Matronics Email Lists :: View topic

Matronics Email Lists
Web Forum Interface to the Matronics Email Lists

Get Email Distribution Too! FAQ Search Memberlist Usergroups Register

Profile Log in to check your private messages Log in

Why the Jail Time?

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

Guy Buchanan

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1204
Location: Ramona, CA

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 9:05 am Post subject: Why the Jail Time?

All,

         Does anyone have any additional information on this verdict?



http://www.aopa.org/aircraft/articles/2008/080221pilot.html



         I'd like to know why they jailed the pilot. Was it:



1. Because he gave rides as a private pilot? (Should have been a 

commercial pilot.)



2. Flew aerobatics without parachutes and/or at low altitudes?



3. Flew down the river at 50', hitting power lines?



4. Simply because he was responsible for killing someone, as in 

negligent homicide?



         No conjecture please, just facts. (I'm hoping some of the 

Wisconsin locals might have seen this and know about it.) Or if 

someone knows where we can look up lower court cases on-line. . .

Guy Buchanan

San Diego, CA

K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.

_________________
Guy Buchanan
Deceased K-IV 1200
A glider pilot too.

dave.wahlquist(at)ics.uwe
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:26 am Post subject: Why the Jail Time?

Negligent homicide.....



Here is a good link to the case.



http://www.wisconsinrapidstribune.com/assets/pdf/U059422129.PDF



--

akanka(at)kiamichiwb.org
Guest

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 10:51 am Post subject: Why the Jail Time?

The article doesn't state:



1. Whether he was charging folks for the rides.  Commercial certificate is

not required if he is not operating for compensation or hire.

2. Whether the resultant court action was in a municipal, state, or federal

court, but the " negligent operation of a motor vehicle and disorderly

conduct" charges are not something you will find in the FAR's.  The term

"motor vehicle" is usually used in municipal and state ordinances and laws,

which in many states encompasses anything with an engine, electric or

hydraulic motor,  Careless and reckless operation of an aircraft is more

like what would be in the FAR.

3. Whether any administrative action was taken against any Airman

Certificate he held, which is usual for an FAA enforcement action, but not a

municipal or state court.



The following URL lists a summary of a case against an individual with the

same name:

http://wcca.wicourts.gov/caseDetails.do;jsessionid 5D792F41C2D69118D4630F36

484CA7A.render1?countyNo=71&caseNo 07CF000027&cacheId=9DF505C975A36051694A

487F490E0EF6&recordCount=8&offset &mode=charges



It's along URL, so copy and pasting may be necessary.

John Hart

  

--

Guy Buchanan

Joined: 16 Jul 2006
Posts: 1204
Location: Ramona, CA

Posted: Tue Feb 26, 2008 8:50 pm Post subject: Why the Jail Time?

At 10:22 AM 2/26/2008, you wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		  Negligent homicide.....



Here is a good link to the case.


	


         Man, isn't this list awesome! Ask a 

difficult question and get great answers! This is 

what I was looking for, a presumption of 

negligence when flying at 50'. It is interesting 

that neither the ASI nor the CFI know the proper 

altitude regulation that requires that you fly 

high enough to land safely if the engine quits. 

(91.119a) It's also interesting that 91.119c 

specifically exempts staying 500' above "open 

water". Don't know if the river he was over was 

"open water". He certainly wasn't 500' over the 

power line "structure", if that's what you call 

it, though of course he didn't know it was there.

         Why am I interested? Because that kind 

of flying is what Kitfoxes do best. If it carries 

a presumption of negligence then it just got a 

lot more dangerous, (for the pilot.)



"Her opinion was that

he flew in violation of § 91.119 of the US FAR 

91.16, which is entitled “Minimum Safe

Altitudes” that requires an altitude of 500 feet 

about the surface over congested areas. This

would include that an aircraft should not be 

operated closer than 500 feet between a

person, vessel, vehicle or structure. She further 

believes that his piloting was in violation of

FAR 91.13 entitled “Careless or Reckless 

Operation of an Aircraft.” ASI Krueger’s opinion

was that Strub was negligent in the piloting of 

the airplane over the River flying at altitudes

somewhere in the area of 50 feet above the water. 

ASI Krueger states that all pilots are

required to fly at higher altitude so that if 

there is a problem with the aircraft, the pilot can

attempt to safely land. The distances off the 

ground that Strub was piloting his plane would

clearly not allow him to recover from any engine problem.



6. On August 2, 2005, Gregory Gorak, a pilot with 

38 years of piloting experience, certified

as a professional flight instructor holding 

several other professional certifications, stated to

Inv. Gosh that he had an opportunity to read a 

copy of the accident investigation involving

the crash. In his opinion, this was clear error 

on the part of the pilot in being careless and

reckless in the operation of his aircraft since 

there would no time for any safe landing when

you operate an aircraft between 30 to 40 feet 

above the water, other than possibly a

seaplane. Gorak is aware of the regulations as to 

how many feet above water you must

safely operate and that indicated that no prudent 

pilot would operate in such a manner as

the defendant did. He stated it was simply “an accident waiting to happen.”"

Guy Buchanan

San Diego, CA

K-IV 1200 / 582-C / Warp / 100% done, thanks mostly to Bob Ducar.

_________________
Guy Buchanan
Deceased K-IV 1200
A glider pilot too.

wingnut

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 356

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 6:25 am Post subject: Re: Why the Jail Time?

WOW. Didn't know about the 500ft above open water rule. Apparently, neither did my first instructor. When on the subject of minimum altitude, I distinctly remember him informing me that, when over water, the only minimum was 500ft from people or structures. 



Regarding the "minimum altitude to safely land" rule. Wouldn't a water landing in a slow flying airplane constitute a "safe landing"? Does "safe" mean that the pilot is likely to survive or that the airplane has a reasonable chance of coming out of it undamaged?

_________________
Luis Rodriguez
Model IV 1200
Rotax 912UL
Flying Weekly
Laurens, SC (34A)

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 7:46 am Post subject: Why the Jail Time?

I guess the problem is there is no middle road.  E took the passenger up and proceeded to get her sick then he was hot-dogging a bit on the way back to the field.  Yes he didn’t know the power lines were there but he was supposed to check the charts for the area he would be flying in.  Up here they have all structures and lines marked on the VNCs ( VFR Navigational Charts)  Occasionally they will miss a cable or someone will build a new tower in the most amazing place but it is still up to the pilot check it out before flying.  

   

Helicopter pilots and ag-sprayers sometimes  get caught this way.  Even so they are still responsible.  

   

One of the problems may be is there doesn’t seem to be any middle ground..  its negligent manslaughter or nothing.  The thing I look at is the responsibility the pilot has after such a happening.  His responsibility to the court and his responsibility to the family of the now departed passenger.  Putting him in jail for ten years won’t help anyone.  It will cost the court system to keep him.  It will cost the family of the passenger additional grief to have to sit through a cold trial.  It will cost the family of the pilot income for ten years and it will cost the pilot ten years of his life living with real criminals.  No one wins here!  

   

I think he should be found guilty of manslaughter..  Fine him $500 for court costs and garnish  a good part of his wages for ten years or so to help the passenger’s family  continue with their lives.  I won’t bring the passenger back but it could help pay for a nanny and/or university education.  Doing that doesn’t cost the court system or the condemn the pilots family to poverty for his mistake.   I doubt his insurance Co would like my “fix”.    

   

Additionally I might agree with a rule he never be allowed to carry a passenger again except if the passenger was also a pilot.  

   

There used to be a RC aerodrome a few miles away from Torbay International airport, St. John’s, Newfoundland.  They were given I believe it was a 1200 foot ceiling and the airspace was restricted.  One day a helicopter taking the short route home flew over a hill at tree top altitude and appeared almost out of nowhere as a fan jet was making a dive run.  The RC plane went right in front of the main rotor...  Scared the crap out of the pilot, his passengers and the RC operator.  Although he was reported to TC (Transport Canada) he was never written up for the intentional incursion.  One can only guess why.  

   

   

   

[img]cid:image001.jpg(at)01C8793A.00DBD490[/img]  

   

Noel Loveys  

Campbellton, NL, Canada  

CDN AME intern, PP-Rec  

C-FINB, Kitfox III-A  

582 B box, Ivo IFA, Aerocet 1100 floats  

[url=noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca]noelloveys(at)yahoo.ca[/url]  

   

Noel  

   

--

image001.jpg

Description:

Filesize:

5.18 KB

Viewed:

6959 Time(s)

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Wed Feb 27, 2008 8:15 am Post subject: Why the Jail Time?

Louis:



Any landing you walk away form is a good one!



Any landing where you can actually use the plane again is exceptional!







I fly floats and really love flying out the bay (North Atlantic Ocean) at

ten feet... or less.  Of course there is no chance of hitting a wire out

there.  I fly far enough in the bay that I don't have to worry about swell.

There are enough fishing boats, Longliners etc. around though I have to keep

an eye out to give them plenty of leeway.  Last summer I was flying in the

bay when I saw a friend in front of me.  I dropped down parallel to him

about 500 yd off his port side.  I was amazed that I could slow down slower

than he was going and still easily stay airborne.  we played cat and mouse

for a few miles and then I climbed out again.  The whole time I doubt I was

any closer than a half a click from him.



Noel



--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:25 am Post subject: Why the Jail Time?

Is there any requirement for a power company to put markers on the cables crossing a river??Â  I know some places there is a requirement for them to have wires crossing a street a minimum of twenty feet at all times.Â  There are requirements for towers to be lit and marked.Â  Are there no requirements for wires crossing rivers to be lit and/or marked?Â  It seems to me the power company may share in responsibility for the accident.  

   

Do not archive... finally remembered to put it in!  

   

Noel  

     

From: owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-kitfox-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of dpremgood(at)aim.com

 Sent: Wednesday, February 27, 2008 9:11 PM

 To: kitfox-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Fwd: Why the Jail Time?  

  

   



 

 

 --

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

n85ae

Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 403

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 11:27 am Post subject: Re: Why the Jail Time?

You take somebody for a ride in a plane, you ARE responsible for their

well being. You have an accident that they get injured, or killed, and 

there are rules/regulations that govern that activity which you were

ignoring. To me that is negligent, and presumably to most responsible 

people  the interpretation is that as well.



The guy was doing something stupid and got somebody killed. I think

you can sympathize with how he might feel, however he's in deep

stuff. Which is his own doing.



That's my reading of it.



If that was my kid in his plane, he'd have more than legal issues to 

worry about.



Jeff

wingnut

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 356

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 2:31 pm Post subject: Re: Why the Jail Time?

Certainly the guy did something stupid. Flying low over a part of the river that he was not intimately familiar with is reckless and the outcome is entirely his fault. However, whether or not his poor judgment raises to the level of negligent homicide isn't all the clear cut to me. 



The problem I have with the way the case is worded is that they seem to be saying that the very act of flying low even if your over water is already reason enough to throw the book at him. I think that there are a few pilots on this list that would take exception to that view.



Another point that seems relevant to me and hasn't been mentioned is whether the passenger knew what she was getting into. Did she seek this guy out  precisely because of his reputation for flying low over the river?

_________________
Luis Rodriguez
Model IV 1200
Rotax 912UL
Flying Weekly
Laurens, SC (34A)

n85ae

Joined: 14 Mar 2007
Posts: 403

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 3:28 pm Post subject: Re: Why the Jail Time?

Seems clear enough to me. He was operating outside what's allowed by the

fars, and it wasn't an emergency. in fact he was intentionally flying low.

Which as I see it isn't like he busted some controlled airspace or something

like that. The result of his doing it was his passenger died.



Drag racing in a car on city streets, and killing a passenger will you get 

you the same thing.



Hitting a tree while drunk on a snowmobile and killing a passenger will 

get you the same thing.



Running a water skier into a dock while driving a boat, same thing.



To my way of thinking all of the  above are the same thing. I think 

negligient homicide should just be renamed "killing somebody by

being stupid".



Maybe that's harsh. But just because your version of a stupid thing, cost

a lot and requires a lot of training, doesn't make it less stupid, right? In

fact, you might argue that since it does take a lot of training, and in fact

the pilot HAD been tested on his knowledge (i.e. pilot exam) he really 

has no excuse. Hence it is even more stupid, than somebody killing

somebody with a car. Since operating a car takes a lot less training.



Jails have lots of people in them who will spend the rest of their lives 

with deep remorse for having done something stupid that cost a life.



Jeff

mikeperkins

Joined: 22 May 2007
Posts: 123

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:32 pm Post subject: Re: Why the Jail Time?

Instructors don't always know the FARs. I had an instructor in a BFR ask that I simulate an engine-out landing down to 50 feet over an open field. I had to tell him the FARs didn't allow that and he insisted, resulting in an "large" discussion right then and there.. . .  Another instructor tested me witn a simulated engine-out just to SEE if I knew the FARs and would violate the altitude restriction. At 600 feetI initiated a discussion about it, and at 550, we were on our way up. 



I suggest each pilot have a current copy of FAR/AIM and periodically read it. It's only $18. 



Also, don't forget to fill out an ASRS form after an uninmtentional violation. It's also sometimes called the NASA get-out-of-jail form. See http://asrs.arc.nasa.gov/ for the form and immunity information. 



Nothing, however, prevents a district attorney from filing criminal charges or a private person from filing a civil lawsuit against a pilot for any action that harmed someone or something. 



- Mike Perkins

Float Flyr

Joined: 19 Jul 2006
Posts: 2704
Location: Campbellton, Newfoundland

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 5:38 pm Post subject: Why the Jail Time?

I really can't find much fault in your arguments except if the local aviation charts didn't designate the power corridor for whatever reason.  I think it's a bit convenient that the pilot take the full responsibility for the accident.  If however he didn't check the charts of the area before the flight then he didn't take the prescribed precautions to have a safe flight and as you say that is negligence.  If however he had within a reasonable period of time consulted the charts and the info was either missing or incorrect then he could have correctly thought he was flying inside the FARs that is not negligence.  

   

Using your examples of the drag racing. The drivers manuals everywhere warn against doing this, as they warn against the operation of any power machine while intoxicated...  Locally it is also illegal to operate a small power boat or even a power wheel chair while intoxicated even if you don't leave your own driveway.  As for driving a water skier into a dock that can only be done if you aren't towing that skier ( the skier is not on a hard tow rod but a rope which allows him to make directional changes) but there is a responsibility of the boat operator to avoid congested areas where a skier could be forced into a crash.  However if the operators of any of the above equipment take reasonable steps to ensure a safe trip then they are not negligent. i.e. drag racing at a strip (people can and have been killed)...  snowmobiling in known territory at reasonable speeds, or water skiing in open water with the proper look outs.  

   

The case as I see it comes down to the term reasonable.  If it can be proven the pilot did have and regularly use VFR charts and had used the route several times in the past etc. Etc. Then there may be an argument for others, The Power company and the FAA cartographers, to shoulder some of the blame and responsibility.   

   

I say some of the responsibility because in the end the pilot has the principal responsibility for everything to do with his plane once he takes control, just as the captain of a ship is responsible for even the actions of lowly cabin attendants on his ship.  

   

The problem here is, we don't have all the information only that there was a crash into power lines at low altitude which resulted in a fatality.  In fact we don't even know if the "Expert witnesses" even toured the crash site or if they testified in generalities or un informed opinion.  There may also be other extenuating circumstances that are not mentioned...  For example was there a lot of other traffic at higher altitudes that would have prolonged a flight with a sick passenger on board??  

   

   

Noel  

   

   

--

_________________
Noel Loveys
Kitfox III-A
Aerocet 1100 Floats

nail13zg(at)centurytel.ne
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 28, 2008 6:47 pm Post subject: Why the Jail Time?

Mike,

  

 I am not advocating flying low in unfamiliar  territory, and I am not advocating engine out approaches to a low altitude go  around (as a CFI, I don't do it). But you can't say the FARs  prohibit  either, unless you are falling back on the "reckless operation" paragraph. There  is nothing in the minimum altitude requirements of FAR 91.119 that prohibits  either of these situations.

  

 Trey Moran

 [quote]   ---

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> Kitfox-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Page 1 of 1

Jump to:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You can download files in this forum