Update from NTSB on Lidle crash

[KennyFlys]

I see a lot of drivers who can't fly, but I can't recall seeing a pilot who couldn't drive.

Quite true. My scan habits from flying carries over to my driving; being aware of my environment. The concept of "see and be seen" means using turn signals and watching for other signals and actions.

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

In the article I read on this most recent report, the wife's attorney is quoted as saying something along the lines of "the NTSB always blames the pilot, so it means practically nothing in this case. The cause of this accident was the faulty design of the aircraft." That's not an exact quote, but it gets the gist of it.

As the case progresses, you can expect invective from me directed at my esteemed colleagues.

Along the same lines, I just got an email a few minutes ago telling me that I passed the Colorado bar. So now I can sue all of you in Maryland or Colorado when you lose my pants or design an airplane that forces me to make stupid decisions.

 

[KennyFlys]

...I just got an email a few minutes ago telling me that I passed the Colorado bar. So now I can sue all of you in Maryland or Colorado when you lose my pants or design an airplane that forces me to make stupid decisions.

Be afraid... be very afraid!

 

[jesse]

It took me a lot less time to figure out how to drive around town than it did to taxi around a busy airport or learn how to flare. Flying is not as easy as driving and general aviation flying isn't as safe as driving.

It will not be anytime in the near future, nor do I want it to be.

 

[ScottM]

In the article I read on this most recent report, the wife's attorney is quoted as saying something along the lines of "the NTSB always blames the pilot, so it means practically nothing in this case. The cause of this accident was the faulty design of the aircraft." That's not an exact quote, but it gets the gist of it.

But it was a failure of the plane!!

The plane has all that computer positioning gear in it, the designers no the capability of the plane so when the pilot went to turn it in an unsafe manner and or area the plane should have refused the control input.

Airbus has that and we all know how good that worked.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhQwNUy7Zl8

He tried to go around when the plane knew he should have landed.

to this whole lawsuit, the boy F-UPed!

 

[mikea]

About every other weekend we have another drunk teenager drive a car full of kids at high speed into a telephone pole. I guess all of those cars are defective, too?

 

[ScottM]

About every other weekend we have another drunk teenager drive a car full of kids at high speed into a telephone pole. I guess all of those cars are defective, too?

Could be a problem with the wood poles. Suggest you review this ATIS standard on poles, http://www.fpl.fs.fed.us/documnts/pdf1997/wolfe97b.pdf

And other documents from the ATIS committee 05
http://www.atis.org/o5/O5report.asp

[FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] [FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]ANSI Accredited Standards Committee (ASC) O5 on Specifications and Dimensions for Wood Poles was organized in 1924 by the Bell Telephone System and the U.S. Independent Telephone Association's American Standards Associations (ASA) Telephone Group. ATIS, then ECSA, accepted sponsorship and Secretariat responsibility for ASC O5 in 1985. [/FONT] [/FONT][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][FONT=Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif] This Committee creates standards for wood poles, crossarms and braces, and glue laminated timber for utility structures. Wood poles continue to be the least expensive method to provide telecommunications services (telephone & cable) to rural areas of the United States. There are approximately 100 million wood poles in use nationwide; 45 percent are owned by the telecommunications industry.

[/FONT] [/FONT]

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

About every other weekend we have another drunk teenager drive a car full of kids at high speed into a telephone pole. I guess all of those cars are defective, too?

Yes. And had I failed the bar exam, it would have been my pencil's fault.

 

[KennyFlys]

I'm gonna guess... a driver hits a pole, the vehicle stops but the driver continues through the windshield or remains and the vehicle... suffers trauma either way and is killed or badly injured... it's the fault of the pole's provider. Or, the driver hits the pole only this time it snaps and the vehicle goes through and off the road into a ravine, killing or severely injuring the driver. Again, it's the fault of the pole's provider?

If you get the right argument and the right set of idiots on a jury, its a win-win situation for the driver and/or family.

So, it's really a matter of getting the right set of idiots on this jury. Preferably one who will still have sympathy for the widow of a wealthy, baseball player, private pilot.

 

[NC Pilot]

uh, you weren't talking about me .... were you??

Well, actually no, I was not thinking about YOU when I wrote that...

 

[tonycondon]

I see a lot of drivers who can't fly, but I can't recall seeing a pilot who couldn't drive.

i dunno Ron, most of the pilots I know are pretty crappy drivers. except for Kent of course!!!

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

I'm gonna guess... a driver hits a pole, the vehicle stops but the driver continues through the windshield or remains and the vehicle... suffers trauma either way and is killed or badly injured... it's the fault of the pole's provider. Or, the driver hits the pole only this time it snaps and the vehicle goes through and off the road into a ravine, killing or severely injuring the driver. Again, it's the fault of the pole's provider?

If you get the right argument and the right set of idiots on a jury, its a win-win situation for the driver and/or family.

So, it's really a matter of getting the right set of idiots on this jury. Preferably one who will still have sympathy for the widow of a wealthy, baseball player, private pilot.

Actually, the way it goes is that the party with the most money is at fault.

In the Lidle case, look at the possible defendants. We've got the CFI, Avidyne/Garmin, various other component manufacturers, and Cirrus. Who do you target? Not the CFI, I can tell you that. Even if he was entirely at fault, any judgment against him will be worthless, because most CFI's are barely scraping by.

So you go after the big dogs, because they've got the money to pay, the deep pockets.

In complex cases, plaintiffs' attorneys know that it will cost a certain amount of money to defend the case. That money will be spent by the defendants regardless of a win or a loss.

Therefore, assume that Cirrus will be out $500K just in legal fees. So why not file a lawsuit that has enough to it not to be frivolous, and then offer to settle for $300K? Cirrus (i.e., Cirrus' insurer) saves $200K that way, and also avoids the risk of a catastrophic verdict. I've heard settlements offered as "buying peace of mind."

And the plaintiff's lawyer gets a third of the recovery. Easy money.

It ought to be criminal. The party and his/her attorney ought to be on the line for the penalty.

I'm not saying that the above happens all that often. But it does happen. And it as much the fault of the lawyer as of the party. It may be the party suing, but it's the lawyer that provides access to the courts, and it's the lawyer's responsibility to say "this is BS, and it does not belong in court."

 

[KennyFlys]

The CFI would have had liability insurance in effect, at least I hope he did. That makes the CFI a pocket on some level; or his liability carrier. If Stanger was hired through an FBO or flight school, that organization would presumably have liability coverage.

If I recall, Lidle was required to have a CFI onboard until he logged so many hours per some player contract. The CFI was to be a safety net of sorts, keeping Lidle safe during his flight time. Wouldn't this make the CFI culpable? Under this scenario, I'd think the CFI's failure would be the most likely attempt at any proceeds. The blame is placed on the party least capable of a defense.

But, the plaintiff attorney is claiming equipment failure. As you said, Cirrus and others are going to put up a defense and they have the ability to do so provided they are willing to invest the cash and time.

So, which do you really go after? Deeper pockets or a weaker defense?

I do agree, we need tort reform. All the time, Boortz is preaching we need a "loser pays" system. This would curtail the frivolous suits or at least cut them down drastically. There's no effort to do so as long as theres no risk of loss on the part of attorneys.

Actually, the way it goes is that the party with the most money is at fault.

In the Lidle case, look at the possible defendants. We've got the CFI, Avidyne/Garmin, various other component manufacturers, and Cirrus. Who do you target? Not the CFI, I can tell you that. Even if he was entirely at fault, any judgment against him will be worthless, because most CFI's are barely scraping by.

So you go after the big dogs, because they've got the money to pay, the deep pockets.

In complex cases, plaintiffs' attorneys know that it will cost a certain amount of money to defend the case. That money will be spent by the defendants regardless of a win or a loss.

Therefore, assume that Cirrus will be out $500K just in legal fees. So why not file a lawsuit that has enough to it not to be frivolous, and then offer to settle for $300K? Cirrus (i.e., Cirrus' insurer) saves $200K that way, and also avoids the risk of a catastrophic verdict. I've heard settlements offered as "buying peace of mind."

And the plaintiff's lawyer gets a third of the recovery. Easy money.

It ought to be criminal. The party and his/her attorney ought to be on the line for the penalty.

I'm not saying that the above happens all that often. But it does happen. And it as much the fault of the lawyer as of the party. It may be the party suing, but it's the lawyer that provides access to the courts, and it's the lawyer's responsibility to say "this is BS, and it does not belong in court."

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

The CFI would have had liability insurance in effect, at least I hope he did. That makes the CFI a pocket on some level; or his liability carrier. If Stanger was hired through an FBO or flight school, that organization would presumably have liability coverage.

If I recall, Lidle was required to have a CFI onboard until he logged so many hours per some player contract. The CFI was to be a safety net of sorts, keeping Lidle safe during his flight time. Wouldn't this make the CFI culpable? Under this scenario, I'd think the CFI's failure would be the most likely attempt at any proceeds. The blame is placed on the party least capable of a defense.

But, the plaintiff attorney is claiming equipment failure. As you said, Cirrus and others are going to put up a defense and they have the ability to do so provided they are willing to invest the cash and time.

So, which do you really go after? Deeper pockets or a weaker defense?

I do agree, we need tort reform. All the time, Boortz is preaching we need a "loser pays" system. This would curtail the frivolous suits or at least cut them down drastically. There's no effort to do so as long as theres no risk of loss on the part of attorneys.

That's a good point about the CFI liability insurance. Although, there's no guarantee he had it.

Even though the CFI was supposed to serve as a safety net, his failure to do so does not, of itself, mean that he was negligent/liable. In other words, the result does not imply the cause. For instance, the simple fact that you wrecked your car does not mean that you were negligent in doing it. I'm not saying that he wasn't negligent, but rather the fact that he failed in his mission does not imply liability by itself.

In this case, we've got multiple parties, with multiple possible causes. I'm not familiar with NY law (assuming that governs here), but often the court can apportion liability according to the defendants' respective fault. In other words, if Cirrus was 20% responsible for the accident, it pays 20% of the total damages. That principal also applies if the plaintiff was negligent. Thus, if Lidle was 99% responsible, the defendants are only responsible for 1% of the damages (some states, like Maryland, don't allow a plaintiff to recover anything if there were negligent at all...I like that system).

In a case like this, you employ the "shotgun strategy" and go after everyone with money. I hate it, but that's how it works.

Also, there are two distinct phases in a civil trial. Liability, and damages. First, you have to show that the defendants are liable. If you can do that, then you have to show the damages suffered by the plaintiff. If this case makes it to trial, expect significant proceedings on both.

 

[mikea]

In the article I read on this most recent report, the wife's attorney is quoted as saying something along the lines of "the NTSB always blames the pilot, so it means practically nothing in this case. The cause of this accident was the faulty design of the aircraft." That's not an exact quote, but it gets the gist of it.

As the case progresses, you can expect invective from me directed at my esteemed colleagues.

Heh. I just imagined the case:

They hire an expert witness pilot. He does a demonstration in a Cirrus showing that the required turn can be made in the same space as the East River - if you slow enough and turn steep enough EVEN IN A CROSSWIND!...

"Which PROVES ladies and gentlemen of the jury that THIS AIRPLANE WAS DEFECTIVE!"

Along the same lines, I just got an email a few minutes ago telling me that I passed the Colorado bar. So now I can sue all of you in Maryland or Colorado when you lose my pants or design an airplane that forces me to make stupid decisions.

Congrats, Obi Wan! Let the force guide you.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

I don't know what you mean by navigation failed, you mean you're lost? That would qualify as "navigate safely" under my PTS.

As in, Nav radios/GPS failed I'm guessing is what he meant. And I'm assuming your "navigate safely" includes the teaching of pilotage, dead reckoning, VOR's and all that still right?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

i dunno Ron, most of the pilots I know are pretty crappy drivers. except for Kent of course!!!

Naah, in the car I'm a crappy driver too... Always in too much of a hurry, like the rest of the world. Why do you think I got a car with a high-boost turbocharger???

Actually, what's funny is that if I've just been up flying, I drive way better than normal. Calm, no hurry, with my inner smile still shining bright.

 

[flyingcheesehead]

Well said, Kenny.

I'm actually not any more likely than you to survive an accident on the ground. Not much more "crumple zone" up front, but WAY more weight in the back to assist with the crushing... And also, a higher likelihood of tipping over and a lot farther to fall if I do. Of course, our company had several rollovers last year, and only one of the drivers was killed.

As far as the rest of the world... The *average* person might be an OK pilot, emphasis on might, but the below-average person would most certainly not. That leaves 50% of the population, at least, that should not be pilots. However, I don't have a problem with most of them driving.

 

[tonycondon]

Naah, in the car I'm a crappy driver too... Always in too much of a hurry, like the rest of the world. Why do you think I got a car with a high-boost turbocharger???

oh good, that makes me feel better for always being a ****ty driver when you are in the right seat.

i usually am an even crappier driver after flying, tend to go a tad faster...

 

[KennyFlys]

i usually am an even crappier driver after flying, tend to go a tad faster...

A sign you should stick to gliders only?

Although, I don't think they make any non-powered cars. Borrow Fred's!

 

[Obi Heed Kenobi]

Heh. I just imagined the case:

They hire an expert witness pilot. He does a demonstration in a Cirrus showing that the required turn can be made in the same space as the East River - if you slow enough and turn steep enough EVEN IN A CROSSWIND!...

"Which PROVES ladies and gentlemen of the jury that THIS AIRPLANE WAS DEFECTIVE!"



Congrats, Obi Wan! Let the force guide you.

Hmmm...sounds like the Chewbacca defense.

"Now, ladies and gentlemen, Chewbacca is a Wookie. He's 8 feet tall and lives on the planet Kashyyk. What's he doing on Endor, a planet full of Ewoks that are three feet tall? Ladies and gentlemen, it just doesn't make any sense for a Wookie from the planet Kashyyk to be on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks. And that's why you must acquit."

 

[KennyFlys]

Hmmm...sounds like the Chewbacca defense.

"Now, ladies and gentlemen, Chewbacca is a Wookie. He's 8 feet tall and lives on the planet Kashyyk. What's he doing on Endor, a planet full of Ewoks that are three feet tall? Ladies and gentlemen, it just doesn't make any sense for a Wookie from the planet Kashyyk to be on Endor with a bunch of Ewoks. And that's why you must acquit."

The Wookie didn't fit?

 

[flyingcheesehead]

oh good, that makes me feel better for always being a ****ty driver when you are in the right seat.

Well, y'know, even when I'm driving crappy I still use my turn signals.