Cirrus lawsuit
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Cirrus lawsuit
How can Cirrus be blamed for this? The Law is an Ass. I have to say that in my view so was the pilot.
Pilot Negligent, But Cirrus Party To $14 Million Penalty
A Minnesota jury has found that though the pilot was 25 percent negligent in the January 2003 fatal crash of an SR-22 that killed him and a passenger near Hill City, Minn., Cirrus and the University of North Dakota were 75 percent negligent. The result of the case hinges on the jury's belief that that the pilot had purchased and was promised training that he did not receive and that his lack of that training was a direct factor in the crash. The NTSB's factual report states that an individual requested an abbreviated briefing for the flight noting that conditions at the departure airport were 2,800 feet overcast and that he was "hoping to slide underneath it then climb out." One witness who observed the aircraft flying approximately 100 feet above trees noted the engine sound was smooth, the aircraft seemed to be following a road (a notion echoed by at least one other witness) and added "that thing was moving." The witness stated that weather at that location was clear and moon lit. Another witness who saw the post-impact "fireball" stated that weather at his location was clear with a full moon. Cirrus and North Dakota's Aerospace Foundation were sued by the families of the two crash victims claiming they were negligent and had failed to train the pilot to fly the aircraft in bad weather.
The 47-year-old pilot, Gary Prokop, held a private pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine land rating and a third-class medical, according to the NTSB. Prokop had logged 57 hours of instrument time with 248 hours total and almost 19 in the SR-22. Cirrus Design and the University of North Dakota had provided four flights accounting for 12.5 hour flight hours, plus 5.3 hours of ground instruction. Prokop was given a VFR-only completion certificate and high-performance endorsement limited to the SR-22 upon his completion of the course, Dec. 12, roughly one month prior to his fatal crash. Jurors awarded $9 million to Prokop's family. Cirrus is considering an appeal.
Pilot Negligent, But Cirrus Party To $14 Million Penalty
A Minnesota jury has found that though the pilot was 25 percent negligent in the January 2003 fatal crash of an SR-22 that killed him and a passenger near Hill City, Minn., Cirrus and the University of North Dakota were 75 percent negligent. The result of the case hinges on the jury's belief that that the pilot had purchased and was promised training that he did not receive and that his lack of that training was a direct factor in the crash. The NTSB's factual report states that an individual requested an abbreviated briefing for the flight noting that conditions at the departure airport were 2,800 feet overcast and that he was "hoping to slide underneath it then climb out." One witness who observed the aircraft flying approximately 100 feet above trees noted the engine sound was smooth, the aircraft seemed to be following a road (a notion echoed by at least one other witness) and added "that thing was moving." The witness stated that weather at that location was clear and moon lit. Another witness who saw the post-impact "fireball" stated that weather at his location was clear with a full moon. Cirrus and North Dakota's Aerospace Foundation were sued by the families of the two crash victims claiming they were negligent and had failed to train the pilot to fly the aircraft in bad weather.
The 47-year-old pilot, Gary Prokop, held a private pilot certificate with an airplane single-engine land rating and a third-class medical, according to the NTSB. Prokop had logged 57 hours of instrument time with 248 hours total and almost 19 in the SR-22. Cirrus Design and the University of North Dakota had provided four flights accounting for 12.5 hour flight hours, plus 5.3 hours of ground instruction. Prokop was given a VFR-only completion certificate and high-performance endorsement limited to the SR-22 upon his completion of the course, Dec. 12, roughly one month prior to his fatal crash. Jurors awarded $9 million to Prokop's family. Cirrus is considering an appeal.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: London, England
Posts: 191
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Whatever happened to personal responsibility and the PIC being responsible for decisions relating to the safety of the flight? This sort of nonsense will only drive successful companies out of business, as it already has in the past, to the detriment of GA and everyone who benefits from it.
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most US lawsuits, and most UK ones of this kind, are designed to get an out of court settlement.
For example any employee of a UK company can pick up about £20k (tax free) by doing certain fairly obvious things. Sexual harrassment is the most obvious one.
However it's possible that the devil is in the detail i.e. what exactly did
mean?
If I sell you a plane, with the price "including type specific training", but somehow you get your hands on the keys and manage to fly off before having had all the training, would you necessarily know that you had received only some of it? It would depend on the details of the contract and how obvious it was to the pilot that he has only a part of it.
It's tricky, because legally you can fly a Cirrus on a plain PPL done in a C150. No type specific training is required. You just need a HP signoff. Insurance may be the exception in the USA but not in the UK where IME they just want a diff training signoff from an instructor.
I guess that somehow the school was left exposed because they didn't draft the paperwork carefully.
Cirrus cannot be blamed but again it's possible they left their back door open by advertising some kind of type specific training as being included in the selling price of the plane.
For example any employee of a UK company can pick up about £20k (tax free) by doing certain fairly obvious things. Sexual harrassment is the most obvious one.
However it's possible that the devil is in the detail i.e. what exactly did
The result of the case hinges on the jury's belief that that the pilot had purchased and was promised training that he did not receive and that his lack of that training was a direct factor in the crash.
If I sell you a plane, with the price "including type specific training", but somehow you get your hands on the keys and manage to fly off before having had all the training, would you necessarily know that you had received only some of it? It would depend on the details of the contract and how obvious it was to the pilot that he has only a part of it.
It's tricky, because legally you can fly a Cirrus on a plain PPL done in a C150. No type specific training is required. You just need a HP signoff. Insurance may be the exception in the USA but not in the UK where IME they just want a diff training signoff from an instructor.
I guess that somehow the school was left exposed because they didn't draft the paperwork carefully.
Cirrus cannot be blamed but again it's possible they left their back door open by advertising some kind of type specific training as being included in the selling price of the plane.
If I bought a plane with training included and had not completed the training I would not go flying in it. My decision. To collect in such a suit I'd expect to have to show (probability) that the training was deficient. Difficult to show due diligence and duty of care if I was flying at 100 ft or so 'by moonlight.'
This is a jury award and USA juries are notorious for their "Well someone died and we feel sorry for the families, so someone must pay vast amounts," type awards, (and that is a generic comment and may have no relevance to this or any particular case.) These are often modified on appeal where a judge may change everything, however that in itself can be expensive, even if you win.
This is a jury award and USA juries are notorious for their "Well someone died and we feel sorry for the families, so someone must pay vast amounts," type awards, (and that is a generic comment and may have no relevance to this or any particular case.) These are often modified on appeal where a judge may change everything, however that in itself can be expensive, even if you win.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Surrey Hills
Posts: 1,478
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
IO 540
How does that equate with the 'pilot', being witnessed at 100 feet above a road on a moonlit night just before the crash that killed him and his passenger?
The lawsuit was about the owner not being trained to fly in bad weather. Bad or good, most light aircraft pilots do not fly at 100 feet in moonlight! He was given a VFR only completion certificate. That was not enough evidence for the jury to find him personally liable for his own demise obviously. Oh! Cirrus is making money, lets get a compensation lawyer and go for the jugular. Isn't that what happens nowadays?
This is as bad as the pilot who crashed his taildragger [Was it a J-3?] while flying solo from the placarded non solo front seat, had filmed himself [with the placard visible!], crashed, died and the manufacturing company had to pay millions in compensation to the family because the firm built an aeroplane that could be flown by an idiot who ignored all instructions about the solo flight seat position.
How does that equate with the 'pilot', being witnessed at 100 feet above a road on a moonlit night just before the crash that killed him and his passenger?
The lawsuit was about the owner not being trained to fly in bad weather. Bad or good, most light aircraft pilots do not fly at 100 feet in moonlight! He was given a VFR only completion certificate. That was not enough evidence for the jury to find him personally liable for his own demise obviously. Oh! Cirrus is making money, lets get a compensation lawyer and go for the jugular. Isn't that what happens nowadays?
This is as bad as the pilot who crashed his taildragger [Was it a J-3?] while flying solo from the placarded non solo front seat, had filmed himself [with the placard visible!], crashed, died and the manufacturing company had to pay millions in compensation to the family because the firm built an aeroplane that could be flown by an idiot who ignored all instructions about the solo flight seat position.
Last edited by aviate1138; 8th Jun 2009 at 17:37. Reason: typo
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I agree; it's a stupid lawsuit. I just wondered whether there was something in the detail which enabled the training organisation to be gone after.
That's because you are not a muppet 
If I bought a plane with training included and had not completed the training I would not go flying in it
Moderator
Prokop was given a VFR-only completion certificate and high-performance endorsement limited to the SR-22 upon his completion of the course, Dec. 12,
Doesn't matter what type you're flying, low flying is dangerous, paticularly at night. Perhaps the trainer correctly understood that low flying and flying in controvention of the air regulations (low flying) would not need to be specifically warned against during type training!
If the dangers of low flying, and associated requirements to comply with regulations must be explained during type training, there will be a lot of other things which will have to be expalined too! Type training is going to become long and expensive!
Pilot DAR
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: uk
Age: 63
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad news for GA and Cirrus, Manufacturers will just have to increase there prices to pay for more and more frivolous lawsuits. Higher prices mean less units sold which means less economy of scale and just a very bad outcome.
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: High seas
Posts: 216
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
...or maybe we will all have more placards and warning labels in our lives (as though we don't have enough already). Maybe just one BIG placard is all that's needed - "DANGEROUS - DO NOT FLY".
Join Date: Oct 2000
Location: E Anglia
Posts: 1,102
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dreadful news:
it was this sort of stuff that led Piper to file for Chapter 11 and stop production in the 80s.
I thought they'd found a way round this crazy liability litigation.
Cusco
it was this sort of stuff that led Piper to file for Chapter 11 and stop production in the 80s.
I thought they'd found a way round this crazy liability litigation.
Cusco
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: In the boot of my car!
Posts: 5,982
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bad news for GA and Cirrus, Manufacturers will just have to increase there prices to pay for more and more frivolous lawsuits. Higher prices mean less units sold which means less economy of scale and just a very bad outcome.
It even got to this mad situation. A Piper Cub built 30 odd years earlier but carrying the Piper Name and highly illegally modified by its owner had crashed killing the owner. The relatives made a claim against Piper suing for $ Millions.
Lawyers go for where the money is and courts sympathy lies with the claimants not the insurance companies regardless of negligence. Cirrus will have to make it clear they will fight every claim to the death and not settle through fear as Piper did.
Pace
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: EuroGA.org
Posts: 13,787
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
it was this sort of stuff that led Piper to file for Chapter 11 and stop production in the 80s
Same with Cessna.
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: Upstate NY
Posts: 38
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I hope Cirrus does appeal this decision. I think it's madness they should be held responsible for an individual's foolish choice to continue on into marginal VFR conditions. This is a case where one pilot on the jury may have tipped the balance.
Not what I remember. Product liability did bring the US light aircraft industry to it's knees in the 1980'ties and I am appalled that this starts again now.
The way we were told at the time was that due to the fact that any manufacturer would have to expect such claims, they had to take out huge insurances and backup funds for such cases, which caused prices to skyrocket. Airplanes then became totally unaffordable as a consequence and would not sell. As I understood this was also why new developments almost exclusively as experimentals during these years.
I really thought that this was a thing of the past, when basically all production halted some people saw that things could not go on like this and challenged some of the product liability issues involved, but as it looks like, this has been either overturned or never changed. It is a real danger to the airplane industry if they let this come up again.
Best regards
AN2 Driver.
The way we were told at the time was that due to the fact that any manufacturer would have to expect such claims, they had to take out huge insurances and backup funds for such cases, which caused prices to skyrocket. Airplanes then became totally unaffordable as a consequence and would not sell. As I understood this was also why new developments almost exclusively as experimentals during these years.
I really thought that this was a thing of the past, when basically all production halted some people saw that things could not go on like this and challenged some of the product liability issues involved, but as it looks like, this has been either overturned or never changed. It is a real danger to the airplane industry if they let this come up again.
Best regards
AN2 Driver.
