Settlement in flying accident at EAA NW Fly-in

D

Dave Krall CFII

Final Approach
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
5,022
Location
Seattle WA
Display Name
Display name:
Dave Krall CFII SEL SES, Cmcl HELI
~$10 mil for a pilot's misfortune?

I really can't print here what I feel about the pilot's family, their attorneys, and most importantly the jurors and judge involved in this case and others like it. I certainly hope the fly-in pursues an appeal and wins it.

From the Seattle Post Intelligencer:

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/299120_airshow10.html
 
Last edited:
This just goes to prove I don't need life insurance to cover me while I fly... all my family has to do is file a suit and they win regardless of how much I defy common sense and the laws established by God. I don't suppose a couple basic manuals were evidence in the trial... like the "Airplane Flying Handbook"?

I also have to wonder if there had been a pilot in the jury pool who had been removed by challenge.
 
It's very difficult to make a reasonable judgment from what the newspaper gave.

The attorney for the family posted on the EAA web board. His point was the local EAA chapter signed a contract to provide emergency services when the municipality agreed to allow the event. I don't know what the written agreement said.

The attorney said the pilot was alive when he hit the ground; took over five minutes for the fire fighting personnel to get to the plane and they were not trained in aircraft fire fighting techniques; the pilot burned alive in the plane after he sat there awaiting help. Several local pilots used their fire extinguishers to keep the flames down initially, but after they exhausted their portable units, the fire fighters didn't arrive promptly enough to keep the flames suppressed.

Two components to the accident (according to him): the pilot was in fact found negligent, but the EAA was also because they supposedly had rescue personnel there and they took too long to get there, and when they did, they were improperly trained.

None of us like the verdict, but a jury had a lot of testimony and many facts we have not been presented with.

I'd like to know more before venting on everyone.

Best,

Dave
 
What would the impact have been had it not been an airshow, and instead he was just going up for some fun? There's no fire/rescue at my field; I'd be pretty darn lucky if anyone showed up within 5 minutes.

I don't know, I'm just curious. I assume the lawsuit exists because the EAA has (presumably) big pockets.
 
flyersfan31 said:
What would the impact have been had it not been an airshow, and instead he was just going up for some fun? There's no fire/rescue at my field; I'd be pretty darn lucky if anyone showed up within 5 minutes.

I don't know, I'm just curious. I assume the lawsuit exists because the EAA has (presumably) big pockets.
Click to expand...
No, because the EAA made the mistake of assuming a legal duty (according to the judgment) to provide emergency services over and above what usually exists at that field, and then (again according to the court) breached that duty. What the article doesn't say is whether they signed the contract for EMS and fire services and then didn't provide them, or if what they provided wasn't "sufficient" in the court's eyes.

Either way that's a hard way to go out. :(
 
KennyFlys said:
This just goes to prove I don't need life insurance to cover me while I fly... all my family has to do is file a suit and they win.
Click to expand...

Just because they won the suit, doesn't mean they will collect the money, you can't get blood from a turnup, most big money suits go uncollected.
 
flyersfan31 said:
What would the impact have been had it not been an airshow, and instead he was just going up for some fun? There's no fire/rescue at my field; I'd be pretty darn lucky if anyone showed up within 5 minutes.

I don't know, I'm just curious. I assume the lawsuit exists because the EAA has (presumably) big pockets.
Click to expand...

Ahh but Andrew you are not correct they do have a fire extinguisher in the FBO at wings, and Ron Levy can attest to that.
 
Dave Siciliano said:
The attorney said the pilot was alive when he hit the ground; took over five minutes for the fire fighting personnel to get to the plane and they were not trained in aircraft fire fighting techniques;
Click to expand...


IF the personnel/equipment weren't staged at the airport, then yeah, it can take a few minutes for the dispatcher to tone them and for them to suit up and drive to the airport. Then having to drive around the crowds to get to the scene can take extra time as well. And if they were at the airport already, how did they learn of the crash? Did they have a handheld with common airport freqs on it, or did someone have to call 911 and they were toned out? It can take up to about two minutes from the time someone calls 911 to the time that the fire/ems tones are sent. And you'd be surprised at how many fire/EMS crews have NEVER been around a small plane before, much less how to deal with one.

I'm not defending anyone here, just giving folks some insight.

I can't recall ever seeing any fire trucks or ambulances at the fly-in in the past, but then again, I wasn't really looking for them.
 
Part of the reason we had the local Bolingbrook Fire Dept at the airport a couple of months ago to get them acquainted with a single-engined piston.

DeeG said:
And you'd be surprised at how many fire/EMS crews have NEVER been around a small plane before, much less how to deal with one.
Click to expand...
 
We have provided training to local fire departments three times on response to crash of a small plane. Once, we provided a junked Cessna 150 for them to cut up. For our air show in 2005, we had each performer brief responders on the details of his/her particular plane (Fuel location, line routing, fuel quatity, cabin/cockpit access, etc). During performances, responders were suited up and pre-staged fire trucks had engines running.

Check out this Fly-Low write up which also provides links to emergency plans prepared by various air show sponsors.

http://www.fly-low.com/airshow/index.html
 
Thanks for the links, Bobby.

I'm going to take these to the local airport board and see if we can schedule some recurrent on field indoctrination for our local fire departments who would be responding to an airplace accident as part of the airport emergency plan.


Graueradler said:
We have provided training to local fire departments three times on response to crash of a small plane. Once, we provided a junked Cessna 150 for them to cut up. For our air show in 2005, we had each performer brief responders on the details of his/her particular plane (Fuel location, line routing, fuel quatity, cabin/cockpit access, etc). During performances, responders were suited up and pre-staged fire trucks had engines running.

Check out this Fly-Low write up which also provides links to emergency plans prepared by various air show sponsors.

http://www.fly-low.com/airshow/index.html
Click to expand...
 
I'm pretty sure that the subject has been covered here before but making training available to first responders who might come across an aircraft that uses a BRS emergency parachute is important. There's live pyro on the airplane and the routing of the associated cables, wires and harnesses could be important. My local airport in New Jersey sponsored the training along with the local EAA chapter.
 
Steve said:
Thanks for the links, Bobby.

I'm going to take these to the local airport board and see if we can schedule some recurrent on field indoctrination for our local fire departments who would be responding to an airplace accident as part of the airport emergency plan.
Click to expand...

I can probably dig up the powerpoint presentation I put together if you want it.
 
Can't find the link. One of the guys on the Beechlist posted a web board link. I could be mistaken as to which one. The attorney representing the family made a post on that board.

Best,

Dave
 
Yes. And we have an ultralight and an SR22 based on the field so equipped.

Fast n' Furious said:
I'm pretty sure that the subject has been covered here before but making training available to first responders who might come across an aircraft that uses a BRS emergency parachute is important...
Click to expand...


I'd appreciate a copy! Thanks.

Graueradler said:
I can probably dig up the powerpoint presentation I put together if you want it.
Click to expand...
 
If you're looking for a current copy, contact:

Mike Busch
Director, Air Safety Training
mbusch@cirrusdesign.com

He gave training to a local group of first responders, and if you reach him via e-mail, he can probably either give you a link, or put a DVD in the mail for Cirrus' training for first responders. Very informative. If I remember right, the shell that pulls out the parachute departs at some ridiculous velocity, and it is a lightweight sabot. If it hits someone on the way out, they're dead.
 
Anyone can sue anyone for almost anything but in this case, it was pilot error that caused the accident. The only ones who should be paying for it is the pilot and his heirs, not getting rich because of it! Perhaps the real lawsuit is the EAA against the pilot's estate.
The real problem is people are looking for that pot o' gold. And juries are inclined to give it to them.
 
It sounds to me like the suit had some merit. If EAA had a duty to provide fire/rescue services, then what constitutes "adequate" fire/rescue service is up to the jury to determine, if it wasn't stated explicitly enough in the contract. Since EAA puts on OSH every year, and has LOTS of experience (sadly) with aircraft accidents, I would expect the jury to hold them to a very high standard. If I was negotiating with EAA and they signed up to provide fire/rescue for an airshow, I'd expect equipment and trained personnel to be on scene for the duration of the event.

Conversely, if I were EAA, I'd be very wary about signing up to provide that service, I'd want to push that responsibility over to the airport or municipality.

None of this speaks to the appropriateness of the award amount. I'm just as disgusted as everyone else by the way our tort system has been tranformed into a lottery.
 
TMetzinger said:
It sounds to me like the suit had some merit. If EAA had a duty to provide fire/rescue services, then what constitutes "adequate" fire/rescue service is up to the jury to determine, if it wasn't stated explicitly enough in the contract. Since EAA puts on OSH every year, and has LOTS of experience (sadly) with aircraft accidents, I would expect the jury to hold them to a very high standard. If I was negotiating with EAA and they signed up to provide fire/rescue for an airshow, I'd expect equipment and trained personnel to be on scene for the duration of the event.

Conversely, if I were EAA, I'd be very wary about signing up to provide that service, I'd want to push that responsibility over to the airport or municipality.

None of this speaks to the appropriateness of the award amount. I'm just as disgusted as everyone else by the way our tort system has been tranformed into a lottery.
Click to expand...

In my opinion adequate means have fire services there or on stand-by. So now the EAA, or a fly-in, or airshow, has to TRAIN the fire department in aircraft response? Is that not the purview of the government?

Sheesh....this is getting ridiculous. Also, to have a bunch of today's "it is someone elses responsibility" public determining how long it takes for a fire truck to arrive is like asking one of them to land a 747, they have NO clue.
 
Interesting point of views (from both sides)
I thought I'd read the NTSB crash report to get more facts.
http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?ev_id=20001212X19356&ntsbno=SEA99FA105&akey=1

I take it that the witnesses sense of 'time' changed from the time of the accident, and the time of the court case. The lawsuit claims it took 5 minutes to respond after the crash. The NTSB states;
===============
"Almost immediately after sliding off the taxiway, the aircraft burst into flames. As the fire grew, some of the witnesses tried to pull the pilot out of the aircraft, while at the same time other bystanders attempted to put the fire out with dry chemical fire extinguishers. The limited capacity of the portable fire extinguishers proved insufficient to put out the fire, and because the pilot's leg was jammed in the wreckage, witnesses were unable to pull him free before the heat of the fire became to intense to continue attempts to rescue him. Within a minute after the aircraft impacted the ground, the volunteer fire truck arrived at the scene. After pulling out the necessary hose and completing the hook-up of their respirator system, which they began while en route, the firefighters applied water on the flaming wreckage. Within a minute to a minute and a half after their arrival, the fire was extinguished. "
===============
I'm sure both the NTSB, and lawyers, investigated witnesses (and data) professionally. Just strange that the '5 minute time lapse' was interpeted differently years after the event took place.
Never-the-less, everyone has their own opinion pertaining to the $10MM settlement. But, I'm sure we can agree on the following points...

  • Every pilot should obtain extensive 'transition training'.
    (before an event occurs requiring it)
    Buying an RV does not make one a better pilot, moreso, it challenges the pilot to plan ahead. A price associated to flying F-A-S-T-E-R..
  • Never rush a departure... Preflight, run-ups, and control input tests are 'required' prior to defying the laws of gravity. One somple word.. CHECKLISTS..
I personally paid the price to item #2 once (Rushing a departure).
Luckily, no injuries occured however, I learned a valueable lesson.
ALWAYS follow procedures, and never have a 'just another flight' attitude.

Not to get too far off topic here but, the accident 'law of averages' should prompt us to review our aircraft insurance policies.
On another forum, I was following an interesting conversation pertaining to a recent 'business practice' of insurance carriers to omit the Pilot from death claims. Apparently, the terminology of 'aircraft occupants' does not include the pilot in command. (and in some cases, immediate family members of the PIC are prorated at 50%)
Although each one of refuses to believe we will ever become a 'statistic', we should challenge our agents to state exactly what they will pay-out in the event we (or our dependants) need to exercise the policy. Do not accept the policy verbage as-is because when it comes to making a claim, verbage may not be 'financially accepted' as we perceive. Give examples to your agent, ask how the policy would pay. Be prepared!
Have a great day...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top