the residential area only to find that after the ejection his jet nosed into one of the last homes in the neighborhood taking out a family. Should he be in jail too?
Click to expand...

Do a search on those and see how much the employers paid on those cases. Both the airlines and DOD.

Since said pilot was flying on his own free will, I'm assuming no employer is going to pay the family to keep it out of court. If he can settle without the courts getting involved, all the better.

And I'm not in the camp that says he made a bad decision, I'm just saying what could come from it. I was not in the plane and had his level of know leg at the moment.
 
This guy was obviously out for blood.
I mean he was in an airplane. There is a spinning blade on it.
It is a weapon and nothing else

He was probably on his way to kill a lot of people with his propeller but when the engine died, he just pulled this kamakazi move to try and at least get someone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top