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

Bob Collins

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

Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:54 pm Post subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Interesting new stuff from Aircraft Maintenance Technology today. Turns out the fire crews did testify.



http://www.amtonline.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=3391

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

brianpublic2(at)starband.
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 7:20 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

This description certainly sounds a lot different from previous accounts

I've read.   If true that he was alive and talking to people as he was being

burned to death, with only a broken leg from the crash, that is quite a

different matter and might explain what had seemed to most of us to be a

egregious verdict.

Brian



--

Bob Collins

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

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:10 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

There was no question that he was alive and talking to people. Both sides in

the motions I wrote about verified this. The "broken leg" angle is a new

one, and I'm not sure I believe it. The Corbitt's attorney described him as

being "alive and well," which also might embellish his state a little more.

But if you look at the two motions that I posted, it's quite like each side

was at two different crashes. And the EAA's motion seemed to say -- that

while he was alive, he was probably going to die anyway.



I would like to see the transcripts of the firefighters testimony or

depositions, however. And I believe there is no question that the

firefighters hooked up their lines improperly and then used water on a fuel

fire. To what extent that hastened his demise, I don't know, of course. 



The one thing that took me by surprise is this assertion 



"Smith also uncovered EAA documents that required the regional group arrange

for full-time fire protection with a turret fire truck and trained airport

rescue firefighters."



That's the first I'd heard of this. Also, the writer -- who did not cover

the trial -- said the town's fire chief said the fire should have been put

out in 90 seconds. It wouldn't surprise me that the writer has this person

confused with the gentleman from Virginia, the head of fire units at

airports there, who said that.



Keep in mind, only one side was quoted in this article as the other side

didn't return the writers phone calls.  Not sure why, but a lot of people

think "no comment" makes stories go away. It doesn't. It only makes your

side of the story go away.



Bob



Do not archive



--

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

wdleonard(at)gmail.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:31 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

You have got to be kidding me.  Even if the crash didn't kill him, it still caused the fire that did kill him. He still built the plane that trapped him.  He also crashed the plane causing himself to become trapped.  How can that only be 15% responsible for his own death???   Sounds more like 90-100% to me.   

  

 If he was so 'alive and well' why didn't he use his own fire extinguisher to put it out while it was still small?  

  

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

 

 Dave Leonard

 

 On 2/14/07, Brian Meyette <brianpublic2(at)starband.net (brianpublic2(at)starband.net)> wrote: [quote]--> RV-List message posted by: "Brian Meyette" < brianpublic2(at)starband.net (brianpublic2(at)starband.net)>



This description certainly sounds a lot different from previous accounts

I've read.   If true that he was alive and talking to people as he was being

burned to death, with only a broken leg from the crash, that is quite a 

different matter and might explain what had seemed to most of us to be a

egregious verdict.

Brian



--

n616tb(at)btsapps.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:10 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

If you read this story (and believe it) there was no reason why the crash

victim didn't just step out of the wreck and walk away from it (or hobble as

his leg was broke).  The story said he was standing up in the plane talking

to them.  This is bunk!  He was trapped by the wreckage and he knew he was

going to die as his comments to the first people to arrive were "Forget it,

I am already dead".



Do Not Archive



[quote] --

Bob Collins

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

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 10:45 am Post subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

That was the testimony of one witness. I'm unfamiliar if any others heard it. His testimony, specifically was:



"Did you ever talk to him?" Swift was asked.



"Not an open conversation," Swift testified.



"What were the first things he said to you?"



"He said, 'I'm a dead man.,'" Swift said.



***



The "forget it" part is new to me. 



However, it's important to remember that Swift's testimony doesn't make it fact. It doesn't make it not fact. It makes it his testimony.



But there was also Peter Ali and Simon Butler, who submitted depositions in February 2006 to that effect. Ali said he arrived at the crash site about three minutes after the crash and, "the pilot was standing up in the middle of the aircraft and it looked like he still had some straps on -- apparently seat belt straps -- and he stood during the entire ordeal as the men were trying to keep the flames at bay with small extinguishers. People were yelling at the pilot to try and cut loose and get out of the aircraft," he said.

Do not archive

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

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 11:57 am Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Another thought on the standing up issue, the report states that the

plane came to rest on its nose with the tail in the air. With a 5 point

harness, and a person dangling in the seat would it not appear that they

were standing up, slightly bent over? This from a perspective of the

non-flying public who were the first on the scene? And how is 15% at

fault determined when the crash would not have happened in the first

place without pilot error. Also did anyone catch he built the plane? He

was a buyer not a builder! Forced to back taxi? He went to the wrong end

of the runway! He was a low time pilot, in a hurry to depart, did a piss

poor preflight, and bought the farm for it. Short and simple.

Dan 



--

Bob Collins

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

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:03 pm Post subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

That's what I've been wondering too. I didn't see how someone could be both strapped in their seat AND standing up. One of the witnesses -- and I can't offhand remember who it was -- testified that he moved the tail to get at the guy. So, yeah, if the thing came in nose first, I suppose technially it looked like he was standing up.



Do not archive

_________________
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: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:08 pm Post subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

//And how is 15% at 

fault determined when the crash would not have happened in the first 

place without pilot error.



The best example I can come up with is the chain-of-errors thing that we've always been taught. Just one error won't kill you, but if a chain of them, will. Even breaking one chain would prevent an accident.



Back up a little bit in the case and you'll see the answer.



One of the reasons the EAA was held liable is because they (1) Held a fly-in and (2) "Invited" Mr. Corbitt in.



The "what if" can go on and on.  He wouldn't have died if he hadn't crashed. True. He wouldn't have crashed if he hadn't flown in. True. He wouldn't have flown in if he hadn't been "invited." True. He wouldn't have been invited if there hadn't been a fly-in. True.



Trying to find where the "chain of events" started... as with any chain... isn't always easy.   



And in this case, it also wasn't a fact in dispute.



He died because his plane crashed. But is that the only reason he died? THAT's the question the jury appeared to have wrestled with and what much of the case was about.

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

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 12:43 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

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 



--

Bob Collins

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

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:02 pm Post subject: 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 

-- 	




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.
Letters from Flyover Country
http://rvnewsletter.blogspot.com/

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:44 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

I guess this is my personal opinion, but the only way I could find fault

with the fire department is if by spraying the water they caused him to

die. My point in this whole thing is personal responsibility, and for

me, and only for me and my opinion, even if the fire department did not

show up, I chose to partake in an inherently risky adventure and if I

died while trying to do it then so be it. The only way I would find

fault with another in this situation is if they poured and lit the AVGAS

on me, other than that I chose to partake in the activity, and I

crashed, I killed myself, no different if I crash in front of a crowd,

or at a lonely, out of the way airfield that has no fire support. My

hobby, my responsibility, and yes, my wife and I have discussed this,

and unless someone sets me on fire, or runs me over in a TBM, it was my

fault and there is no way she should sue, I have the appropriate life

insurance and savings to take care of her and the children, so greed is

not there. The wife in this situation is also well taken care of in the

sense that he retired wealthy at 38 from Microsoft, so she/the lawyer is

just being greedy.

Once again, my opinion. Tort reform needs to be enacted to reduce these

types of scenario's

Dan  



--

ronlee(at)pcisys.net
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:46 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

 	  Quote: 	
		  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


	


I will repeat my view that if I die doing something as suicidally bone-headed

as this person may have done, I do not want anyone to be sued for my

stupidity.



Add appropriate legalese crap being of sound mind and body and stuff.



Ron Lee

N54RL

RV-6A

n801bh(at)netzero.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 2:32 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   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 -

_-= Use the Matronics List Features Navignbsp;Archive Search & Download, 7-Day Brows=========================              - NEW MATRONICS WEB FORUMS -

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

   [quote][b]

Bob Collins

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

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 4:00 pm Post subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

 	  n801bh(at)netzero.com wrote: 	
		  LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:

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. 	




I didn't see anything in the testimony that made any claim that the pilot was showing off at the time. Nor do I believe the calculation of the money had anything to do with how long it took him to die. I believe it was calculated based on the lost earnings potential.



The theory about "he was flying, it's his fault" is an interesting one. But when we get in trouble, a fire, a crash, a mugging... we EXPECT the people we call to respond. Why?  When the cops don't show up, we get upset. Why? Maybe we shouldn't have been walking down that street. Or maybe we shouldn't have bought a house that could catch fire.



Silly? Of course it is. The fact is that personal responsibility or no personal responsibility, we all have our OWN responsibilities that aren't waived because of someone else's. If your responsibility is to be on a fire crew, you have a responsibility to perform your tasks dutifully.



Now maybe they did and maybe they didn't. But that question isn't irrelevant.



Beyond that, I think a lot of folks have missed the real point of the litigation. IF the fire crews themselves were deemed NOT liable in this case -- because Washington state law gives the city of Arlington immunity -- then how on earth can that liability then be transferred to the EAA?



THAT is the question.

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

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 5:36 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

You need to re-read the article it states the lawyer determined a

million a minute was fair, and that was how they determined the amount.



No matter how we dice it, and regardless of what the suite was about, I

think the amount of the finding was ridiculous.

Dan 



--

Beer30?

Joined: 23 Sep 2006
Posts: 14

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 6:45 pm Post subject: 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:[quote] --> RV-List message posted by: "Bob Collins" <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net (bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net)>

LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote:

 	  Quote: 	
		   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: 



[b]

Bob Collins

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

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:04 pm Post subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

 	  LloydDR(at)wernerco.com wrote: 	
		  You need to re-read the article it states the lawyer determined a

million a minute was fair, and that was how they determined the amount.

	




I did better. I read the court documents.  The time it took for the man to die had nothing to do with how the how the amount was determined. The documents are posted online if you'd like to read them.



And while I'm sure  the work of the writer in the article mention tried, nothing compares to the piece RVator John Wiegenstein wrote.



Beyond that, I'm still anxious to find out what changes the EAA has made since the accident at this particular fly-in.   



Even better, I'll be anxious to hear if anything noticeable changes at Sun n' Fun.

_________________
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: Wed Feb 14, 2007 8:49 pm Post subject: Re: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

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. 



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.



Van's told the NTSB they don't keep a record of what advice they give to an individual builder.



It apparently is in the hands of an attorney.



Reinforces, though, that when you're building these things, LISTEN to the voice in your head and don't automatically listen to  the people who just say "build on" without knowing for sure whether that part really is compromised.



Throw the part away. Make it right.

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

skylor4(at)yahoo.com
Guest

Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 9:40 pm Post subject: pilot's family awarded $10.5M

Perhaps I'm missing something, but I see no discussion

in the NTSB report discussing edge distance of the

nose gear assembly.  All of the edge distance

discussion refers to the canopy support structure/roll

over structure that apparently failed when the plane

ended up on its back.



I wonder if this accident is the reason that Van's

came out with a redesign of the roll over structure

for the -7's (and 6's, I think) last year.



Skylor

RV-8 QB

Under Construction

--- Bob Collins <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net> wrote:



 	  Quote: 	
		   

 <bcollinsrv7a(at)comcast.net>

 

 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).
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 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.

 

 Van's told the NTSB they don't keep a record of what

 advice they give to an individual builder.

 

 It apparently is in the hands of an attorney.

 

 Reinforces, though, that when you're building these

 things, LISTEN to the voice in your head and don't

 automatically listen to  the people who just say

 "build on" without knowing for sure whether that

 part really is compromised.

 

 Throw the part away. Make it right.

 

 --------

 Bob Collins

 St. Paul, Minn.

 RV Builder's Hotline (free!)

 http://rvhotline.expercraft.com

 

 

 

 

 Read this topic online here:

 



http://forums.matronics.com/viewtopic.php?p=95189#95189
	


 	  Quote: 	
		   

 

 

 

 

 

 



 browse

 Subscriptions page,

 FAQ,



 Web Forums!



 

 

 

 


	


 

Never miss an email again!

Yahoo! Toolbar alerts you the instant new Mail arrives.

http://tools.search.yahoo.com/toolbar/features/mail/

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 5 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