Comments on: Justice Prevails in SR22 Mishap

By: Joaquin Aguirre

Joaquin Aguirre — Mon, 25 Apr 2011 16:33:31 +0000

In other countries in the world the “looser” of lawsuits on final ruling (after all possible appeals) pays ALL the legal and other expenses, including those of the “winners” (as per Hershkowitz comment above). If applied in the USA, I believe this would reduce tremendously the legal “carnival” were I believe some lawyers pass the line of charging their hourly rate fee, to become “business partner” with their clients for a sizeable take in the potential “prize money”.

By: Mike Finkle

Mike Finkle — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 17:13:31 +0000

My comments are simple, but as both a 12,000+ hour ATP who is also a Court Mediator, I believe they address the important points here… (1) as pilots we all make errors, but must accept responsibility for (and, if we’re still alive thereafter, learn from) those errors, (2) the PIC is ALWAYS the ONLY one responsible for continued VFR flight into IMC (or IMC-like conditions), (3) the Appeals Court ruling (finally) ensured that the responsibility was not legally assigned where it did not belong and the “right thing” was done, and (4) an objective, analytical, and factually correct opinion is always “neutral” regardless of its appearing to be favorable to any party.

By: Mike Roebuck

Mike Roebuck — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 14:11:53 +0000

This is a tragic accident because of a bad decision, I feel sorry for the families. This is another example of a low time pilot with too much airplane. As far as more training, he had 60 hours of instrument training. He should of been able to get himself our of this situation by flying the airplane and calling ATC for help. He is more so to blame, because of his training, that he shouldn’t hav gotten himself in this position. Weather does not sneek up on you, you either take off in it or fly into it. I cought myself in this position a few times until I finally got enough sense to get an instrument rating. I am glad to see law and common sense ruled in this case.
I bet that 1% in the polls that thought the appellate court made the wrong decision were all lawyers.

By: Mike Danko

Mike Danko — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 02:18:03 +0000

Bruce, how can you say that AOPA joined the fray as a “a neutral third party to provide an objective view of the proceedings”? Come on. AOPA is not in any way a “neutral” third party. Nor does it provide “an objective view.” And it’s not supposed to. Instead, AOPA is a lobbying organization that is supposed to advocate for what it believes to be in the interests of pilots and aircraft owners. And that’s exactly what it did. Let’s get real.

The point is, plaintiffs argued their interests. Defendants argued theirs. And AOPA did too. No one involved in the appeal — including AOPA — was “neutral” or “objective.” Geez.

By: Gary

Gary — Sun, 24 Apr 2011 01:01:12 +0000

If you travel far enough, you will encounter weather beyond you and/or your plane’s capabilities. Through my personal experience as a VFR pilot, I feel its a lie that weather sneaks up on you. There’s seem to always be some indication that things are changing, that is if your paying attention. I have turned tail and run from clouds that seem to pop up out of nowhere, and been forced to find an airport to wait out a fast moving storm. In my humble opinion, night flying is when you can get caught off guard (smooth air, low radio chatter, beautiful lighted landscape or dark landscape that makes you feel like your just floating in space). When I decided to launch at night FSS did give me a hint the weather could change.

By: Matt

Matt — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 20:59:42 +0000

The pilot/passenger’s families may have had a case if Cirrus/UNDAF made no attempt to warn against VFR flight into IMC or MVFR with no clear way out. It’s not the responsibility of instructors or flight schools to teach pilot applicants, in exhaustive detail, how to survive the consequences of unwise or illegal decisions. It’s the responsibility of instructors and flight schools to train those applicants to never make an unwise or illegal decision to fly VFR into IMC in the first place. As far as accidental VFR into IMC is concerned — the FAA has already determined the level of training necessary in the form of Practical Test Standards. As long as training given meets those standards, instructors and schools should be free from the risk of being sued for giving inadequate training. As I recall with this particular accident, the pilot knew the weather was bad and decided to depart anyway. Scud-running ensued, and a typical VFR into IMC loss of control/flight into terrain accident followed shortly thereafter. The NTSB records are replete with similar accidents. The families of these other pilots, who came to a similar end, have no more of a case against the instructor(s) of the deceased than do these folk against Cirrus/UNDAF.

By: grumpy

grumpy — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 17:46:53 +0000

Heading bug at 12 o’clock, autopilot on, maintain climb, evaluate situation, call for help. Maybe not 100% legal but it’ll keep you alive so no-one has to file lawsuits.
Remember JFK Jr.

By: James Goudy

James Goudy — Sat, 23 Apr 2011 04:15:40 +0000

Hershkowitz said it best! We should forward his response to every law maker in the nation. Unfortunately, most of them are lawyers.

By: Douglas Hershkowitz

Douglas Hershkowitz — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:28:49 +0000

If lawyers were held responsible for filing frivilous lawsuits, then like this would disappear and life would be simpler. I am a newly minted private pilot and I find it hard to believe that anyone who has recently undergone pilot training has not had the point of risk management driven into their head as one of the most important things in flying. This pilot took a risk he should have not taken and paid the most dearest price for it. However, it is not the fault of the instructors or the plane maufacturer. It was he who made the poor decision. This is just yet another example of people not taking responsibilty for their own actions. The plaintiff’s lawyer should not be allowed to appeal. Furthermore, he should be made to pay the expenses incurred by Cirrus, the pilot’s instructors, and the University. In addition, he should be brought in front of the Bar for sanctions.

By: Don

Don — Fri, 22 Apr 2011 22:26:14 +0000

Sanity is prevailing, at least for now. These giant awards based on, as an above poster has said, emotion and greed have always sickened me. I don’t know how the plaintiff’s attorneys in these cases sleep at night, they give the legal profession a bad name (the case years back of the Piper Cub being ‘judged’ ‘dangerous and defective due to its tailwheel configuration’ comes to mind).

Doubtless, the $19 million figure was pulled out of some nether region, perhaps the jury see themselves someday in the position of winning the legal lotto and were hoping for a karmic reward of sorts.

OK Arthur Alan Wolk et al, bring on your inevitable justification for such thievery.