Is a tucano or a pc9 basic? I think the Germans were using EC135 for training.

No. I don't think any helicopters are.

Yes, same as conventional stick/column and pedals in fixed wings.

No, they use ze Book of Inztruktions :ok:

104 pages and we all know where the buck stops.
If I was flying it would be with me and I'd rather admit I'd got it wrong than wait for the enquiry.

Costa Concordia accident is the same. The guy should have been man enough to admit his mistake.

YOP,

If it were you.....and you realized what it would cost you in Civil Court to claim responsibility for the deaths of four people, injuries to others, the loss of an aircraft....you might not be so eager to step up and issue your Mea Culpa.

Until the AAIB has fully investigated this thing and fully satisfied themselves as to exactly what happened and why and issue a final formal report stating those findings....then I would suggest throwing oneself on one's own Sword might be a bit hasty.

But then.....you would have a Fool for a Lawyer if you represented yourself...particularly if you were to follow your own advice given here.

SAS - good post Sir!

ok so Let He Who Is Without Sin Cast The First Stone

yes it will only satisfy some hypocrites.

http://www.pprune.org/rotorheads/442...insurance.html

Why do we assume that the pilot would be held / found personally liable?

As has been said before on that thread linked:-

You can rest assured....when the Operator gets sued....you the PIC and SIC shall (note the Imperative Tense used) be included in the Action.

You can also count on the Operator showing up in Court with its Lawyers who are there to protect the Operator.....not the Pilots.

That is a fact of Life......and why as the PIC...you have Authority, Responsibility, and ultimately Liability for every aspect of the operation of the Aircraft while you are acting as PIC.

That is why, this particular Crew especially, should only make statements after being represented by Legal Counsel.

There is nothing evil about that, there is nothing improper or sinister about that, it is just a simple fact of life in this day and age.

There are Legal Firms and Lawyers that specialize in such legal actions and who earn a very good living doing so.

Operators and Manufacturers are seen to have deep pockets and are the main targets but Pilots are another source of money as well. More importantly, if the Pilot can be shown to have committed some serious error that led to the crash, then as an Agent of the Operator......it can all be tied up in a nice neat package for the Jury.

My advice.....you bend one and hurt someone....get legal counsel immediately.


Very sadly, the best defense is to have everything you own held in your Wife's Name....but knowing how Helicopter Pilots and Divorces work.....that is just another sure way of losing everything you own. Risky business this Helicopter flying ain't it?

Not really I guess that's what insurance is for?

Mighty Gem, thanks.

YOP: :rolleyes:

GR3a,

Have you tried to deal with insurance sharks ?
All they have to do is prove that you were wearing the wrong colour of socks and they will instantly drop you like a hot rock.

Thank you SASless for those chilling words of wisdom/reality.

Two of many examples of what I warn.

Remember the Helicopter Pilot whose Estate was sued for 50,000 UKP by the Widow of a Passenger killed along with the Pilot in a Helicopter crash in the UK?

Or this event.....for an amount of 300,000 UKP?

Crash helicopter pilot's wife is sued by widow - UK - News - London Evening Standard

Even if you are cleared of any wrong doing....you or your Next of Kin will have had to endure a very punishing legal proceeding at no small cost.

OK look I know with 105 pages and counting this thread, (as most accident threads always end up it seems) is an excuse to get into one giant argument until the AAIB makes a final report some years later, from which we all "learn" valuable lessons. Never-the-less....

Can someone give a selection of examples where these "insurance sharks" have dropped any commercial helicopter pilots 3rd party liability claim and the pilot has then had to sell his wife to pay. Whilst it makes a nice story where is this happening??

Had this chap been flying in a manner that was evident in the recent Puma ZA934 crash perhaps you'd call a lawyer but otherwise I'm struggling to see how your employer piles the blame on you. Happy for someone to explain it.

Edited to add this from SAS

Was it successful? did the insurance abandon all? and on what basis where they employed?

I'd suggest when flying for someone like Bond/Bristow or CHC it becomes slightly different?

Yes I think there is a fundamental difference between a private helicopter crash, and one operated by a major player. In the former case, there is no one else to sue but the pilot. In the latter case, the employer has the insurance and resources to pay, the pilot may not and the returns versus legal costs are likely to be much less.

HC:

On this side of the pond, it is called the "deep pockets" tort litigation. Not sure what you call it on your side of the pond. Beyond the operating company, other deep pockets candidates are whomever built the aircraft and whomever built critical sub systems that may play a part in a crash.
I will offer a guess that the operating company in this case can't duck liability as it was one of their aircraft that was involved in the incident. Should they choose to end the employment of one or both pilots involved is another matter.

GR3a
Pilot in such a case might have raised more funds by leasing her out on an hourly basis ... :p

The lawyer thing.....
 

Following fatal accident in which he was the pilot a colleague overheard his boss announce that "we are off to see the lawyers and have a chat with the barrister." He walked out to the car with him and upon realising he had company the boss said, "where are you going,"

"off the lawyers with you,"
"No lad, you misunderstand, we're meeting the company lawyers, you'll need to get your own lawyer and your own barrister too."

It then hit him that the company had left him to carry the can and carry it he did even though some might say that others should have shared the blame. Then again they had money and power and he didn't. That's justice for you.

Aye

G.

Based on past experience it's more likely that pilots involved in this sort of pilot-error fatal accident simply won't want to fly in the same role again, so the issue of sacking becomes academic. Of course these two may see it differently, but I doubt it. Even if they did want to fly N Sea again, the oil companies might have a view on that.

After 105 zillion posts worth of round the houses on this thread, is it all agreed that the a/c crashed because of IVRS? As per the interim AAIB report? I can't find the relevant page!!!!!!

Ta in advance

No.



.....................