A bizarre and depressing case!

[MattPearson]

This months AOPA magazine details a court case where a bonanza pilot was found liable for $2 million for a mid-air collision between two other aircraft three miles away because the accident aircraft were distracted by the bonanza pilots landing gear malfunction. You can read the details for yourself. My friends, if we as pilots are now liable for other pilots actions or failures to act, we are in BIG trouble.

It's also interesting that the title for this months magazine is " Be a project pilot mentor." The push is to recruit new interest in aviation and increase the student pilots. Why in the hell do they think the number of Student pilot certificates issued in 1980 was over 200,000 and in 2005 it was in the mid 80,000 range.

This same trend is in the purchase of new aircraft. The "affordable" aircraft are 30-40 years old and cost more to purchase now than when they were new. The same comparable aircraft today is $250K -$500K. Once the aging fleet of aircraft is moth-balled, and with virtually no new influx of used aircraft, we will see the lighter side of the GA industry makes it's final circles of the proverbial toilet. :mad:

[scottessex]

That is the typical "blame somebody else" mentality. Too bad it is spilling over into everything, I thought the pilot in command was responsible for the aircraft. Throw common sense out the window.

Next they'll be suing the guy that gives the weather report when a storm cell moves into thier flight path.

I can't believe the BS that is winning court cases these days. Sad Sad Sad.

[barnstorm2]

The lawyers seem to be killing us.

Please correct me if I am wrong but new craft are not 10x more expensive to make but the liabilty on everything is killing us.

Anyone who hears 'aircraft accident' looses there mind, common sense and goes sue happy.

When I had my wreck in my 2 place no one was hurt, no damage was done execpt to my pocket book and ego BUT it got more news coverage by far then people that were KILLED on the highway that weekend!!

What ever the cause if we can not have aircraft ready to fly for $30-50K GA will die unless I have a complete mis-understanding of the middle and middle-upper class discresionary income.

LSA to the rescue?

[Al_Hammer]

I wonder if the problem isn't more than just lawyers. It may be part of an overall trend towards more adverse regulation, and more expensive aircraft.

As the population densiity keeps increasing, we could wind up like Japan.
Here is a statement from the AOPA president in Japan:

Mr. Issei Imahashi

President, AOPA-Japan


Welcome to our web site. I’d like to review our past and talk about the future. In 1968 when AOPA-Japan group was born, there were more than 1,000 small airplanes flying in Japan. In 2004, the number has diminished down to less than 700, around 650 as the best estimate; it’s a 40% reduction in 36 years. However, pilot certificate holders are growing in number. There are more than 30,000 certified pilots in Japan. Good number of youngsters spend so much money on their flight training. They begin ambitiously in learning to fly, then find it hard to secure an airplane for themselves. Sooner they no longer renew their medical and start loitering somewhere else. Our economy after the WWII is now next only to US. In other leisure activities people enjoy in every imaginable way; aviation is probably the only exception. Not many praise flying. So much bureaucracy surrounds airplanes. Is this the dead end?

Pretty soon the only way to fly is going to be if you go absolutely insane and tie some baloons to your lawn chair and take a rifle with you to pop a few balloons for the descent.
This bunch will be right there, I'm sure, with forum discussions of enclosed vs open cockpit lawnchairs and the aerodynamic stability of helium baloons.
Count me in. :D

PS: in reality, the lawnchair will be shot down by a swarm of UAV's, which are themselves probably on the run from the FAA because their paperwork is not in order.

[MattPearson]

:p LOL.
It's hard to keep a positive attitude about anything aviation related except while you are partaking in the activity.

[scottessex]

You know you have to be carefull with that smoker now, somebody could be watching you and wreck thier car! Or drop thier cell phone.

[DangerBird]

I do belive most lawyers are unscrupuless and greedy but I blame the judges for awarding these crazy settelments

[MattPearson]

This particular case was decided by a JURY!~!!

The next time I am driving by Hooters trying to peer into the windows and hit the car in front of me, I am going to sue them for CAUSING me to not pay attention to my driving. After all, they should know that I can not resist checking out the babes!!

[DangerBird]

I guess common sense isn't common anymore

[Vance]

I feel that it is important to remember that the lawyers were hired and directed by clients. It is true that they chose the profession of hired gun, but they couldn’t operate without customers that want them to hurt someone.

I believe it would be good to remember this case the next time you get a notice to participate in jury duty. The last time I served it seemed that people with cognitive skills found a way to avoid Jury duty.

Thank you, Vance

[Mike Schallmann]

Everybody believes lawyers are unscruplus and greedy -UNTIL they need one--

[KenSandyEggo]

"The last time I served it seemed that people with cognitive skills found a way to avoid Jury duty."

If you have a business, a responsible job, etc., you can get excused from jury duty. Amongst my other careers, I was a Deputy Marshal and worked the courts in San Diego for awhile.

The perfect juror to a defense attorney is someone who knows nothing about the case...does not read the papers, does not watch the news on TV and has no opinions. If you're unemployed, ignorant and half brain-dead and don't think about anything one way or the other, you're amongst the star jurors in the pool.

[Hognose]

Next they'll be suing the guy that gives the weather report when a storm cell moves into thier flight path.

Scott and guys,

in 2005 the FAA controllers were found liable for the crash of an aircraft in Jacksonville. The pilot, a well-respected local attorney(!), had been to a "quickie" instrument school and had little actual instrument time. Flying into a stationary front that stretched across florida, he blew three ILS approaches to three separate airports (Executive, St. Augustine, and International). After going missed on the third ILS, he lost control of the plane and spiraled into the ground.

Daytona and New Smyrna Beach were in VMC. Skies clear, actually. That's less than five minutes from where he and his passengers died.

Why did they blame the controllers? Because while this guy was on his final ILS, a new ATIS became available, November not Mike, and it had a different altimeter setting. And because there was no tower audio tape (they were working a temp tower) they couldn't prove they gave him the new altimeter setting.

The ambulance-chasers slung a lot of nonsense about the importance of an altimeter setting, and the jury, which they'd carefully pruned of anyone with the intellect God gave a horseshoe crab, bought it.

The difference in the settings? ATIS M altimeter: 30.17. ATIS N: 30.20. Difference: 0.03 inches of mercury -- 30 feet of altitude. However, that's a 30 foot error away from the ground, in the direction of safety. (It's the equivalent of flying from an area of 30.17 to 30.20 without resetting -- "low to high, you're up in the sky, high to low, look out below!"). I am winging this from memory but believe the DH for ILS 7 at JAX is 281 feet... it is 200 feet AGL regardless.

And, despite dwelling on the FAA's failure to give the deceased mishap pilot the current altimeter setting, guess what the setting actually was in the wreckage? 30.20. So he did get it ... somehow. Even though a court subsequently ruled that him not having this "vital" data point is why he slammed into the ground.

He was also loaded with pseudoephedrine and metabolites -- cold medicine.

My personal opinion is that this accident resulted from a poorly trained, overconfident pilot who became flustered as his options didn't work, and never considered the safety-conscious out of heading back down the coast a few miles. The FAA has nothing to do with it, unless you want to blame lax oversight of quickie ticket-punch instrument schools.

For psychological reasons, it's very hard for most people (especially males!) to consider turning back when lost or when a destination proves inhospitable. So perhaps we can't hold his failure to do so against him. (For lots of good stuff on survival psychobiology, read Deep Survival by Laurence Gonzales). But he must have known -- mustn't he? -- how shaky his instrument skills were. A night ILS to minimums is hard work.

Here's the NTSB report: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20011218X02407&ntsbno=MIA02FA045&akey=1

And the courts decided that judgment needed to be rewarded with millions of your tax dollars, paid to the man's bereaved family. (Actually, they'll probably be sued in turn by the family of the passengers he murdered).

The US court system (both criminal and civil) has lost any connexion it ever had to justice. The output of the system is largely random, to the extent that it can't be manipulated by self-serving lawyers.

cheers

-=K=-

[giro5]

Vance - clients are pursued by the lawyers who dream up these issues to sue over. Of course court judges and juries aid and abiet them.

[Vance]

Yes John, I understand the client is not always the one who comes up with the idea. I am not sure it matters whose idea it is.

My point, that I didn’t articulate well, was that in order for judgments to take place like this one, it is not just the lawyer’s fault.

The rule of law, in my opinion, is one of the primary reasons that capitalism works. I have tried to do business in other countries without much success, unless they have a functional legal system.

Any time there is power, there will be people who will abuse it. I am grateful to the lawyers who have protected me from those abusers. They work harder and are more organized than me. Many attorneys have a very well developed and admirable sense of ethics. Many don’t.

It is not hard to find abuses of the system, but every day our legal system makes the orderly, profitable process of business possible. I don’t know of a better system.

Thank you, Vance

[Vance]

Hello Kevin,

It is a small part of the legal system that has gone mad. We, as a society, don’t seem to have the will to end the abuse.

I have to admit that more than once I have allowed my attorney to settle, rather than pay for a battle and risk defeat. I lacked the will to defend my principles.

I don’t agree that the legal system is just random. Each day there are many little victories for good, they just don’t get the attention that the corruption of justice does. Any time people are involved there will be abuses of power.

Thank you, Vance

[Coda]

Has anyone seen the film 'Remo Williams'? (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0089901/) No, there's no Gyro action in it. The movie is about a small 'President sanctioned' team that is the last resort of a failed justice system.

Hmm, before Bush, that last sentence would have made sense, maybe :p

[automan1223]

The problem is 3 pronged like a devils fork.

1. Ignorant public.

2. Corrupt procedures, rules of evidence, corrupt jury instructions read by the judge to a jury

3. Greed.

One thing I was told by a great instructor was once, "You may screw up" many miles, and hours down the road you may have a bad landing or mess up. Dont try to blame anyone else but yourself for the mess up. Stuff happens. "

This was not news to me. I was raised on this and other like principles. When was the last time you saw a movie or program where someone admits they messed up and take responsibility for it. ?

I too saw the aopa mentor article. I thought it was well written.. I have this feeling there are other ideas that could be used but it was well researched. To bad the article had to be written in aopa instead of ROTORCRAFT magazine......

Jonathan

[Mike Schallmann]

In the past 62 yearts Ive been in about 40 countries --Our system of government and legal system may not be the best ever developed --but it is far better than any other place that I have been--- I sometimes hate lawyers but on at least five occasions they have saved my butt--two civil and three in the performance of my job.

Additionally In also initiated a suit in which I was severely injured in an airplane crash ( I was a passenger)--all I asked for initially was medical compensartion -No additional cash for pain suffering etc----it was denied by ther insurance company --so I got ticked off and hired a good law firm -and took them to task -- they settled with me --as a result I was Able to take an early retirement -- The lawyers made a bundle --but then so did I -they got 1/3 but I got the other 2/3.

Had the insurance company been willing to pay my medical they could have saved many hundreds of thousands of dollars--

Lawers can can be a pain --but then they can also be a godsend!!

[pbradley]

This subject really gets up my nose. The Insurance Company initially denied responsibility on your plane accident because of the position it would be putting itself into by in effect admitting liability itself being a victim of the system and caught in a Catch 22 situation. A very good system that serves lawyers very well. We have a similar system in Australia.

The way to fix it here would be simple but would not be in the best interests of the very people who have power to change the law, lawyers and politicians. So it perpetuates itself and serves itself well. Don't displace blame from lawyers on the basis they serve a need. THEY DELIBERATELY CREATE THE NEED and as such should be treated as they treat us...WITH DISTAIN.:mad:

Pete

[dragonflyerthom]

Great post Kevin

The only thing I can add to this is.


Our legal system works most of the time. It is the prosecutor who are trying to make a name for themselves that seem to muddy the water so to speak. The Judges can only arbitrate the proceedings and give court some control. Our system does work and gives everyone his or her day in court.
Attorneys on the other had are self employed. They have to weigh every potential clients ability to win in court. They (the attorney) look at each case for flaws which could help them win.


Thom

[Cobra Doc]

Death should be the only reason not to show up for Jury duty. In Chicago that may not even be a good enough excuse: You voted 3 times last election, now you have to do your civic duty! I served twice. You know what they say about the one-eyed man in the land of the blind. I didn't have any problem getting the decision I wanted. My "peers" were either too stupid or too lazy to care.

[Steve McGowan]

If ya wanna see a fantastic flick,, and can find it in the US..
" The Man who Sued God"

I saw in when I was Down Yonder..

It tells it just the way Insurance companies work, and whos behind most of it.

Steve

[Paul_in_Ohio]

I agree Cody... I served on a jury and got called again 8 months later. I called the court and asked that if I had served 8 months ago, would that mean I couldn't serve again? The woman was stunned that I wanted to serve a second time within the same year. I was allowed, and both cases were very interesting, as well as the first hand look at the workings of our legal system.

It is also interesting in seeing how others view the same material in a different manner than you. In my opinion, everyone should serve at least once for the experience.

[Ga6riel]

public liability 'laws' must be the bain of US manufacturing, we have issues here in au too but its not a spot on how its run in the US. I recall an accident where a guy bought a used 190 and let it sit outside in hard rain for 3 days and then got in and started up, took off without warmup and crashed at the inevitable trees at the end of the runway.

His widow challenged cessna in court and walked away with millions of dollars, 2 or 3 I forget, because the chosen method of handling the aircraft wasnt placarded against on the dash.

It was one of the factors that got Cessna out of GA, and is pretty much why the GA aircraft fleet is in the state its in now. I complained elsewhere, perhaps unthinkingly that products found 'not usefull' by the military dont seem to get a run anywhere else. When perhaps the truth is the military are less likely to sue in such crazy circumstances, and they pay better anyways, and they dont ask awkward questions. Like hey what a great broom, $800 you say, great send us 10,000 by april...

Of course some of this is why we have this thriving and interesting kit plane market too, with here today gone tomorrow manufacturers. Some beautifully crafted gifted designs, some run of the mill, some dam right dangerous. I guess in the end you get what you pay for. I think I said that elsewhere too....

[Hognose]

As a juror I have always been ordered out of the pool.

There is a great site that I've occasionally sent a tip to (and occasionally gotten a tip from) that tracks our legal system:

http://www.overlawyered.com/

What Mike (I think) said was true, our system may be ate up but as strange as it gets in the nations of the Anglosphere it is still mostly good and mostly free. Mexico has a lot less regulation and less police surveillance and harassment of the average Joe, but if you do run afoul of anyone with a little power the system is staggeringly corrupt.

A lot of times we fight about stuff around the margins.

Vance -- who epitomizes a sort of cool and rational way of looking at things, that I wish I had -- also has a point about settling.

I had a run in about seven years ago with a crooked cop. He and his brother and his brother's partner (all three cops) were going to swear against me in court. I reluctantly pled guilty to a misdemeanour I did not commit, because I couldn't take the risk of the randomness of a jury (we'd caught the cops on the stand in lies in pretrial hearings, but they had been rehearsing together for two years by trial day). A felony conviction would have caused me serious professional problems apart from any penalty the court might have assessed.

Morally, it was wrong for me to settle for the plea bargain -- I should have rolled the dice with the jury. However, it was my pink body in the defendant's dock. And I have absolutely zero confidence that in any given case the system will reach a rational result (let alone a just one). Perhaps most of the time it does, but while statistics are powerful tools for looking at groups, they are of limited use in individual cases.

The story ended well. The instigating former policeman is now in his first year of six to ten in our bleakest prison, and must register as a violent sex offender for life (he had a bad habit of stopping pretty girls and letting them "work off" their traffic violation... kind of on-the-spot community service). His brother is also fired as a cop, after some benevolent mystery citizen discovered and reported that he'd shacked up with a fourteen year old (he should be in prison too, but this is Massachusetts, remember). Moral of story is: if you are going to frame somebody, be squeaky clean and don't pick someone who has the resources (not to mention two decades of fine taxpayer-paid training) to research you in depth.

I've never turned that stuff on anyone outside of the line of duty before, and won't do it again, in all likelihood.

The whole thing was because the (married) cop was furious that I was seeing a woman who told him to get lost. And the irony of the century has to be that she and I were working together on a project, but not romantically involved.

In another case, the court system allowed my family to recover millions of dollars that we had been defrauded by Gen Re, one of the world's largest reinsurance firms. And they paid our lawyers, when all was said and done.

I may be the only member of the forum who has had the need to employ lawyers with this range of specialties: entertainment law, family law, intellectual property law, business law, civil tort law, non-profit law, military law, and criminal defence. I have turned down insistent (even obnoxious) attempts to solicit me as a client after road mishaps (sent to hospital by out of control Porsche).

Money quote: "You're leaving money on the table! Are you stupid?" Heh. I guess. I don't want money from a guy whose daughter rode to the hospital in the ambulance with me, he has worries enough.

Lawyers as individuals are usually intelligent, positive people but the courts and the law have too much power. They always say, would you want to return to fighting duels? Well, not a fair question; I spent months of my life on a shooting range. That'd be like asking Michael Jordan if he wanted to settle a dispute with a free throw contest.

I don't have any great answers. I think British style "loser pays" would help with the flakier suits, but as long as the courts can give out "free" money then people will go there to get money -- Britain, Canada and other countries get flaky lawsuits too (and most every country thinks theirs is the only one with the problem).

When we rant about this stuff (which I certainly do) we rant about human nature. That's what Vance is getting at when he points out that clients must share the blame of lawyers for these bizarre judgments, like the midair case that prompted this thread. It's just humans trying to use the system, whatever it is, to their best advantage. Every utopian system people have tried has made things worse, so we'll just have to muddle through.

cheers

-=K=-

[Harry_S.]

Kevin;

Your post #26, was interesting reading.

I like your avatar.:D


Cheers :)

[Cobra Doc]

Kevin, I've read your post about 3 times now. Morbid curiosity I guess. I do have one slight professional advantage an my auto insurance company loves me for it. My wife got rear-ended twice in 10 months. The first time she was part of the middle of a double-stuff Oreo in a traffic jam on I-17 (imagine that!). the sond time she was stopped at light righ beside a scholl bus. The girl that her said she didn't know the school bus was stopped and didn't want to hit it. Since she was in a Honda Accord, I would not.
Both times I called the claims department of my insurance company and let them know this was mostly a courtesy call and if I needed their assiatance I would let them know. They called me everyday to see how things were going! Once the other insurance company found out I was an underwriter and wasn't going to try for the "gold ring" they were very helpful and things went smoothly. We got the car fixed and a rental car with no out of pocket expenses. Medical bills were paid for and a little something for "pain and suffering". things can be done easily when intelligent people work together.
Too bad I didn't know 20 years ago what I know now. My wife is still picking glass out of her face from being a passenger in a 65 Chevy pick-up.