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

Family Sues FAA For Not "Babysitting" Pilot On IMC Approach

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

User546

The Ultimate Show Stopper
Joined
Jan 24, 2004
Posts
1,958
An old story (2004) but this is absolute preposterous.

All I can gather from this story is that this guy balled it up on an instrument approach in poor weather, and now the family is suing the FAA because they didn't tell the pilot he was balling it up.

http://www.news4jax.com/news/2863042/detail.html

Family Sues FAA For Fatal Thanksgiving Crash

JACKSONVILLE, Fla. -- After losing their loved one in a plane crash last Thanksgiving, one family has decided to sue the Federal Aviation Administration for negligence in the case.

Now, Swanson's family says the FAA gave the experienced pilot bad information just as he was about to land. They've filed suit for $25 million.

"The guy was a good pilot -- a great pilot. He knew what was happening," said Swanson's brother, Richard.

The plane came down in a wooded area about one-quarter mile short of the runway. Due to heavy morning fog, visibility at Craig Airport was reported to be one-quarter mile at the time of the crash.

According to the family, Swanson was flying much lower than he should have been on that morning.

"Something broke down. All it took was for someone to tell him that you're not supposed to be where you are. That's all it would've taken," said Richard Swanson.

The Swansons have filed a damage claim against the Federal Aviation Administration.

Maciejewski said he thinks the family has a strong case. Plane Crash "He should not have been at that altitude; that low," said the Swansons' attorney, Don Maciejewski. "This is a case that does not add up. We have a good pilot who has a lot of bad-weather flying time and who had made this approach many times before."

The FAA won't comment because the case is ongoing, but the administration has six months to decide whether or not it's at fault. They will either pay or fight the case in court.

"I don't believe without some malfunction, without somebody giving him information, that he's not here right now," Richard Swanson said.

Swanson's four children -- Catherine, 24, Jennifer, 23, Karen, 19, and George Charles, 18 -- were also onboard. They suffered only minor injuries.
 
Thats a load of crap! So basically I can descend below minimums, crash and sue for it because ATC didnt tell me I shouldnt be that low!
 
I double posted. Please delete this one.

I prefered the older way to edit post in which we could delete our own post.
 
Last edited:
I think we already discussed this.

I hate the fact that people have the right to sue the FAA for things like that. The PIC is responsible for the safety of the flight. He should know where he is at all time. There is not excuse for a pilot crashing into terrain.

If he'd crashed into another plane in IMC, then they'd have a case, and that might be a weak case depending on the situation.

ATC is not here to babysit us. What's next, we can sue because they didn't tell us to make sure we do a pre-landing check?
 
User997 said:
"This is a case that does not add up. We have a good pilot who has a lot of bad-weather flying time and who had made this approach many times before.

Sounds like a casual pilot I fly with.

Before shooting a VOR approach into celings right at MDA he said "We can go lower than the MDA, I know the area and have done this approach many times before."
 
PaulThomas said:
I think we already discussed this.

I hate the fact that people have the right to sue the FAA for things like that. The PIC is responsible for the safety of the flight. He should know where he is at all time. There is not excuse for a pilot crashing into terrain.

If he'd crashed into another plane in IMC, then they'd have a case, and that might be a weak case depending on the situation.

ATC is not here to babysit us. What's next, we can sue because they didn't tell us to make sure we do a pre-landing check?

You hate the Constitution then?

I admit that there seems to be almost no merit to the case, but that doesnt mean we should take away that right. And yes, we can sue because they didnt tell us to make sure we did a pre-landing check. I'd bet they throw it out of court, but we can still do it.
 
I didn't say I hate the constitution. Don't put words in my mouth.

The constitution defines some of the thing the government can and can't do and what are our duties as citizens.

One of the right the constitution gives us is to sue. It's a good thing. I however don't like the way people sue for everything even when they know they are in the wrong just because they can. It's one of the price we have to pay for our freedom to sue. I don't don't like that some people take advantage of the system.
 
BLing said:
Thats a load of crap! So basically I can descend below minimums, crash and sue for it because ATC didnt tell me I shouldnt be that low!
Yea, you'll be able to sue, because they made you kiss your own ass goodbye!

How many times do you think pilots successfully sued after cfit crashes?
 
Did the rules change or is the PIC still responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft?

That's what I thought....

C425Driver
 

Latest posts

Latest resources

Back
Top