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
Can't some of these Caravan crashes due to airframe icing be labeled "unavoidable" events, where it's not necesarily the pilot's fault, and at the same time, not a problem with the design of the airplane----just very bad luck (which does happen in aviation from time to time). There is such a thing.

Example----Experienced caravan pilot with 10,000+ hours and vast knowledge of airframe icing takes off from airport. Climbing through 2000', he's picking up ice. As he continues his climb through 3000', same thing. Keeps climbing like we all would, trying to get in between layer, like we all would. Through 4000', 5000', and 6000', still not out of the ice. Keeps climbing through 7, 8, 9, and 10,000', and still no relief. Maybe he tries to go higher, maybe he can't anymore. In any case he has no other choice but to go back down, searching for layers..........at this point, on his way down, and passing through 3000', with no relief in sight, the airplane has loads of ice and will not fly anymore. THE END.

Now, I know this is not the best example, but it is just off the top of my head, and I'm sure you can pick out different points in this scenario and say he could have done this or he could have done that...... but the point I'm trying to make is that, in general, this guy tried doing the right thing and what you're trained to do. He tried finding layers, climbed as high as he could initially, then started back down trying to find layers again. He never once stayed at an altitude where the icing was building up on his airframe.

Now I haven't flown a light twin in a while, but when I was, that's how we tackled icing up here in the midwest. The system worked, and it worked well. Still, it wasn't always a sure thing. One airplane would fly through an area of severe icing, and 5 minutes later another airplane would fly through that same area and not pick up any ice at all. Thats how UNPREDICTABLE ice is, as we all know.

We all have our own horror stories or know somebody who has been iced up, started to get scared, and then finding an OUT, either landing at the nearest airport or finding a warm layer or something that helped us get out of the situation. And 99.9% of the time, we come across an OUT! But what would have happened if we didn't find that OUT.............if you never found that layer, if your airplane could not maitain altitude and there was no suitable airport within 50+ miles............etc..........THAT'S CALLED BAD LUCK!

BAD LUCK does happen, and maybe it had happened with some of those caravan crashes, and maybe not. But all's I'm saying is that icing can sneak up on you and bite you in the you-know-what. I've never flown a caravan, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do know that there are rare instances where even the best of us are unable to escape. Stuff like that happens, as rare as it is.

I do believe that inexperience has played a big part in alot of these caravan crashes, but not ALL of them. Don't they have fairly high insurance minimums on these airplanes? It's not like 500 hr. pilots are flying these caravans around all over the country......right????????
 
Can't some of these Caravan crashes due to airframe icing be labeled "unavoidable" events, where it's not necesarily the pilot's fault, and at the same time, not a problem with the design of the airplane----just very bad luck (which does happen in aviation from time to time). There is such a thing.

Example----Experienced caravan pilot with 10,000+ hours and vast knowledge of airframe icing takes off from airport. Climbing through 2000', he's picking up ice. As he continues his climb through 3000', same thing. Keeps climbing like we all would, trying to get in between layer, like we all would. Through 4000', 5000', and 6000', still not out of the ice. Keeps climbing through 7, 8, 9, and 10,000', and still no relief. Maybe he tries to go higher, maybe he can't anymore. In any case he has no other choice but to go back down, searching for layers..........at this point, on his way down, and passing through 3000', with no relief in sight, the airplane has loads of ice and will not fly anymore. THE END.

Now, I know this is not the best example, but it is just off the top of my head, and I'm sure you can pick out different points in this scenario and say he could have done this or he could have done that...... but the point I'm trying to make is that, in general, this guy tried doing the right thing and what you're trained to do. He tried finding layers, climbed as high as he could initially, then started back down trying to find layers again. He never once stayed at an altitude where the icing was building up on his airframe.

Now I haven't flown a light twin in a while, but when I was, that's how we tackled icing up here in the midwest. The system worked, and it worked well. Still, it wasn't always a sure thing. One airplane would fly through an area of severe icing, and 5 minutes later another airplane would fly through that same area and not pick up any ice at all. Thats how UNPREDICTABLE ice is, as we all know.

We all have our own horror stories or know somebody who has been iced up, started to get scared, and then finding an OUT, either landing at the nearest airport or finding a warm layer or something that helped us get out of the situation. And 99.9% of the time, we come across an OUT! But what would have happened if we didn't find that OUT.............if you never found that layer, if your airplane could not maitain altitude and there was no suitable airport within 50+ miles............etc..........THAT'S CALLED BAD LUCK!

BAD LUCK does happen, and maybe it had happened with some of those caravan crashes, and maybe not. But all's I'm saying is that icing can sneak up on you and bite you in the you-know-what. I've never flown a caravan, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about, but I do know that there are rare instances where even the best of us are unable to escape. Stuff like that happens, as rare as it is.

I do believe that inexperience has played a big part in alot of these caravan crashes, but not ALL of them. Don't they have fairly high insurance minimums on these airplanes? It's not like 500 hr. pilots are flying these caravans around all over the country......right????????

Don't you consider a Lear a light twin?
 
Anyone know how much time she had in the 'van and total? I've always heard that the fedex feeders required some pretty high time (>2000) to get in the caravan. Don't they all train at flight safety or with cessna in Kansas? If thats the case i'd imagine the training would have been pretty good.
 
The real problem with the Cessna 208 is that its a general avaition plane being asked to do a commercial job. How many accidents would there be if the pilots got to pick the days they fly of don't?
 
. Anything is possible in a society where gun manufacturers are being sued because their product had no defects or flaws whatsoever.

This is a very good point. However, the view of the courts is that a gun or an airplane can never be produced without any defects.

The "defect" and product liability of the gun comes from the fact that they are so dangerous. It is the obligation of the manufacturer to do as much as possible to mitigate the danger of it's product. This is very dificult to do with both guns and aircraft.

Take Cirrus for example. Do you think that you are really getting a good deal because with your purchase of a new airplane you get some free flight training? Maybe, but Cirrus itself does this to reduce the product liability by mitigating the dangerous nature of the aircraft by putting a better trained pilot at the controls.

There is a point where product liability lawsuits get rediculous (usually because of lawyers). The GA revitilazation act of 1993 did a great deal to help the small guys Cessa, Beech, Piper get back into light GA aircraft manufacturing without having to worry so much about frivolous product liability lawsuits.
 
Last edited:
They'll settle for 20 million and the requirement for a placard that says, " A turbine engine and the name FedEx on the side doesn't make you invinceable. If it's slippery outside, go tell dispatch you're going to the hotel".
 
Or move to South Florida, like me!

Haven't seen an icing acident report in months. :)

(of course, haven't seen IFR down here in a loong while, either)

Hung
 

Latest resources

Back
Top