Person sues because he almost crashed

Cap'n Jack

Cap'n Jack

Final Approach
Joined
Jun 25, 2006
Messages
8,999
Location
Nebraska
Display Name
Display name:
Cap'n Jack
Link:
http://www.journalstar.com/articles/2008/07/24/news/local/doc4887cf1fb2a50636385061.txt

Short story- Some test flies a plane, it has a mechanical problem that almost leads to a crash. He pulls out and lands safely.

"Lester is alleging he has suffered severe “mental pain, anguish ... and nervous shock” because of his “reasonable fear of immediate personal injury or death” during the incident."

I realize that a news article leaves stuff out or distorts information but I didn't think people could win a suit because they were scared.
 
I think that if you almost crash, you should almost be allowed to sue.
 
article said:
“Plaintiff was engaged in a hazardous activity and understood that piloting an aircraft is a dangerous activity itself,” White said in the answer.
Click to expand...

Do you think they say this to their patrons?
 
According to the lawsuit, Lester and Steve Gass heard a loud noise from the tail of the plane about two minutes into the flight and at an elevation of 12,000 feet.
Click to expand...
What particular "Cessna" were they flying to make it to 12,000 in two minutes? Or, did they take off from Leadville on a very cold day?

If it was an aircraft designed (Twin? Citation?) to climb this quick... could it possibly be he was not qualified for such an aircraft? If it were a Citation, surely 280KIAS would be well under Vne and not be a concern. Just asking.
 
So .. I can assume that Mr Lester has self grounded himself and
isn't flying because the nature of his trauma would inhibit his safely
executing the duties of PIC??? Did he get a medical diagnosis of this?
Did he put it on his medical application? If I was the plaintiff I'd
be asking those questions. Maybe a call to the FSDO would be in order.
 
Cap'n Jack said:
I realize that a news article leaves stuff out or distorts information but I didn't think people could win a suit because they were scared.
Click to expand...

You can sue for anything. Prevailing is another matter.

I was once sued for 'loss of consortium' by a woman in the front vehicle of a four car crash caused by the fourth car. I was 100 miles away at the time. An employee was driving a company car that day. He was the third car. :mad:

She claimed (among other things) "numbness of the buttocks". I told my attorney if I could have five minutes alone with her I could cure that "numbness" problem. ;)
 
KennyFlys said:
What particular "Cessna" were they flying to make it to 12,000 in two minutes? Or, did they take off from Leadville on a very cold day?

If it was an aircraft designed (Twin? Citation?) to climb this quick... could it possibly be he was not qualified for such an aircraft? If it were a Citation, surely 280KIAS would be well under Vne and not be a concern. Just asking.
Click to expand...

A 1969 C150 with 6 JATO bottles attached.

When the bottles gave out, they were 2500' above Max ceiling, thus the dive.:hairraise:
 
RogerT said:
So .. I can assume that Mr Lester has self grounded himself and isn't flying because the nature of his trauma would inhibit his safely executing the duties of PIC??? ...
Click to expand...

Good point.

If I had five bucks for every second I was scared s***less in an airplane I could have... an airplane!
 
Hell a woman just won a lawsuit when her FIANCE called off the wedding. FIANCE, not husband.

Soaked him for $150K!
 
Someone needs to be taken out behind the hangar for a little talk.
 
I would say that if he can show that the owner of the aircraft was aware that the airplane was not properly maintained and that because of that faulty maintenance the plaintiff almost got killed, he has a case. I think that we can blame the media for the 2 minutes/12,000 ft thing. They are notorious around here for adding a zero here or a zero there. It well could have been 1200 ft and 20 minutes later. I tried to look this up as an incident on the FAA site, and couldn't find it.
 
Maxmosbey said:
I would say that if he can show that the owner of the aircraft was aware that the airplane was not properly maintained and that because of that faulty maintenance the plaintiff almost got killed, he has a case. I think that we can blame the media for the 2 minutes/12,000 ft thing. They are notorious around here for adding a zero here or a zero there. It well could have been 1200 ft and 20 minutes later. I tried to look this up as an incident on the FAA site, and couldn't find it.
Click to expand...


Cessna 421.

IFR at 12,000 feet with three people on board doesn't sound like a "test flight" to me...

ASIAS BRIEF REPORT

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
GENERAL INFORMATION

Data Source: ACCIDENT AND INCIDENT DATABASE
Report Number: 20050822020449G
Local Date: 22-AUG-05
Local Time:
City: LINCOLN
State: NE
Airport Name: LINCOLN
Event Type: INCIDENT - GENERAL AVIATION
Mid Air Collision: NOT A MIDAIR


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
AIRCRAFT INFORMATION

Aircraft Damage: MINOR
Aircraft Make: CESSNA
Aircraft Model:
Aircraft Series:
Airframe Hrs: 4883
Operator:

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
NARRATIVE

(-23) ON 08/22/2005 AT 18:50 GMT N411Z, A CESSNA 421B, SERIAL NUMBER
0482, DEPARTED EPPLEY AIRFIELD, OMAHA, NEBRASKA FOR A LOCAL 14 CFR 91
FLIGHT. THE PILOT WAS ADJUSTING THE ELEVATOR TRIM FOR LEVEL FLIGHT AT
12,000 FEET AGL WHEN HE HEARD A LOUD POP EMANATE FROM THE TAIL SECTION
OF THE AIRCRAFT. THE AIRCRAFT PITCHED NOSE DOWN AT A 75 DEGREE ANGLE AND
THE PILOT DECLARED AN EMERGENCY STATING THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO MAINTAIN
ALTITUDE. THE PILOT RECOVERED FROM THE DIVE AT APPROXIMATELY 7,000 FEET
AGL AND LANDED AT LINCOLN MUNICIPAL AIRPORT WITHOUT INCIDENT. THE PILOT
AND PASSENGERS WERE NOT INJURED.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Detail

Primary Flight Type: PERSONAL
Secondary Flight Type: NONE OR OTHER
Type of Operation: GENERAL OPERATING RULES
Registration Nbr: 411Z
Total Aboard: 3
Fatalities: 0
Injuries: 0
Landing Gear:
Aircraft Weight Class: UNDER 12501 LBS
Engine Make:
Engine Model:
Engine Group:
Number of Engines: 2
Engine Type:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Environmental/Operations Info

Primary Flight Conditions: UNKNOWN
Secondary Flight Conditions: WEATHER NOT A FACTOR
Wind Direction(deg):
Wind Speed(mph):
Visibility(mi.):
Visibility Restrictions:
Light Condition: DAY
Flight Plan Filed: INSTRUMENT FLIGHT RULES
Approach Type:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
Pilot In Command

Pilot Certificates:
Pilot Rating:
Pilot Qualification:
Flight Time Total Hours:
Total in Make/Model:
Total in Last 90 days:
Total in last 90 days Make/Model:


------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------
END REPORT
Click to expand...
 
There's a lot still missing. What was the "loud pop"? There was no inspection of the aircraft?
 
Geoffry- thanks for tracking the report down
<SNIP>THE AIRCRAFT PITCHED NOSE DOWN AT A 75 DEGREE ANGLE AND
THE PILOT DECLARED AN EMERGENCY STATING THAT HE WAS UNABLE TO MAINTAIN
ALTITUDE. THE PILOT RECOVERED FROM THE DIVE AT APPROXIMATELY 7,000 FEET
Click to expand...

Maybe it was Mach tuck? :)
 
Cap'n Jack said:
Geoffry- thanks for tracking the report down


Maybe it was Mach tuck? :)
Click to expand...


Interesting. Loud pop, 75 degree dive, and he's got time to declare an emergency? Guy's better than I ever was. I'd be too busy trying to recover to worry about the radio. :dunno:
 
2256Q said:
Interesting. Loud pop, 75 degree dive, and he's got time to declare an emergency? Guy's better than I ever was. I'd be too busy trying to recover to worry about the radio. :dunno:
Click to expand...

If the PTT was on the yoke...I'd get something out over the radio before I hit the ground but I don't think it'd be real professional. That said--if the PTT was in some other goofy place like mounted on the panel, I don't think I'd get a word out.
 
N411Z shows to be registered to "Security Equipment" since September 18, 2001. But, there is no incident report with the NTSB on that tail number.

If one encountered an issue with an aircraft, regardless of the reason they were flying it, could they not file an incident report with the NTSB as a matter of record? If I truly had concerns with maintenance and resulting safety of an aircraft, I'd be speaking with both the local FSDO and the NTSB.
 
interesting, theres been a few 421 problems in the last few years with trim tabs setting up elevator flutter. we actually had a mild case of it on one of ours, the linkage to the tab needed tightening.
 
Hmmm.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this litigation.

What if the owner of the plane had purposefully - to save money - not been performing necessary maintenance (and note we're not talking legally necessary, we're talking necessary to have a reasonably safe aircraft), and knowing something like a fuel line was rotted, sent the plaintiff up in it without telling him about it?

Or, perhaps the owner had a bird strike on one of the props, but just put a new prop on with his own hands (despite not being qualified to do so), and didn't bother doing an engine teardown.

Still think a lawsuit might not be justified?

I don't know any of the above to be true, and I don't know that the suit isn't frivolous. But what I do know are the following: 1) Not all lawsuits are unjustified; and 2) Simply by doing an activity does not mean you consent to all of the consequences thereof, esp. when the consequences are unforeseen.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
Hmmm.

I wouldn't be so quick to dismiss this litigation.

What if the owner of the plane had purposefully - to save money - not been performing necessary maintenance (and note we're not talking legally necessary, we're talking necessary to have a reasonably safe aircraft), and knowing something like a fuel line was rotted, sent the plaintiff up in it without telling him about it?

Or, perhaps the owner had a bird strike on one of the props, but just put a new prop on with his own hands (despite not being qualified to do so), and didn't bother doing an engine teardown.

Still think a lawsuit might not be justified?

I don't know any of the above to be true, and I don't know that the suit isn't frivolous. But what I do know are the following: 1) Not all lawsuits are unjustified; and 2) Simply by doing an activity does not mean you consent to all of the consequences thereof, esp. when the consequences are unforeseen.
Click to expand...
I've never said it's not justified. But, there are too many unanswered questions. If I were the pilot in such an event and it could not be clearly explained and was absolutely unforeseen, I'd be running off to the powers that be so this aircraft should be grounded until such matters have been addressed. This would largely depend on the owner/operator's response to the issue.

As said, no such report appears to have been made. If your life were allowed on the line in a potentially deadly accident, would you let it go so long? Why did it take three years to file? What was done during that time? If not the FAA, NTSB or other agency, was the aircraft ever independently inspected?

These are only a few questions. I'd like to know the answers without the twisted rhetoric played out for an ignorant jury.
 
KennyFlys said:
I've never said it's not justified. But, there are too many unanswered questions. If I were the pilot in such an event and it could not be clearly explained and was absolutely unforeseen, I'd be running off to the powers that be so this aircraft should be grounded until such matters have been addressed. This would largely depend on the owner/operator's response to the issue.

As said, no such report appears to have been made. If your life were allowed on the line in a potentially deadly accident, would you let it go so long? Why did it take three years to file? What was done during that time? If not the FAA, NTSB or other agency, was the aircraft ever independently inspected?

These are only a few questions. I'd like to know the answers without the twisted rhetoric played out for an ignorant jury.
Click to expand...

Gotcha - sorry I misinterpreted your post.

And I agree with you on all your questions.

I was really more just making the point (and it's not directed at anyone), for the record, that every time there's a lawsuit doesn't mean there's something shady.

Just most of the time. :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top