Comments on: Get me to the hockey game on time

By: Ken

Ken — Thu, 25 Jun 2009 13:38:18 +0000

From the first day we get into an airplane to acquire a pilot’s license, we are taught the important lessons of risk managment and proper decision making. Much has been said about “the lack of proper training” that led to this accident. In my my opinion, if after 250 hours of flying an aircraft this pilot could not see the danger in what he was doing, then he simply had no business being in an airplane period!! Scud running at 100 AGL?! I find it very difficult to believe that at ANY point in his training he was taught that this type of flying could ever be done safely. It was a personal decision on his part and he was undoubtedly well aware of the potential consequences. It’s a clear case of “get thereitis”.

I agree 100% that there should have been at least one pilot on this jury. We, after all, would have been his peers. The general public understands very little about the aviation system and how it works to protect us as pilots. Nor can they be expected to. So how is it that they are given the responsibility of potentially deciding the fate of a successful aircraft manufacturer? The system failed!! As pilots, however, we all know who is the final authority as to the safety of EVERY flight. It is certainly not the manufacturer or even the instructor who trained the pilot. It’s the person sitting in that left seat.

By: Jeremy Hanna

Jeremy Hanna — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 14:03:44 +0000

Richard Dove makes an exelent point above in my opinion. A ‘jury of peers’ in these cases should be required to have a private pilot on the jury. How much weight do you think it would carry with the rest of the jury when another pilot tells them ‘He should have known better; even with no Cirrus training, if he’s a private pilot, he’s been trained NOT to make this flight”.

By: robert k thornquist

robert k thornquist — Mon, 15 Jun 2009 06:56:07 +0000

Note that the only one supporting the award (DANKO) is a slimy lawyer for plaintiffs in aviation matters (check his web page). Do these “people” care about ANYTHING other than their next fat paycheck, to hell with the consequences? “My clients have been grieviosly injured and need $14M to make them whole (I get 40%)”

By: sam ferguson

sam ferguson — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 13:24:46 +0000

I guess I am on a roll now: wasnt there just a report that AIG was not paying off suits involving the UAL geese/Hudson river landing? Again, I dont understand who was at fault. The geese would appear to have been. Did they have the proper liabioity insurance? How could anybody responsibly sue anybody over that crash? Oh, I just saw another billboard that was an attorney group that covers “geese run-ins”. Now i get it: the attorneys run this world…

By: sam ferguson

sam ferguson — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 11:00:58 +0000

One more immediate option (to a revolution which woulld take a lot of time and resources) would be for a placarded liability waiver type of federal law to be enacted. We use, at the state level, in Florida, the same legal device to protect the horse owner from liability claims of people that want to sue from injury due to horses. Farms and barns only need to have a placard stating that they are not liable for someones injury since horses (like airplanes) can have inherent dangers. An organization such as the AOPA could get the ball rolling in this regard. An attorney, Mike Siboni, in Ocala Florida, who also does aviation law, is quite familar with equine law and the liability law described above.

By: Bill Renaud

Bill Renaud — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 04:45:18 +0000

Looks to me like the defense attorney for Cirrus and UND failed to adequately explain to the jury that an instrument rating is the responsibility of the pilot, not the aircraft manufacturer. The training by Cirrus is only upgrade training for this specific aircraft model and is not intended to be a complete substitute for proper training to an FAA curriculum. I’ll bet Cirrus will be tightening up their agreements that they have a pilot sign before providing this type of factory training in the future.

By: sam ferguson

sam ferguson — Sun, 14 Jun 2009 00:44:28 +0000

“There needs to be a revolution of sorts.” I couldnt agree more, but it aint going to be easy. Basically we have lawyers making laws which is a direct conflict of interest as they protect their own interests. Look at our government that is basically run and created by lawyers to benefit lawyers and their own power structure.

I find it hard to believe Cirrus couldn’t have done a better job of protecting themselves: either before or after the fact. I would hope they appeal as far as they can appeal, and I would hope in some way we could help them and others from not facing the same fate. This litigation of individuals vs insurance companies and corporations is draining our countries productivity far above any reasonable amount. Just the other day i saw a law firm that sues somebody or something (God?) for sinkhole damage.

We either have a revolution of sorts, or we go right back down the drain we are trying to climb out of today. Our choice.

By: john slegers

john slegers — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 12:28:49 +0000

Cirrus promotes and instructs, when ever the pilot gets his dumb ass into a situation he can’t handle ” pull the chute”. What happened this time? The chute malfunction?

By: Jim Crone

Jim Crone — Sat, 13 Jun 2009 02:28:21 +0000

So here we go again. An idiot (defined by Webster’s as the LOWEST measureable form of intelligence) who is NOT instrument rated, intentionally flies into IMC and kills himself. This is more commonly known as NATURAL SELECTION. Yet somehow an attorney was able to convince more idiots – also known as jurors – that it was the fault of the aircraft manufacturer and flight school.

Perhaps I was misled into thinking that the product liability reform dance that we went through back in the 80′s/90′s had somehow resolved this imbecilic question. Quite obviously the issue has NOT been resolved. This is costing all of us (that would be anyone involved in ANY aviation related business) just so that some attorney can line his pockets.

There needs to be a revolution of sorts. Realize from basic police and criminal science that any time a crook can strike it rich on any particular heist/scam/sting, it is a well known fact that said crook WILL strike again. Wouldn’t you?

By: Derek

Derek — Fri, 12 Jun 2009 19:31:51 +0000

Take a look at the “Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act”. We should push for something similar in the general aviation world.

In a nutshell, the act says that you cannot sue a manufacturer for damages resulting from misuse or illegal use of their product. Personally, I believe we need to expand this legislation to all products, however it’s criticaly important in industries like aviation where profits run thin and a lawsuit could easily knock out a company.