Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

Cessna Being Sued by Family of Pilot

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web
Blaming Cessna is like blaming a spoon for being fat. Families don't ever believe that there dead family member did anything wrong. I've flown a caravan (in Maine) and yup I've been in the ice. Maybe I was lucky. I just don't think it's cessna's fault. bell47
 
right, lawyers are scum. but objectively and from a product liability standpoint, I think they have a valid case. ask anyone and you'll find that the caravan is connected to icing like the Ford Pinto is to bursting into flames. as much as I want to vomit, they have a case.
 
right, lawyers are scum. but objectively and from a product liability standpoint, I think they have a valid case. ask anyone and you'll find that the caravan is connected to icing like the Ford Pinto is to bursting into flames. as much as I want to vomit, they have a case.


Just like the V Bonanza is a killer ? Take any aircraft and put a low time inexperienced pilot in it and you will have a higher accident rate. You can't blame an airplane for a pilots poor performance. If you look at the cases in question, you will see that they are ALL low time pilots out there trying to build time. Not old salts that have been at the job for 30+ years. There will always be some money hungry a__hole lawyer to take a product liability case. IMHO
 
Does the Caravan have boots?

How are they gonna prove that icing caused the incident?

Maybe her training in the use of said boots was to blame. Maybe she forgot to put the gear down. (graveyard humor)

I think it's probably overblown, like the Eagle-ATR-Roselawn incident.
 
There is absolutely nothing unsafe or fraudulent about the design of the Caravan. While the airplane is definitely not designed to slog through the worst ice that mother nature can offer, that's not the point. NO aircraft is designed to do that. Ice protection systems are designed to keep the airplane safe long enough for a smart, well-trained pilot to GET OUT of the bad stuff. The Caravan will keep you alive and safe long enough for you to get out of the really nasty ice, and it will shrug off the light stuff with nothing more than a slight airspeed loss (well ok, any airspeed loss in a Caravan is signifigant since the things are so dang slow).

The point is that Cessna is not to blame, not in this case or in any other case where a 'Van went down in ice. This is pilot error/negligence, pure and simple. We wouldn't have all these ADs and the 'Van wouldn't have this reputation if idiot pilots didn't go blasting off into category 5 ice storms, turn on the autopilot, and whip out the Maxim while the airplane turns into an igloo around them.

Pilot error, pilot negligence. Nuff said.
 
I don't care what airplane you are in, sit in icing conditions long enough and boots, heater, etc. are going to get overloaded.

And,, not like they don't fail when you need them the most, I'm sure none of us have seen that!

One wing blowing, one frozen down. Half the tail cleaned, one blade heater inop. Icing is a dark art, I tell ya!!

And, not in any way to defend litigators, but it is always thye surviving geedy family member that retains and authorizes the attorney. Lawyers don't usually just sue for the fun of it. (except that Philly, gear up my jet, lawyer)

Hung
 
ok, so agreed that the airplane is not bad.... but the AD requires an increase of some 20 knots to the minimum icing airspeed AND 4 very explicit criteria to what constitutes moderate icing when encountered while flying the Van.... i guess sorta idiot proofing the airplane.... but what it suggests is that pilots were flying the plane per the pre-AD limitations and still cracking them up and getting themselves hurt in the process..... does this mean the airplane is bad??? no.... does it mean the pilots where ill prepared for what they flew into??? maybe.... and i think at least one of the guys was fairly high time.... but still, any time the govt. mandates changes to how your product is operated because people are getting hurt, you can pretty much bet that the lawsuits are soon to follow.... and from an uneducated jury's perspective, all they are going to see is that the govt. stepped in and forced changes.... that alone is evidence enough to show there was a problem with the product.... and the punitive judgements will be soon to follow!!!
 
Exactly Mr.Pink. we know the caravan can be operated safely, but this is an aviation forum so we all know better. everyone else put yourself in the perspective of the lawyers, jurors, the universal notion that the caravan is a turd in ice and previous NTSB reports. We got the ingredients for a lawsuit. Anything is possible in a society where gun manufacturers are being sued because their product had no defects or flaws whatsoever. A person pulled the trigger, therefore the familiy sues Smith & Wesson. A pilot tools around in severe icing, the family sues cessna. Aaaahh, the circle of life.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top