oh boy

"The Erie airport has one runway that pilots call by two different names, depending on their direction of travel."

Reporters! GEEZE! Who edits this crap? :dunno:
 
Some one has to pay,just the way the countries going.
 
frfly172 said:
Some one has to pay,just the way the countries going.
Click to expand...
Not going....more like already there and been that way for a very long time.

Our legal system is based on precedent, not what is fashionable.

While I don't agree with the system, this kind of crap is nothing new and honestly I can't say that it is any worse than the aviation lawsuits I remember hearing about in the early 80s.
 
Clark1961 said:
http://www.denverpost.com/news/ci_27747758/family-killed-erie-plane-crash-files-wrongful-death

wrongful death lawsuit in the EIK Malibu crash - bad piloting
Click to expand...
If you remove acts of God and faulty equipment, then most accidents are the fault of the pilot. There is, however, nothing in the rulebook that says you cannot land with a tailwind. Nothing in there prelim that says anything about fault. No final yet.
And who was the woman and children to the pilot? Bad form if he and her were 'together'.
 
This is just the way the system is set up to determine who owes what in a multi party liability accident.
 
I see not only are they going after the estate of the deceased pilot but also the other pilot. One or both of them are at fault, right? So why not hedge your bets and sue both.:mad2:
 
Is that the one that fell into the reservoir ?
 
weilke said:
Is that the one that fell into the reservoir ?
Click to expand...

no, this one "landed" I believe west of the airport - there is no reservoir adjacent to EIK
 
Last edited:
Stuff like this is why I've told anyone who might end up making decisions if I am killed or incapacitated that if the responsible party honestly just made a mistake and is at all remorseful they should be forgiven. I don't want another life ruined just because mine was, I think that's just mean and compounding a tragedy.

I might not be able to stop others from taking this route, but at least I don't have to be part of the problem.
 
From the article: "The lawsuit claims that the near collision forced Frascona to execute a low-altitude avoidance maneuver, causing him to crash. Both pilots were negligent, according to the suit."

So, the Malibu was landing with a tailwind, into the teeth of departing traffic. The pilot apparently saw the oncoming traffic and flubbed an evasive maneuver so badly that he crashed?

If these are the facts, I fail to see how the guy departing had anything to do with this accident.

An aside: I wonder how they even determined who the guy departing was?
 
Jay Honeck said:
So, the Malibu was landing with a tailwind, into the teeth of departing traffic. The pilot apparently saw the oncoming traffic and flubbed an evasive maneuver so badly that he crashed?
Click to expand...

That's the part that I don't get. The aircraft had already passed one another and the Malibu still hit the ground. :dunno:
 
narchee said:
I see not only are they going after the estate of the deceased pilot but also the other pilot. One or both of them are at fault, right? So why not hedge your bets and sue both.:mad2:
Click to expand...

That's not it. The issue is they hold joint and several liabilities and are represented by different insurance companies. The way the tort process is designed to work is that all parties with liability are pulled into court, and the court then assigns the proportions of liability. Say they find one 30% liable and the other 70% liable, that will determine which insurance company pays how much of the claim. This is nothing special to do with an airplane and flying,mthis is standard in any multi party liability case, especially when they exceed $1,000,000 in claimed loss.
 
Clark1961 said:
That's the part that I don't get. The aircraft had already passed one another and the Malibu still hit the ground. :dunno:
Click to expand...

Agreed.

If this was really the way it went down (and, of course, we're not privy to that data), the plaintiff may, indeed, have a case against the Malibu pilot. Sounds like pretty poor piloting, to me.

But the poor pilot departing? He had the wind on his nose, other planes using that runway, and had made proper radio calls? I don't see that he did anything wrong. Sounds to me like he's being sucked down this sewer in a case of "Wrong place, wrong time."

In fact, it sounds like his superior piloting skills (combined with what sounds like an ADS-B traffic alert) may have saved the day from what could have been a terrible midair collision.
 
from the article:
"The suit also names Frascona's company, The Real Estate School, claiming the business was negligent in allowing Frascona to fly the plane, a Piper PA 46 Malibu, without proper training. The company closed after Frascona's death."

I think the "company" was just Frascona... so they're claiming Frascona was negligent in allowing Frascona to fly Frascona's plane ... :facepalm:
 
gkainz said:
from the article:

"The suit also names Frascona's company, The Real Estate School, claiming the business was negligent in allowing Frascona to fly the plane, a Piper PA 46 Malibu, without proper training. The company closed after Frascona's death."



I think the "company" was just Frascona... so they're claiming Frascona was negligent in allowing Frascona to fly Frascona's plane ... :facepalm:
Click to expand...

The same article says the company has gone out of business since his death.

That may be why they are blaming the other pilot as well. Frascona's business may very well have liquidated and has nothing to give.
 
gkainz said:
from the article:
"The suit also names Frascona's company, The Real Estate School, claiming the business was negligent in allowing Frascona to fly the plane, a Piper PA 46 Malibu, without proper training. The company closed after Frascona's death."

I think the "company" was just Frascona... so they're claiming Frascona was negligent in allowing Frascona to fly Frascona's plane ... :facepalm:
Click to expand...

Because they are separately insured entities. Follow the money the other direction figuring in every insurance company linked will pay some part of this, and it all starts to make sense. This has nothing to do with establishing fault, this is about proportioned liability and establishing who pays what. This is not a win lose suit alone.
 
Jay Honeck said:
So, the Malibu was landing with a tailwind, into the teeth of departing traffic. The pilot apparently saw the oncoming traffic and flubbed an evasive maneuver so badly that he crashed?

If these are the facts, I fail to see how the guy departing had anything to do with this accident.
Click to expand...

Well, 14 CFR 91.113(g) seems to be relevant.

Landing with a tailwind may be stupid, but you still have right of way over all aircraft on the ground, including those about to take off.
 
All of this (including the "journalism") is pure conjecture. What if the departing pilot was upset that the traffic landing opposite direction refused to yield, to communicate, to whatever. In a fit of (slight) rage, he then departed into the landing traffic, which startled the Malibu driver. Think it can't happen? Think of road rage. . . the "I'll get you" mentality. I like to think we are better than that on the runway, but I wasn't there.

That said, isn't our legal system setup up to sue everyone you possibly can and let the judge & jury sort it out? It's not the lawyers job to figure out who's responsible.
 
MAKG1 said:
Well, 14 CFR 91.113(g) seems to be relevant.

Landing with a tailwind may be stupid, but you still have right of way over all aircraft on the ground, including those about to take off.
Click to expand...

I've occasionally wondered what would happen if someone pressed their legal "right of way to land" to the Nth degree, traffic pattern be damned.

Looks like we'll get to see.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I've occasionally wondered what would happen if someone pressed their legal "right of way to land" to the Nth degree, traffic pattern be damned.

Looks like we'll get to see.
Click to expand...

There is a difference between what the FAA is ok with (which is a lot) and what you can defend in a negligence action.
 
Jay Honeck said:
I've occasionally wondered what would happen if someone pressed their legal "right of way to land" to the Nth degree, traffic pattern be damned.

Looks like we'll get to see.
Click to expand...

You reach a point named "In Extremis"; the point at which the maneuvering of one party will not be sufficient to avoid collision. At that point you regain liability. In other words, while you can establish priority through right of way, you cannot use it to relieve yourself of liability. Any accident is always assigned proportional liability unless Strict Liability applies. Since neither were an air carrier to the best of my knowledge (did the Malibu have a 135 certificate?:dunno:) Strict Liability does not apply.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top