Man who crashed snowmobile into a parked Black Hawk helicopter suing government for $9.5M

I am surprised the govt would allow their helicopter to be parked at an airport with unlimited access.
 
Clip4 said:
I am surprised the govt would allow their helicopter to be parked at an airport with unlimited access.
Click to expand...
Plenty of non towered fields with very little security in place. In this case, at least it’s private property. A lot of Army bases lease land from local farmers to use for LZ training so they don’t have to fly a great distance to a restricted area. None are very secure.
 
Dumb question perhaps but do blackhawks have keys? I presume they must have had some way of locking up, like a throttle lock or something, but do blackhawks have keys natively? I assume not?

Seems like a bad idea if you’re on deck to scramble fast. “Sorry sarge I left my keys in the barracks…”
 
AKiss20 said:
Dumb question perhaps but do blackhawks have keys? I presume they must have had some way of locking up, like a throttle lock or something, but do blackhawks have keys natively? I assume not?

Seems like a bad idea if you’re on deck to scramble fast. “Sorry sarge I left my keys in the barracks…”
Click to expand...
They do. One for the starter igniters and one for the door locks.
 
Last edited:
Dana said:
According to the FAA it's "Albert Farms Airport".
Click to expand...
From Webster's
Airstrip: A runway without normal air base or airport facilities
Airport: A place from which aircraft operate that usually has paved runways and maintenance facilities and often serves as a terminal

Generally speaking, airports typically have paved runways, fuel, and some type of building. An airstrip is usually just that. Maybe a few hangars. Point is that this was a private field where the owner allowed people to use it for snowmobiles. He then gave permission for the Army to land a helo there without telling them that snowmobiles regularly used the area. He also didn't put up any warnings for the snowmobilers that the airstrip was now in use.
 
AKiss20 said:
Interesting. On base are they just left doors unlocked and ignition keys in or is there a procedure for getting the keys?
Click to expand...
They’re unlocked. The keys are usually with the log book / computer. Crew chief signs that out and gives the keys to the PIC. Generally they’re only locked when away from base over night somewhere.
 
Velocity173 said:
They’re unlocked. The keys are usually with the log book / computer. Crew chief signs that out and gives the keys to the PIC. Generally they’re only locked when away from base over night somewhere.
Click to expand...
Interesting thanks!

Out of curiosity is that true for fixed wing like fighters as well?
 
AKiss20 said:
Out of curiosity is that true for fixed wing like fighters as well?
Click to expand...

Velocity173 said:
Never heard of a fighter using a key though.
Click to expand...


Didn't you guys see Top Gun - Maverick?! Fighters, even obsolete ones at foreign bases, are kept ready to start at all times, no key needed, easily accessible and unguarded.
 
Half Fast said:
Didn't you guys see Top Gun - Maverick?! Fighters, even obsolete ones at foreign bases, are kept ready to start at all times, no key needed, easily accessible and unguarded.
Click to expand...
Well, you did have to fire up a compressor/generator that was operational and conveniently placed next to the aircraft. I don't know how many guards we keep stationed next to aircraft while the base is being actively attacked though.
 
Guy runs into an object on a trail due to his own stupidity, then tries to make bank. Sorry, hope he loses.
 
Keys only came about when a UH-1 was stolen and landed on the White House Lawn…
 
PaulS said:
Guy runs into an object on a trail due to his own stupidity, then tries to make bank. Sorry, hope he loses.
Click to expand...
Yeah same. Two beers and meds and he smacks a giant helicopter, and thinks he has no culpability. Dude needs to move on
 
I'm glad he didn't hit a parked light plane with a family in it, rather than a military helicopter. I feel bad for the flight crew that had to deal with this. Trying to avoid commenting on the rest. Betting that anyone else out there reading this thread that has an airport and has it tagged as OK for something else - horseback riding, 4 wheeler trails, etc, is reconsidering the sensibility of that decision.
 
Velocity173 said:
No idea. Never heard of a fighter using a key though.
Click to expand...
I had a buddy that went through good natured lieutenant hazing. Got sent down to maintenance to pick up the keys to a jet, can’t remember if they told him to request a Form ID-10T to get them or not.

Other good ones: make them go get a bucket of prop wash or 40 feet of flight line.
 
Speaking of security, or lack there of. In the desert they fly doors off a lot. You could have an entire company of Black Hawks sitting on the ramp with cockpit doors removed. No need to lock the doors in that case.
 
Half Fast said:
Well, the pilot has an obligation to obtain all available information prior to the flight. I don’t believe there is a snowmobile regulation that carries a similar obligation.

That’s why, before landing on a runway here in Florida, I peruse all the Florida snowmobile websites to make sure there’s not a trail that conflicts with my planned landing and parking space.
Click to expand...
The military and public use aircraft operators have their own regulations or operations manuals and aren't necessarily bound by every FAA regulation. Many of the military regulations mirror or may reference an FAA regulation but I don't recall seeing any military regulation using the verbiage of "obtaining all available information prior to flight."
 
Does the law for this venue allow for calculating percentage of responsibility? I've seen lawsuits where the jury calculates damages and assigns part of the fault to the plaintiff which still allows the plaintiff to collect the rest of the judgment from the defendant(s).
 
Witmo said:
The military and public use aircraft operators have their own regulations or operations manuals and aren't necessarily bound by every FAA regulation. Many of the military regulations mirror or may reference an FAA regulation but I don't recall seeing any military regulation using the verbiage of "obtaining all available information prior to flight."
Click to expand...
Well the Army has a similar statement “Before beginning a flight the aircrew will acquaint themselves with mission, procedures, and rules.” Unless it conflicts with any reg or policy, they are bound by the FAA CFRs as well. Violations of which are to be reported to the FAA.
 
Velocity173 said:
Well the Army has a similar statement “Before beginning a flight the aircrew will acquaint themselves with mission, procedures, and rules.” Unless it conflicts with any reg or policy, they are bound by the FAA CFRs as well. Violations of which are to be reported to the FAA.
Click to expand...
"Mission, procedures and rules" are less all encompassing than "ALL available information."
 
Lindberg said:
That doesn't say he was intoxicated.

I take prescription drugs every day before I drive to work, and I'm not intoxicated. And I don't know how much this guy weighs, but an average 200lb guy wouldn't even peak at .04 BAC after two beers, so below the legal limit to fly an airplane, which is definitely not intoxicated. A 150lb lightweight would only be slightly higher than that. Add time, and BAC would be even lower.
Click to expand...

Depending on which Rx drugs, combining even a moderate amount of alcoholic beverages can have an effect greater than the sum of the parts.

Also, .08 is just the level that most (all?) states have ruled someone to be presumed impaired. One can still be very much impaired below a .08, particularly if they don’t regularly consume alcoholic beverages. I know someone that has a few drinks per year, and she is quite impaired after one decent mixed drink.

Finally, “two beers” is almost never actually two beers.

Alternatively, he might have actually had only two, the medication might not have had any impact, and he might have been perfectly fine to operate the snowmobile. Hard to say.
 
Omalley1537 said:
Alternatively, he might have actually had only two, the medication might not have had any impact, and he might have been perfectly fine to operate the snowmobile. Hard to say.
Click to expand...

True enough.

If the guy was cold stone sober, then why did he operate the snowmobile in a careless, dangerous, reckless manner?
 
Lndwarrior said:
The guy has a point if the statement that the aircraft was parked on a designated snowmobile trail, unlighted, and camouflaged, at night, is true.
Click to expand...
I’m not in the anti-lawsuit crowd, but this is absurd. The guy said he had two beers, which means he had between 6 and infinity; he did so while taking prescription meds, always a no-no, he was going 65 mph (!!!) in the dark over rough terrain and he hit something. Sorry, but I don’t care what he hit, this was 100% his fault.
 
Bob Noel said:
True enough.

If the guy was cold stone sober, then why did he operate the snowmobile in a careless, dangerous, reckless manner?
Click to expand...
That's the way most snowmobilers (or ATV drivers or motocross drivers) I have known normally operate.

Still his fault though.
 
JOhnH said:
That's the way most snowmobilers (or ATV drivers or motocross drivers) I have known normally operate.

Still his fault though.
Click to expand...
I’ve ridden/raced motocross for 32 years. Any successful motocrosser I know operates anything but recklessly. It may appear reckless to the uninitiated but it is calculated and although I push my limits, I don’t disregard them.

The ones who are reckless are typically short-lived, and/or the pieces of garbage who ride motocross bikes on city streets for Instagram likes.
 
Bob Noel said:
True enough.

If the guy was cold stone sober, then why did he operate the snowmobile in a careless, dangerous, reckless manner?
Click to expand...
Valid point. I mainly used the portion you quoted as a counterpoint to consider. I tend to believe the guy was schnockered.
 
Omalley1537 said:
Depending on which Rx drugs, combining even a moderate amount of alcoholic beverages can have an effect greater than the sum of the parts.

Also, .08 is just the level that most (all?) states have ruled someone to be presumed impaired. One can still be very much impaired below a .08, particularly if they don’t regularly consume alcoholic beverages. I know someone that has a few drinks per year, and she is quite impaired after one decent mixed drink.

Finally, “two beers” is almost never actually two beers.

Alternatively, he might have actually had only two, the medication might not have had any impact, and he might have been perfectly fine to operate the snowmobile. Hard to say.
Click to expand...
That's a lot of words to conclude that "prescription drugs" encompasses a hell of a lot more than sleeping pills and narcotics.

And according to the article, they don't allege he drank "two beers," they allege her drank two beers.

The assertion here was that he was intoxicated, which is an inadequately supported conclusion.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top