Is there such a thing as "sub judice" in the US?
Both the pilot and the CEO have now commented on this incident on social media?
Are they being advised by lawyers or not?
I notice the ceo accepts that doors open flying is permitted if the pax is wearing a seat belt. How then does he justify the use of a harness as well?
(Allegedly - the harness being the item that killed all the pax)
Finally - in the UK the claimants would sue the pilot first. If there was not enough money in the pilots insurance policy AND their private estate, they would then sue for the rest of the money from the owner/operator.
Was the pilot suitably insured i ask?