Damages for dead Yak pilot's family

[plussixpointfive]

Thanks QDM

Thanks for your honest reply, It is exactly the answer I would expect from all pilots.

I am sure the majority of pilots would be incensed that an item had been left in their aircraft, & would have made sure it wasn't left in the aircraft.

I believe this to be true in this case. Alas we will never know exactly what happened, All we do know is that it is a great tragedy which cost the lives of two brilliant pilots & must never happen again.

Thanks for all the discussion.

pspf.

[S-Works]

It must not happen again, but it will, nothing is as certian as death and taxes. We just have a responsibility to learn and move on so that those that died have left something behind.

Plussix, you are emotionally involved and will always maintain that Yak UK were at fault as it will help you come to terms with the loss. We all deal with loss in our own way I guess. Personally I think there are so many grey areas in this case that I would not try and blame anyone but learn from it which I suspect a number of people will have done so. Yak pilots will be extra vigilant in pre flight checks and the maintanance organisations might just sharpen up as well. So as I said a senseless loss may help those that come after to prevent the same happening again. A worthwhile legacy?

As far as the screwdriver was concerned I would have been in the camp that if I found it in my aircraft I would have kept it. I found a spanner on the top of my engine once and it now sits in my tool box.

[IO540]

What sort of aircraft maintenance operation has such lax security in place so as to allow someone to wander around unescorted and take a screwdriver from a toolbox

That comment, if I may say so, is unreal. This is maintenance of general aviation aircraft, not maintenance of US$1BN (or whatever the price tag is) super secret super stealthy B2 bombers.

Passers-by nicking stuff (tools, headsets, even avionics) out of open hangars, and from parked aircraft, is a relatively common occurrence, just as stealing laptops and other valuables out of checked baggage is absolutely routine everyday occurence at major (and supposedly very secure) international airports.

The only way to prevent this happening would be to have military-style security around everything. Not possible.

[Justiciar]

You make a good point: how could it be dealt with better? Probably, it couldn't be. The system works, but society has changed a lot and is more querulous than it used to be.

The point is that a reflex these days is to sue a professional if anything goes wrong: what the hell, you might get something, so give it a go!

Liability insurance for medics in Europe is a tiny fraction of what it is here. People have a different attitude to life and they don't always think someone is to blame.

Personally, I don't like the way British society is going in so many aspects and this is just one of them, but quite symptomatic of the whole.

QDMQDMQDM

Despite our previous exchange, I find myself agreeing with just about every word of your statement. From my very limited knowledge of the continental systems I believe that damages are generally lower, the criminal law is more heavily involved in negligent acts causing death and the civil claim is often dealt with at the same time (the parti civil can appear and be represented in a criminal trial in France, for example)

[Mixed Up]

Plussixpontfive:

Alas we will never know exactly what happened

That's what really bothers me about the pay-out.

[QDMQDMQDM]

I will leave this thread alone soon, but just to reiterate my point that there is a strong theme of liability madness in the UK, because it is very important:

Today, a soldier was awarded £370K in damages for developing post-traumatic stress disorder after seeing a colleague have his arm blown off by a faulty rocket launcher in Iraq. Well, I'm sorry, but you join up to play with big, nasty boy's toys and sh*t like that happens.

And then read this story about the HSE and its persecution of an individual and groan for our country:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Columnists...950275,00.html

We need to guard against this kind of thing in aviation, or at least warn against it and ask people to think. That's why this forum and 'the other place' are so important.

QDM

[IO540]

The HSE will do this, and what does anybody expect? I mean, who thinks that an HSE employee (salary, pension) is going to look at a case and say "no, this is silly, let's focus on something real" and walk away from it? Since when did turkeys vote for xmas?

The moment you create an agency, you have to expect them to do the assigned job.

If you create an agency to check the thickness of chocolate bar wrappers, and enforce this to lie between 20 and 50 microns, they will do exactly that. In the UK (especially in the UK) there is be near unlimited numbers of applicants for a patently stupid and pointless job like that.

The real problem is the idiots who we have in politics, who create these agencies and let them run without proper oversight.

In some ways, I am not suprised aviation is so litigious. Take Lycoming. They make several thousand defective IO360 and IO540 crankshafts. Some of these break, causing a number of deaths and a huge amount of hassle for owners. The worst batches (e.g. those which would probably snap in the first 50 hours) got recalled and Lyco paid for the engine removal, opening, etc. Now, they have recalled all the rest, made 1997-2002, about 5000 of them. This is now an FAA AD and (I guess) will be a CAA AD too, if it isn't already. Mandatory replacement within 12 years of manufacture. Lyco, in their infinite corporate kindness , are offering to sell you a new crank for a mere USD 2000 (a discount of about USD 10000) but you have to pay for the engine work, about £ 7000 if done in the UK. Also, this very kind discount crank offer is valid for only about 2 more years (making a blatent joke of the 12 year AD time limit). People like this should be sued in a class action and made to pay. Unfortunately, they have been very clever, and they offer to replace the crank FOC if you use them for your next engine overhaul (which has to be done within 12 years anyway, as a lot of "on condition" operators on G-reg know rather well ) and this gives them pretty good protection from a class action. The fact that not many owners use Lyco for zero-time overhauls (because Lyco's QA is the pits and everybody knows it, and the "zero-time" engine you get back can be made up of a bucket of secondhand parts of an unlimited age) is irrelevant to the legal position. In this business, so many vendors are such crooks, and everybody knows it, that they don't really care anymore what anybody thinks - because anybody determined will just sue and they do a settlement, and the plaintiff signs an NDA so nobody finds out what deal was done.

[pistongone]

Well said QDM,
that was my exact point five whole pages of comments previously!! I was not surprised at all by the Guardian(It had to be i suppose) article on the HSE! In our business we do what the HSE require untill they are gone and then get on with the business of making money! If every rule, regulation, recommendation etc, that these people issue were followed to the letter, then the country would grind to a halt today! The real concern is that SOME of these Reg's are warranted, but they are hiden under a load of useless eddicts designed to do nothing more than create work for otherwise unemployable Hitlers! What i have great trouble with understanding is where do they find these people? Judging by the comments on this forum, all sane people seem to agree the majority of these rules are plain daft. Yet the ruling Elite of this land seem to think otherwise
Beam me up Scotty

[Mixed Up]

plussixpointfive:

Sorry to ask again, but for my own education I'd like to know the simple verdict of the inquest (e.g. accident, death by misadventure or whatever). If you know and please can you tell us? vbmenu_register("postmenu_2960206", true); vbmenu_register("postmenu_2960206", true);