Cessna pays $1.6million

[Caveman]

RJ,

I understand where you are coming from but I still disagree. We live in a human world inhabited by flawed beings. We all make mistakes. Pilots, mechanics and manufacturers. On rare occasions they aren't mistakes but are in fact malicious acts. It doesn't change my position. I would rather one evil company or one insane mechanic get away with whatever they did than have me and my family contribute to the demise of GA. I recoginze the price and I'm willing to pay it. My wife respects my wishes and has promised to honor my request if ever she finds herself in that position. In truth if any criminal or ethical malfeasance is proved whomever is involved will be dealt with harshly by the authorities. I doubt that anybody will be getting away with anything.

Regards,

Caveman

 

[RJones]

Do you guys feel the same way about medical malpractice? Caveman, what if the doc gave your wife the wrong medicine, would you honor her wishes not to sue?

RJ

 

[flx757]

According to the NTSB report, there were records of his having flown during the previous 30 and 90 days...as well as in the 72 hours preceeding the accident. Just because these flights weren't recorded in the pilot's personal logbook doesn't make him "illegal".

I make monthly entries into my personal logbook...with a computer software program. Sometimes I do it several months at a time, so there could be a 6-month period of no entries. However, other records exist...i.e. company records, etc. Does this make me illegal to fly???

Don't think so.

The NTSB found the probable cause of this accident to be the pilot's failure to control the aircraft due to spatial disorientation. Contributing factors were the failure of the aircraft's primary attitude indicator and the adverse weather conditions. Nowhere was there any mention of the pilot not being "legal".

 

[RJones]

YEAH, somebody can read.

It's all about discovery now.

thanks, flx757

RJ

 

[RJones]

Patmack18

Let me try to help you understand what's going on here. When I first read this report I too was saying similar things because the finger points to the pilot. In my career I have had a couple of occasions when the ADI has failed and then it was telling me it was sick while taxiing out, didn't want to erect, flagged, and took a few minutes when it finally did erect. I did have a failure in-flight but the cause was an inverter and that was remedied by switching to the number two. The last time I did cross panel flying was when I was eight years old flying with my father (UAL retired) in his C-180 on floats -- I couldn't see out and he would give me headings and altitudes to fly. So I agree, what the heck is he doing flying from the other panel when he could put a post-it-note or a business card, as you suggest, on the failed instrument and fly it that way -- I would.

Cessna's aim is not to admit guilt here; they simply have a financial situation to look at. It's cheaper to get out of this at 1.6 million than to litigate, prove they are not at fault and exceed that settlement figure litigating. You have to imagine Cessna's insurance company has grins from ear to ear. The key point we have to understand here is that Cessna was the manufacture of this plane and this particular type has had several problems with the vacuum system. A design flaw from the beginning and Cessna knew it. So if we sit and think for a minute -- what if Cessna stuck to their guns and fought, it would not only drive the premiums up and would increase the selling price for new aircraft. So settling, in a rather perverse way, keeps them down.

But understand that the right to sue in situations like this preserves the accident scene so to speak. If you don't sue and we chalk it up to pilot error and then five years from now, or when the statute of limitations run out, it's discovered that a system truly did fail and was causal to the accident, you've just wasted your ability to bring forth the responsible parties. This is a check and balance type situation, it keeps everyone responsible prior to and after the accident.

Ok, I'm letting this one go now.

RJ

 

[Focker]

Give me a break

RJones, just so we're clear.

Because Cessna had a lawsuit filed against them, it should cost them 1.6 Million to settle.

Give me a break!

If it isn't Cessna's fault, here's what it "should" cost them to prove it: $0. Period. Like the judge throwing it out because of the charge is so ridiculous.

I know that's not how it is. Imagine the lawsuits being filed as we speak towards Cessna because the plantiffs will probaby get a settlement. And forget $1.6 million. How about a simple couple hundred thousand, or even a lousy 50,000 x 100 people. It's insane and its B.S., and killing this country.

Filing a lawsuit isn't how you find out who's fault it is.

Oh, and a doctor giving you're wife the medicine that kills her and the attitude indicator failing on and old Cessna---get this---
AIN'T THE SAME! What a poor argument for someone who seems intelligent.

 

[RJones]

One break coming up!

"Because Cessna had a lawsuit filed against them, it should cost them 1.6 Million to settle. "

Two ways to get out of a lawsuit filed against you, litigate or settle, which way is cheaper?

"If it isn't Cessna's fault, here's what it "should" cost them to prove it: $0. Period. Like the judge throwing it out because of the charge is so ridiculous. "

I agree, shouldn't cost Cessna a dime, however, since this is such a complex case the Judge isn't likley to through it out -- NTSB findings are not admissible in court -- so it's up to the jury which will hear all that's discovered, and we don't know what that is, which Cessna does.

"Filing a lawsuit isn't how you find out who's fault it is. "

Even though the NTSB points the finger towards the pilot that doesn't mean he's to blame. The NTSB is only a finding of what happened and doesn't spend much on small accidents such as this. When a lawsuit is filed the defendants have to dig much deeper than what the NTSB does in these cases so as to defend themselves which brings out much more information than what you and I will ever see. Cessna, in it's settlement, has for sure put "gag" orders and what findings above and beyond the NTSB's.

"Oh, and a doctor giving you're wife the medicine that kills her and the attitude indicator failing on and old Cessna---get this---
AIN'T THE SAME! What a poor argument for someone who seems intelligent."

Rather weak but I felt it was an analogy that you folks could understand.

How about Firestone tires -- is that a better analogy?

RJ

 

[flx757]

This is crap, and I'm sick of people suing everyone about everything. i.e. the woman that bagged 4 mil (or whatever it was) after spilling her coffee on herself from McDonalds and complaining it was too hot.
Thats all I was saying
Pat

Hey Pat,

I thought that was Cosmo Kramer, and he settled for all the free cafe lattes he could drink for a year.

 

[Focker]

I know, I hate it , but I know.

RJones, Of course you got a couple of posts in that did further explain some of the things I was hoping to drag out of you before my typing skills got me on the board. Funny, I know.
Specifically about preserving an accident scene. I had a buddy killed in a crash just after takeoff, it's been a year or 2; NTSB finding: Cause Unknown. Probably always be that way. Those of us flying the same plane, exactly that plane, would have liked to know something. So did his wife and kids.
I knew, ok thought, litigation would help freeze the evidence to be further evaluated. But against who? When I actually heard somebody talking lawsuit, presumably not for the cause but for money, I pretty much adopted caveman and patmack18's stance.
So, the manufacturer. No, old airplane, many years of abuse, shouldn't be them. The company, small, family like, everybody equally devastated by the loss of an employee/friend, to personal to be them. Back to the manufacturer, not personal, deep pockets. I wouldn't do it, it's not right and I know it. I, and more his family, would like an answer, but I wish it didn't have to cost somebody else, likely not at fault, to find one.

Fast forward to Cessna. I know it's cheaper for them to settle. I know fliling a suit against somebody, this case Cessna, preserves the evidence.
I know it, I hate it, but I know it.

Anyway, thanks for your reply. You were, as I thought, very well read on the matter.

 

[hyper]

Excellent posts by all. Unfortunately, here's the bottom line:

Things break and go wrong.

Life is lost.

Families grieve.

And lawyers are the only ones to benefit from it all.