Matronics Email Lists :: View topic - pilot's family awarded $10.5M

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

pilot's family awarded $10.5M
Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next

Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List

View previous topic :: View next topic

Author Message

rv7(at)b4.ca
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:34 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

When did this become rv-legal-list(at)matronics.com?



Can we get back to RV's?



-Rob



do not archive

jsflyrv(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:07 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Bob Collins wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



In the process of putting together this week's Hotline, I always check to see if any NTSB investigations have been completed on RV-related incidents.



Tonight I found this one (http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id 041110X01799&key=1). 



It's interesting -- to me -- for a number of reasons:



(1) The NTSB report delves deeply into the construction of the nosegear on this particular RV-6A

(2) It reinforces why you should pay attention to edge distance

(3) It raises some question about the advice Van's gave to a builder who called seeking advice.



Apparently the builder has questions about the edge distance on a nose gear component, called Van's, and then -- according to the NTSB -- followed the instructions he was given. The nose gear collapsed, the bird flipped, the pilot died and the NTSB said he was responsible because he flew with a known deficiency.



  



I think there is some misinformation being given here. The pilot was 
	


questioning the roll over structure rivet edge distance. The report say 

the nose gear gave way for undetermined resons.

Lets see, reported roughness on previous landings, a botched landing on 

the landing prior to the accident, gee wonder if that could have 

anything to do with the nose gear failure? Nose gears

do not just bend back for no reason.



BTW Bob I may have missed you saying so but are you an attorney?



Jerry

do not archive

jsflyrv(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:09 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Rob Prior wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		  



When did this become rv-legal-list(at)matronics.com?



Can we get back to RV's?



-Rob



do not archive



  



I agree Rob, but at the same time you cannot let stand any 
	


misinformation being posted.



do not archive

n616tb(at)btsapps.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:02 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

I witnessed this crash and I can tell you it WAS hard on me.  I was building the same airplane.  I normally was motivated by Arlington fly-in and went home to build even more aggressively than before the show.  That year after the crash I went back to my campsite and stayed there.  I did not go home and build for quite some time.  Watching this event even from the other side of the field was difficult.  

All of this is very true, but I got nothing for it.  Now I find out he was retired from Microsoft.  Lucky for them I am not like them.  I went to the show and choose to be there.  If something happened while there.. well I knew it was possible.  Guess I won’t cash in on this.  

Tim  

Please Do Not Archive  

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of n801bh(at)netzero.com

 Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 4:30 PM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M  

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:

 > True that they invited him, but they did not make him hurry or rish the

 > pre-flight or taxi to the wrong end of the runway. Nor did they make him

 > as a low time pilot make the decisions he did. End result is personal

 > responsibility.

 > But I know it is different in this case because he would likely say it

 > was his fault, but it is his wife and her "outstanding lawyer" that made

 > the assertion of who was to blame.

 > Sad situation and hope the defense gets a better lawyer on appeal.

 > Dan 

 > --

The fact  that the lawyer determined that burning to death should be compensated at 1 million a minute is stupid. They claim it took 5 minuted to die so the family gets 5 million.  I still contend that the pilot caused his death because of poor piloting skills/ improper preflight/showing off in front of the crowd. God only knows the real reason. What about the 10's 100's maybe thousands of human beings that witnessed a person burn to death because of his own negligence. Those people should file suit against the widow for mental anguish because "her" husband scarred the thoughts of all those people for life..... So back to the 1 million a minute theory. All spectators should be paid 5 million each for viewing this crash. What's good for the goose is good for the gander.  

do not archive

 Ben Haas

 N801BH

 www.haaspowerair=======================sp;  - The RV-List Email Forum -

 nbsp;Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Brows=========================              - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

 ========================   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	

1 	  Quote: 	

2 	  Quote: 	

3 	  Quote: 	

4

        [quote][b]

n616tb(at)btsapps.com
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 6:16 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

This thread is about as relevant to building airplanes as anything we have discussed for quite some time.  Please consider the effect these things have on our ability to afford and fly airplanes at all.  If you or others can’t afford to insure them or fly them then why build them.  These lawsuits are the reason Cessna quit making GA airplanes for so long.  It is a major factor in the cost of a sport plane.  I once read and cannot quote today but the jest was a Cessna 172 includes $70k per unit cost in liability insurance.  If van were faced with anything even close, we would not be building these fine airplanes.  

Just my opinion of course and no flame intended.  

Build on, and Do Not Archive  

Tim   

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of David Dalton

 Sent: Wednesday, February 14, 2007 8:44 PM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M  

Haven't we beat this one to death yet?   How about moving this conversation to the lawyers and legal  forum and let's talk about building airplanes (Smile).

 DD    

On 2/14/07, Bob Collins <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net (bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net)> wrote:  

--> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net (bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net)>

 LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:

 > True that they invited him, but they did not make him hurry or rish the 

 > pre-flight or taxi to the wrong end of the runway. Nor did they make him

 > as a low time pilot make the decisions he did. End result is personal

 > responsibility.

 > But I know it is different in this case because he would likely say it 

 > was his fault, but it is his wife and her "outstanding lawyer" that made

 > the assertion of who was to blame.

 > Sad situation and hope the defense gets a better lawyer on appeal.

 > Dan 

 > --

 Well, you're right of course, Dan. If he hadn't flown in, he would not be dead. But I think we have to approach this from a more legal perspective. It's a given that he died because he crashed his plane. 

 But what if he COULD have lived had the fire department not taken so much time getting their equipment on, hadn't screwed up while connecting the hoses, and had used a foam suppressant  instead of water on a fuel-fed fire. 

 Let's say he could have lived if any of those things testimony suggested  the fire department did hadn't been done.  Then did he still die ONLY because he crashed his plane?

 I don't think so. I think he died for a couple of reasons. And that's what the jury was asked to decide and, indeed, decided. 

 The "personal respnsibility" thing is a difficult proposition that sounds simple. You're respnosible for 100% of your own actions but it doesn't take much, as I said, to find the flaws in it because it's usually applied in a limited manner. 

 What would make it difficult in this case? What if there had been a passenger who didn't rush his takeoff, who didn't stall the plane and yet did suffer the same consequences of burning to death? Does he have the same liability as the pilot? 

 Do not archive

 --------

 Bob Collins

 St. Paul, Minn.

 RV Builder's Hotline (free!)

 http://rvhotline.expercraft.com

 Read this topic online here: 

    	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	

1 	  Quote: 	

2 	  Quote: 	

3 	  Quote: 	

4

        [quote][b]

rtitsworth

Joined: 16 Jan 2006
Posts: 76
Location: Detroit, Mi

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:10 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Try this..  

Find psychologist to discuss the effect the accident has had on you.  Explain to him that you don’t feel good about flying anymore  - and attribute it to the impact of the accident which was caused but the builder.  Get him to prescribe that you need to spend some time flying (getting back in the saddle) even through you don’t really feel good about it.  Then, sue the estate of the crash pilot/builder for the cost of your “treatments”.  Assuming the “treatments” lasts for years – you’re flying for free!  Seems to be a good application of the millions awarded.  

Just kidding - but couldn’t help myself.  

         

  

  

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Tim Bryan

 Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:02 AM

 

   

I witnessed this crash and I can tell you it WAS hard on me….  [quote] [b]

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:34 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

//BTW Bob I may have missed you saying so but are you an attorney?



Lord no. I are a news editor. (g) BTW, read the narrative (before the

probable cause, I think ther'es a link at the bottom), it's REALLY

interesting. Gets into part numbers, even.



Do not archive



Bob

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:42 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

At 07:15 AM 2/15/2007, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  This thread is about as relevant to building airplanes as anything we have discussed for quite some time.  Please consider the effect these things have on our ability to afford and fly airplanes at all.  If you or others can’t afford to insure them or fly them then why build them.  These lawsuits are the reason Cessna quit making GA airplanes for so long.  It is a major factor in the cost of a sport plane.  I once read and cannot quote today but the jest was a Cessna 172 includes $70k per unit cost in liability insurance.  If van were faced with anything even close, we would not be building these fine airplanes.

 	


 Good point.  My concern is what impact will this have on fly-ins?

 Will smaller ones cease to exist?  Will grass-roots fly-ins run by

 individuals end because of the fear of massive lawsuits if a pilot 

 kills himself?



 Ron Lee

     [quote][b]

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 7:45 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

By way of comparison, on the Web interface, I believe this  thread is the second-most viewed thread since Matt set it up. This one is  #1

 http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?t=10883

  

 Of course, when you add in the other related thread to this  one, it easily is the most viewed thread the RV List has had online as near as I  can tell.

  

 No conclusion. Just an observation. Love that Web  interface!

  

 do not archive

    [quote][b]

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

Bob Collins

Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 470
Location: St. Paul, Minnesota

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 8:04 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

I see on the EAA Web site this morning that Louisiana is  starting another series of 10 fly-ins around the state...I think starting next  weekend.  Looks like a fun time. I would be interested if anyone flying in,  who has participated in the previous series, notices any  difference.

  

 I also assume SnF would be something of a barometer,  although it seemed that the level of services in dispute in the Arlington  case... did not apply to SnF or Oshkosh... at least that's what I recall reading  in the EAA motion.

  

 B



   From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com  [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Ron  Lee

Sent: Thursday, February 15, 2007 9:42 AM

To:  rv-list(at)matronics.com

Subject: RE: Re: pilot's family awarded  $10.5M

 

At 07:15 AM 2/15/2007, you wrote:

  	  Quote: 	
		  This thread is about as relevant to building airplanes as anything we    have discussed for quite some time.  Please consider the effect these    things have on our ability to afford and fly airplanes at all.  If you or    others cant afford to insure them or fly them then why build them.     These lawsuits are the reason Cessna quit making GA airplanes for so    long.  It is a major factor in the cost of a sport plane.  I once    read and cannot quote today but the jest was a Cessna 172 includes $70k per    unit cost in liability insurance.  If van were faced with anything even    close, we would not be building these fine airplanes.

	


Good point.  My concern is what impact  will this have on fly-ins?

Will smaller ones cease to exist?  Will  grass-roots fly-ins run by

individuals end because of the fear of massive  lawsuits if a pilot 

kills himself?



Ron Lee

[quote]



href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com



[b]

_________________
Bob Collins
St. Paul, Minn.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

jhstarn(at)verizon.net
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 10:24 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

AMEN.........As I have noted before...

 Examples: 

     The Copperstate Dash is no longer held not because of an  accident, injury or even a real lawsuit. It is not longer held because of the  "possible" exposure to such a "possible" lawsuit. We now do not require the  wolf to be at the door only that the shadow of a "possible" small  dog, as perceived in minds of those counting the beans.

 What was the Copperstate Dash ? ?. It was a "dash" from Apple Valley  Airport CA (APV) to the opening of the Annual EAA Southwest Regional Fly-in  in Arizona. 

     The Apple Valley Air Show (a one day event) is now  an airfare/open house. Why ? ?, Because the cost of insurance ($15,000.00+)  could not be justified, earned from the gate nor paid for by those putting  on the show. 

     Hide & watch...Since this matter involving the EAA  and the Northwest Regional EAA fly-in at Arlington Washington we'll have to see  if it has any more adverse effects on the event.

     And surely you don't believe we've heard the last of the  OSH accident(s).

 KABONG  Do Not Archive

 [quote]   ---

pcowper(at)webtv.net (Pet
Guest

Posted: Thu Feb 15, 2007 9:35 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Dave Leonard wrote:

(*(*^^^%$$n lawyers! 



"Don't confuse me with the facts, I've already made up my mind."



Pete Cowper

RV8 #81139

California Lawyer

lors01(at)msn.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 9:36 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

<?xml:namespace prefix="v" /><?xml:namespace prefix="o" /><![endif]-->  Wouldn't matter to me if he was dancing a jig and reciting the Gettysburg  address while burning to death.  (am I going to hell for that?)   People around him did their personal best to save him but he died anyway.   If mistakes were made, well too bad, he obviously made the first and primary  mistake that caused his death and others should not have to pay for that  fact.

  

 Tracy Crook

 [quote]   ---

Vanremog(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 6:57 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

In a message dated 2/16/2007 9:38:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time,  lors01(at)msn.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  Wouldn't matter to me if he was dancing a jig and reciting the    Gettysburg address while burning to death.  (am I going to hell for    that?)  People around him did their personal best to save him but he died    anyway.  If mistakes were made, well too bad, he obviously made the first    and primary mistake that caused his death and others should not have to pay    for that fact. 	


 

 ===========================

  

 I have remained silent on this issue until now, but I have to agree with  Tracy's assertion of "any good Samaritan (professional or amateur) doing  their level best to help out someone in trouble is absolved of  liability".  I want people to help others in need, even if they fail to  succeed.  Stuff happens and you can't always put Humpty Dumpty back  together again.  This is the sad fact, get over it, but learn from  it.

  

 Others' assertions that we need to know the minutiae of the case in  order to fully understand the nuanced but higher wisdom of a jury acting in  a frivolous suit against those who tried to help is nonsense.   IMO, the issue should have never come before the court.    

 GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 833hrs, Silicon Valley,  CA)



  [quote][b]

morgjj

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 8:14 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Professionally trained folks are not just people passing by and we expect a level of training, performance, and knowledge from them when responding. I expect that police officer knows how to aim and fire his gun. I expect the paramedic to know the drugs he is using and what their affect will be. I expect that pilot of my airline plane to know how to navigate and use the systems available to him. I hold all of them to a standard that is very different then just someone trying help.   To suggest that because the fire department showed up, that is all that they need to do is ridiculous!  I cannot believe that I even read that in this group.   

   

If the fire department didn’t use their training and execute properly for the accident that they responded to, they should be called on it.  How can you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for  not using their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the exact same thing?  Pick a side.  

   

Everyone is upset at what happened, but the family has a right to ask the questions as to what happened.  Hundreds of years ago it was just the workers fault that they stuck their hand into the machines. Shouldn’t have had it there in the first place, right?  OSHA has made the work place safer and helped many people. That occurred by people questioning the experts.  There are examples all over the world around us.  

   

Now,  I am not suggesting that I agree or disagree with the results, but will say that the idea that experts are excused is a bunch of bologna.  They should do it better, thus the expert title.  

   

   

       

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vanremog(at)aol.com

 Sent: Friday, February 16, 2007 8:55 PM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M  

  

  

       

In a message dated 2/16/2007 9:38:09 A.M. Pacific Standard Time, lors01(at)msn.com writes:  

   	  Quote: 	
		    

Wouldn't matter to me if he was dancing a jig and reciting the Gettysburg address while burning to death.  (am I going to hell for that?)  People around him did their personal best to save him but he died anyway.  If mistakes were made, well too bad, he obviously made the first and primary mistake that caused his death and others should not have to pay for that fact.  	
  

    

===========================  

    

   

    

I have remained silent on this issue until now, but I have to agree with Tracy's assertion of "any good Samaritan (professional or amateur) doing their level best to help out someone in trouble is absolved of liability".  I want people to help others in need, even if they fail to succeed.  Stuff happens and you can't always put Humpty Dumpty back together again.  This is the sad fact, get over it, but learn from it.  

    

   

    

Others' assertions that we need to know the minutiae of the case in order to fully understand the nuanced but higher wisdom of a jury acting in a frivolous suit against those who tried to help is nonsense.  IMO, the issue should have never come before the court.      

   

    

GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 833hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)  

  

   	  Quote: 	
		    http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List 	
0 	  Quote: 	
		   	
1 	  Quote: 	
		   	
2 	  Quote: 	
		   	
3 	  Quote: 	
		   	
4

      [quote][b]

Vanremog(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:21 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

In a message dated 2/16/2007 8:16:15 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		     

Professionally    trained folks are not just people passing by and we expect a level of    training, performance, and knowledge from them when responding. I expect that    police officer knows how to aim and fire his gun. I expect the paramedic to    know the drugs he is using and what their affect will be. I expect that pilot    of my airline plane to know how to navigate and use the systems available to    him. I hold all of them to a standard that is very different then just someone    trying help.   To suggest that because the fire department showed    up, that is all that they need to do is ridiculous!  I cannot believe    that I even read that in this group.    

    

If    the fire department didnâ€™t use their training and execute properly for the    accident that they responded to, they should be called on it.  How can    you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for  not    using their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the exact same    thing?  Pick a side. 	


 

 ================================

  

 And even professional money managers often lose money.  Past  performance is not a guarantee of future results, and with the ton of variables  out there, it's not always their fault.

  

 If it's intentional bad management (such as in the case of Enron) then you  may have a point.  If the fire squad drove up to the burning  plane and broke out their sticks and marshmallows, that would be the only  careless disregard finding I could agree with.   

 GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 833hrs, Silicon Valley,  CA)



  [quote][b]

morgjj

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 24

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 10:31 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

There is a difference between finance and physical science. The rules of fire are absolute.Â  Ask any of them.  

   

   

       

From: owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com [mailto:owner-rv-list-server(at)matronics.com] On Behalf Of Vanremog(at)aol.com

 Sent: Saturday, February 17, 2007 12:18 AM

 To: rv-list(at)matronics.com

 Subject: Re: RV-List: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M  

  

  

       

In a message dated 2/16/2007 8:16:15 P.M. Pacific Standard Time, jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com writes:  

   	  Quote: 	
		    

Professionally trained folks are not just people passing by and we expect a level of training, performance, and knowledge from them when responding. I expect that police officer knows how to aim and fire his gun. I expect the paramedic to know the drugs he is using and what their affect will be. I expect that pilot of my airline plane to know how to navigate and use the systems available to him. I hold all of them to a standard that is very different then just someone trying help.   To suggest that because the fire department showed up, that is all that they need to do is ridiculous!  I cannot believe that I even read that in this group.   

   

If the fire department didnâ€™t use their training and execute properly for the accident that they responded to, they should be called on it.  How can you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for  not using their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the exact same thing?  Pick a side.  	
  

    

================================  

    

   

    

And even professional money managers often lose money.  Past performance is not a guarantee of future results, and with the ton of variables out there, it's not always their fault.  

    

   

    

If it's intentional bad management (such as in the case of Enron) then you may have a point.  If the fire squad drove up to the burning plane and broke out their sticks and marshmallows, that would be the only careless disregard finding I could agree with.     

   

    

GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 833hrs, Silicon Valley, CA)  

  

   	  Quote: 	
		    _-============================================================_-=Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â Â  - The RV-List Email Forum -_-= Use the Matronics List Features Navigator to browse_-= the many List utilities such as the Subscriptions page,_-= Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Browse, Chat, FAQ,_-= Photoshare, and much much more:_-=Â Â  --> http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List_-============================================================  	
0 	  Quote: 	
		    	
1 	  Quote: 	
		    	
2 	  Quote: 	
		    	
3 	  Quote: 	
		    	
4

Vanremog(at)aol.com
Guest

Posted: Fri Feb 16, 2007 11:38 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

In a message dated 2/16/2007 10:32:53 P.M. Pacific Standard Time,  jmorgan(at)compnetconcepts.com writes:

  	  Quote: 	
		  There    is a difference between finance and physical science. The rules of fire are    absolute.  Ask any of them. 	


 

 =============================

  

 Unfortunately, I'm sure they would be equally clear that positive short  term results are still not absolutely assured in either case, because time  is such a major aspect in both.  Maybe he just didn't pray hard  enough in those final moments.  Do not archive.   

 GV (RV-6A N1GV O-360-A1A, C/S, Flying 833hrs, Silicon Valley,  CA)



  [quote][b]

Dale Ensing

Joined: 11 Jan 2006
Posts: 571
Location: Aero Plantation Weddington NC

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 5:34 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

The fire fighters were volunteers......correct? Do  we hold volunteers to the same standards as professionals? The airpark we live  in is protected by a volunteer fire department. While I hope they can do as  well as the professionals, I do not expect the same.  It was my choice  to take that risk. 

  	  Quote: 	
		        

 

      

If    the fire department didn’t use their training and execute properly for the    accident that they responded to, they should be called on it.  How can    you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for  not    using their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the exact same    thing?  Pick a side.

_________________
Dale Ensing
RV-6A
Aero Plantation
Weddington NC

cjensen(at)dts9000.com
Guest

Posted: Sat Feb 17, 2007 6:08 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Dale,

 From the briefs Bob posted, apparently, one of the reasons for  finding against the defendants was the lack of competence on the part of  the Rescue Team (i.e. tennis shoes, clothes not at the ready, wrong hose  hookup, water instead of foam).  The implication was that the EAA was  responsible for this less than sterling performance by the Rescue  Squad.  

  

 The question is "what standard is the EAA (or any flyin manager)  supposed to hold a Rescue Squad" such that it protects against claims of  incompetence?  The best available in the local area?  The best  available anywhere?  Is the EAA supposed to make  the Volunteer Fire Department run demonstration tests for them to show  competence?  Is the EAA to require 5 practice drills on the part of fire  and rescue squad?  And what standard is used to measure competence?   Is 45 second response okay, but 44 second is not?  The local Volunteer Fire  Department is the best available (even if not very good), does that mean the EAA  is required to contract with a Hook-n-Ladder fire crew from Washington, Dulles  and have them travel 5,000 miles to be at the ready because they are better, or  the best available?  

  

 All of these questions, some silly, some  unanswerable, go to the issue of what duty the EAA and Flyin Sponsors had,  if any, to the guest flyers beyond just having the local good-guy with some fire  equipment available.  If the guest pilots had an unspoken, unwritten,  unpublished expectation that there would be fire-n-rescue with a high level of  competence available, then perhaps future flyin hosts should publish on  their web page and fliers:

  

 "Note:  No fire and no rescue services will be  available and none should be expected.  If, while attending this flyin, you  intend to crash and burn, please arrange for your own fire and rescue services  because we have none.  If this arrangement is not satisfactory, please stay  away and take your crash somewhere else."

  

 Is  a warning like this stupid?  Probably, but then again, perhaps its also  prudent.  It would certainly have presented the claimants in this  litigation with a higher level of proof.

  

 Chuck  Jensen

  

  

  Dale Ensing   wrote..... 



 The fire fighters were volunteers......correct? Do  we hold volunteers to the same standards as professionals? The airpark we live  in is protected by a volunteer fire department. While I hope they can do as  well as the professionals, I do not expect the same.  It was my choice  to take that risk. 

 [quote]      

 

      

If    the fire department didn’t use their training and execute properly for the    accident that they responded to, they should be called on it.  How can    you say that it is okay for them to not be held responsible for  not    using their training and then turn and criticize the pilot for the exact same    thing?  Pick a side.   

 





href="http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List">http://www.matronics.com/Navigator?RV-List

href="http://forums.matronics.com">http://forums.matronics.com



[b]

Display posts from previous:

	Matronics Email Lists Forum Index -> RV-List	All times are GMT - 8 Hours Goto page Previous 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 Next
Page 6 of 8

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