Andreini Family Suing Air Force for $10 Million

Geico266 said:
That will help aviation and being able to have airshows.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately, true.

Reality is, the USAF royally screwed that one up. And while I believe the family is every bit justified in their suit, I doubt that anything good will come out of it.
 
This is a very sad affair.
I have flown in two airshows since Eddie’s accident and there was an increased awareness of fire hazards and more emphasis placed on response time and procedures.
It appears to me a great excuse to not have airshows at military bases.
It is hard to imagine anything Eddie would have wanted coming out of this suit.
I miss Eddie.
 
What a waste of time and money. If they arrived in one minute instead of 4, he would still be dead. I get they're upset about his death. And ya, crash rescue was slow. But I don't think one was caused by the other.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
What a waste of time and money. If they arrived in one minute instead of 4, he would still be dead.
Click to expand...

No he wouldn't. He survived the crash and burned to death.

The air-force had not set up a crash response that conformed to industry standards.

http://www.hmbreview.com/news/andre...cle_01b151a0-fe36-11e3-b86a-001a4bcf887a.html

Solano County autopsy report indicated Andreini suffered no major injuries from the impact of the crash. Instead the report indicated that Andreini’s death was the result of smoke inhalation and burns.

Danko, the attorney who is filing the suit used to a frequent poster here.
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
What a waste of time and money. If they arrived in one minute instead of 4, he would still be dead. I get they're upset about his death. And ya, crash rescue was slow. But I don't think one was caused by the other.
Click to expand...

Watch the crash. It was very gentle and obviously survivable. The subsequent fire was not, but it should have been. A one minute response would have made all the difference.
 
weilke said:
No he wouldn't. He survived the crash and burned to death.

The air-force had not set up a crash response that conformed to industry standards.

http://www.hmbreview.com/news/andre...cle_01b151a0-fe36-11e3-b86a-001a4bcf887a.html

Solano County autopsy report indicated Andreini suffered no major injuries from the impact of the crash. Instead the report indicated that Andreini’s death was the result of smoke inhalation and burns.

Danko, the attorney who is filing the suit used to a frequent poster here.
Click to expand...
Did the pilot coordinate with base officials to determine if the rescue procedures and equipment were to industry standards or did he assume that they would be adequate?
 
MAKG1 said:
Watch the crash. It was very gentle and obviously survivable. The subsequent fire was not, but it should have been. A one minute response would have made all the difference.
Click to expand...

From what I've heard from some people who were very close to the scene, AF personnel stopped one of Eddie's crew who noticed the grass around the smoke oil smoldering and was running with an extinguisher to the plane.
 
Gary F said:
Did the pilot coordinate with base officials to determine if the rescue procedures and equipment were to industry standards or did he assume that they would be adequate?
Click to expand...

I dont know.

If a civilian organizer puts on an air-show, he usually has to buy insurance. When you buy insurance, the underwriter wants to see an emergency response plan that reasonably accounts for the risks associated with the types of aircraft used for aerial displays.

It looks like the AF deemed a response from the station house at the main runway complex to be sufficient and didn't put units on the flight-line at the remote runway.
 
MAKG1 said:
Watch the crash. It was very gentle and obviously survivable. The subsequent fire was not, but it should have been. A one minute response would have made all the difference.
Click to expand...

Not being a stunt pilot would have saved his life too....

But let's ignore that.

But let's blame someone else....it's the American way!!
 
weilke said:
I dont know.

If a civilian organizer puts on an air-show, he usually has to buy insurance. When you buy insurance, the underwriter wants to see an emergency response plan that reasonably accounts for the risks associated with the types of aircraft used for aerial displays.

It looks like the AF deemed a response from the station house at the main runway complex to be sufficient and didn't put units on the flight-line at the remote runway.
Click to expand...
I feel bad for the guy but I believe that it was the stunt pilot's responsibility to coordinate with the organizer. Only if they did not follow their plan or misled the pilot they should be held liable.
 
Gary F said:
I feel bad for the guy but I believe that it was the stunt pilot's responsibility to coordinate with the organizer. Only if they did not follow their plan or misled the pilot they should be held liable.
Click to expand...

I find it hard to believe that it was part of their plan to take five minutes for first responders to reach a survivable crash that happened on the runway in front of thousands of spectators.

Therefore, it would seem logical to presume that their plan was either flawed, or not followed. My guess is that the Air Force is liable.

Of course, that doesn't mean they will admit liability, or even pay a dime if they're found guilty. Suing the government is truly a tough row to hoe.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I find it hard to believe that it was part of their plan to take five minutes for first responders to reach a survivable crash that happened on the runway in front of thousands of spectators.

Therefore, it would seem logical to presume that their plan was either flawed, or not followed. My guess is that the Air Force is liable.

Of course, that doesn't mean they will admit liability, or even pay a dime if they're found guilty. Suing the government is truly a tough row to hoe.
Click to expand...


Pilot is liable for his own death.

Best case senario....emergency response saves his life in this instance....

Would you like to live the rest of your life as a 77 yr old man with 3rd degree burns???

You might make it to 78 in agonizing pain...if your lucky.

He was blessed they took so long.
 
A friend of mine died in a crash. He fire walled the throttles as the prop tips starting hitting the gravel, then VMC'ed into an inverted landing.

Actually he and all 7 passengers survived the crash, but all died from burns.

The autopsy showed that if there had not been a fire, he would have lived the rest of his life as a vegetable.

He was 27 years old.

Let me die. I don't want to be connected to machines to live.
 
Zeldman said:
A friend of mine died in a crash. He fire walled the throttles as the prop tips starting hitting the gravel, then VMC'ed into an inverted landing.

Actually he and all 7 passengers survived the crash, but all died from burns.

The autopsy showed that if there had not been a fire, he would have lived the rest of his life as a vegetable.

He was 27 years old.

Let me die. I don't want to be connected to machines to live.
Click to expand...

Amen to that
 
MAKG1 said:
Watch the crash. It was very gentle and obviously survivable. The subsequent fire was not, but it should have been. A one minute response would have made all the difference.
Click to expand...
I did watch it. And I saw the plane on fire very quickly. It was over for him then. Trucks arriving one minute after you're dead vs four minutes after you're dead won't change that you're dead.


<< Sent from my mobile device at 0agl >>
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
I did watch it. And I saw the plane on fire very quickly. It was over for him then. Trucks arriving one minute after you're dead vs four minutes after you're dead won't change that you're dead.


<< Sent from my mobile device at 0agl >>
Click to expand...

No it wasn't. And I say that as someone who has been flight deck fire trained and also a former firefighter.
 
TEFLONSEAN said:
Not being a stunt pilot would have saved his life too....



But let's ignore that.



But let's blame someone else....it's the American way!!
Click to expand...

No one is ignoring that stunt flying is dangerous. But he did not have to die in that accident. The response by the fire/rescue crew was clearly negligent.
 
So am I (firefighter/emt). So what do you think would have been a reasonable response time? The FAA and DOD standards both require the first apparatus to arrive on scene anywhere in the runway or movement area in no more than 3 minutes. I'm sorry but if his body was on fire for 2 minutes instead of 4 minutes, he would still be dead.
 
ICAS says 60seconds during displays. That requires trucks at both ends of the flightline with ARFF personnel suited up next to the truck or engines running.

Since when do we aim for the minimum standard ?
 
Pedals2Paddles said:
So am I (firefighter/emt). So what do you think would have been a reasonable response time? The FAA and DOD standards both require the first apparatus to arrive on scene anywhere in the runway or movement area in no more than 3 minutes. I'm sorry but if his body was on fire for 2 minutes instead of 4 minutes, he would still be dead.
Click to expand...

As soon as that aircraft touched the ground the trucks should have been rolling. This was a large airshow with the apparatus already staged. There should have been no delay.

A big difference between civilian firefighting and military airfield ops is hotsuitmen. They should have at a minimum been dressed out (maybe gear relaxed, but ready to go by the time the trucks got there-obviously depending on the trucks getting there).

I do not believe his 'body was on fire' in the first minute or two.
 
It should hardly be surprising that 5 minutes is way to long.
Even with just plain Volunteer Fire Company responding to car accidents and house fires, we had a three minute limit.

I trained with the BWI CFR crews. Going over their training materials they have THIRTY SECONDS from the time they are notified to be on the scene flowing foam if they want any prayer of being effective. After learning that, I don't ever begrudge them jumping the gun when a plane with a hot APU or just me with an undisclosed electrical problem calls in to the tower.

NTSB PRELIM: http://www.ntsb.gov/_layouts/ntsb.a...-0d62-4613-8302-3d4beaf69586&pgno=1&pgsize=50
 
Last edited:
Fearless Tower said:
No one is ignoring that stunt flying is dangerous. But he did not have to die in that accident. The response by the fire/rescue crew was clearly negligent.
Click to expand...

I wouldnt put it on the crew. Whoever wrote the insufficient emergency response plan (or failed to implement it) bears the responibility.
 
weilke said:
I wouldnt put it on the crew. Whoever wrote the insufficient emergency response plan (or failed to implement it) bears the responibility.
Click to expand...

Does the pilot share any responsibility if he failed to review the insufficient response plan? Wouldn't it be advisable to ask where the emergency equipment would be positioned prior to engaging in such high risk flying?
 
Frivolous law suit.... Let's blame everyone else, and especially the deep pockets I stead of a guy who crashed his plane from pilot error....yep..... That makes a whole lot of sense.

And since when do emergency responders have any obligation to save your life/property/etc? They don't. Period. None. At at all.

That sucks the ol man bit the dirt, but it was his own damn fault. He ended up on the back side of the curve and paid the price. He made a choice, he made a mistake, he died.


What's next? We gonna sue airplne manufacturers? We gonna sue the local volunteer firefighter? We gonna sue NOAA?

I hope the suit is tossed out. This is nothing more than greedy family members looking to cash in on the ol mans incompetence. Seriously.
 
Fearless Tower said:
As soon as that aircraft touched the ground the trucks should have been rolling. This was a large airshow with the apparatus already staged. There should have been no delay.

A big difference between civilian firefighting and military airfield ops is hotsuitmen. They should have at a minimum been dressed out (maybe gear relaxed, but ready to go by the time the trucks got there-obviously depending on the trucks getting there).

I do not believe his 'body was on fire' in the first minute or two.
Click to expand...

This......:yes:
 
It doesn't matter if you find the planners, the firefighters, or anyone else "guilty", they're all shielded from personal liability.

The lawsuit is to grab money from the taxpayer and/or the air show private business's insurance, neither of which puts the consequences on the people who's actions or inactions led to loss of life. If the jury believes so, in the first place.

Not that this is a jury trial. This'll be settled out of court. It's just negotiation for whether the taxpayers of the area or the insurance company is paying out. Probably both in an undisclosed settlement.
 
denverpilot said:
It doesn't matter if you find the planners, the firefighters, or anyone else "guilty", they're all shielded from personal liability.

The lawsuit is to grab money from the taxpayer and/or the air show private business's insurance, neither of which puts the consequences on the people who's actions or inactions led to loss of life. If the jury believes so, in the first place.
Click to expand...

That is just the nature of the legal system in this country. Nothing unique about this suit. It is about the size of the pockets- who has the best ability to make the injured party 'whole' vs. straight responsibility.

Same reason the DoN gets sued every time a shipyard worker gets injured in the job in a private shipyard.

But the DoD funding (and govt in general) is rather complicated - you are not likely to see you taxes go up because of this suit.
 
Gary F said:
Does the pilot share any responsibility if he failed to review the insufficient response plan? Wouldn't it be advisable to ask where the emergency equipment would be positioned prior to engaging in such high risk flying?
Click to expand...

I have flown in several air shows that Eddie flew in.
They all had a mandatory pilots briefing and part of that briefing is with members of the fire/rescue crew and what their emergency procedures are.
Usually the members of the fire/rescue crew meet with the individual performers at their aircraft so the crew can be briefed on where and how much flammable liquid is on board and emergency extraction procedures.
In my experience members of the fire/rescue crew have a sincere desire to do the best they can do to make the air show as safe as possible.
I was disappointed in the response time of the fire/rescue crew with Eddie’s accident.
I have already seen an increased focus on fire/rescue at the airshows I have flown since Eddie’s accident.
Eddie was a very experienced professional and understood the risks.
I feel that a law suit like this will not enhance safety and may reduce the already diminishing number of air shows.
I am not standing in their shoes so I have no way to know what they are feeling or their motivation for the suit.
 
Vance Breese said:
I have flown in several air shows that Eddie flew in.
They all had a mandatory pilots briefing and part of that briefing is with members of the fire/rescue crew and what their emergency procedures are.
Usually the members of the fire/rescue crew meet with the individual performers at their aircraft so the crew can be briefed on where and how much flammable liquid is on board and emergency extraction procedures.
In my experience members of the fire/rescue crew have a sincere desire to do the best they can do to make the air show as safe as possible.
I was disappointed in the response time of the fire/rescue crew with Eddie’s accident.
I have already seen an increased focus on fire/rescue at the airshows I have flown since Eddie’s accident.
Eddie was a very experienced professional and understood the risks.
I feel that a law suit like this will not enhance safety and may reduce the already diminishing number of air shows.
Click to expand...
So the questions are:
Did the pilot accept inadequate rescue procedures?
Did the rescue personnel not adhere to the plan? If not, why didn't the pilot abort if he didn't see the trucks properly positioned before he began the run?

Vance Breese said:
I am not standing in their shoes so I have no way to know what they are feeling or their motivation for the suit.
Click to expand...
My guess is money. Probably around $5 million depending on the split with the attorneys.
 
Of course they found a lawyer who would sue! Why not!? Deep pockets! U.S. Government involved! If he had cashed in at a small non descript airport it's probable no suit would have been filed. Don't forget. We are the most litigious country in the world! This guy paid his money, he took his chances, which should have been the end of the story.
 
Fearless Tower said:
That is just the nature of the legal system in this country. Nothing unique about this suit. It is about the size of the pockets- who has the best ability to make the injured party 'whole' vs. straight responsibility.

Same reason the DoN gets sued every time a shipyard worker gets injured in the job in a private shipyard.

But the DoD funding (and govt in general) is rather complicated - you are not likely to see you taxes go up because of this suit.
Click to expand...

Our taxes are too high due to this mentality not one singe suit. Benifits, pensions, settlements, tax-fraud, govt employees on paid leave for misbehavior, ...etc. I'm 61 and I never remember a time when people didn't openly brag about how they cheat on their taxes.

The tax-payer is fair game and this mentality has ruined our economy.
 
CharlieTango said:
Our taxes are too high due to this mentality not one singe suit. Benifits, pensions, settlements, tax-fraud, govt employees on paid leave for misbehavior, ...etc. I'm 61 and I never remember a time when people didn't openly brag about how they cheat on their taxes.

The tax-payer is fair game and this mentality has ruined our economy.
Click to expand...

Yup.......
 
Gary F said:
So the questions are:

Did the pilot accept inadequate rescue procedures?

Did the rescue personnel not adhere to the plan?

If not, why didn't the pilot abort if he didn't see the trucks properly positioned before he began the run?
Click to expand...

I don't know. I was not there for the briefing because that was not an I show I flew in.

I don't know what didn't work.
I suspect five minutes was not the plan.

I can't speak for Eddie. I would not fly if the emergency equipment was not in place.
None of the Air Bosses I have flown with would have launched me without the safety equipment in place.

I don't know what caused the delay. It may have been something that Eddie and the air boss would not recognize from their vantage point.

Eddie had performed for many years and was very safety conscious.
 
Yes, it will probably be settled " out of court in closed hearing" so the taxpayers never know what was paid. This is usually stipulated as part of the settlement. Total scam, and yes it IS part of why we are going broke. Thousands of these type cases against the government, not to mention putting costly wars on credit cards!
 
Vance Breese said:
I don't know. I was not there for the briefing because that was not an I show I flew in.

I don't know what didn't work.
I suspect five minutes was not the plan.

I can't speak for Eddie. I would not fly if the emergency equipment was not in place.
None of the Air Bosses I have flown with would have launched me without the safety equipment in place.

I don't know what caused the delay. It may have been something that Eddie and the air boss would not recognize from their vantage point.
Click to expand...
I feel bad for the pilot and his family. Hopefully the cause of the failure of the rescue system will be determined as the result of the lawsuit.
Vance Breese said:
Eddie had performed for many years and was very safety conscious.
Click to expand...
It depends on how you define safety conscious. Maybe he was compared to other stunt pilots. It could be argued that safety conscious pilots do not fly upside down a few feet above the runway.
 
Please... Part of why were going broke....National debt 18 trillion dollars! What a asinine statement. USAF already payed off on one of these, for sub Standard emergency services. Didn't learn their lesson. Pay the family.
 
Gary F said:
It depends on how you define safety conscious. Maybe he was compared to other stunt pilots. It could be argued that safety conscious pilots do not fly upside down a few feet above the runway.
Click to expand...

I define safety conscious as someone who works to mitigate risk at whatever they chose to do.
Flying is not safe and a good pilot works to mitigate that risk.
Flying an upside ribbon cut in a Stearman is dangerous and Eddie worked to mitigate that risk.
His aircraft was in top shape and he practiced regularly and had performed the upside down ribbon cut many times without incident.
It was a crowd favorite.
Eddie was a remarkable pilot and is not the one bringing the lawsuit.
He understood the risks and worked to mitigate them as do most airshow performers I have encountered.
It is my observation that most pilots don’t have a compelling reason to fly in bad weather just as Eddie didn’t have a compelling reason to do an upside down ribbon cut.
He loved flying in air shows and did it well.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top