St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Topics related to accidents, incidents & over due aircraft should be placed in this forum.

Moderators: sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore

Post Reply
digits_
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 5930
Joined: Mon Feb 14, 2011 2:26 am

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by digits_ »

photofly wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:30 am
digits_ wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:26 am Looks like you are right. Thank you for the reference! That could put part of the blame on the CFI though, not on the supervising class 2, unless the CFI was also the supervising class 2.
and if the CFI appoints a supervisor who doesn’t supervise, whose duty to remedy that is it, and who is to blame when they don’t?
Both the CFI and the appointed supervisor probably? Although in that case you'll probably end up in an argument between the appointed supervisor and the CFI each trying to shift the blame to the other person, which will most likely result in the CFI getting the blame, as he is the highest on the food chain and woud probably be held responsible for the mistakes of his appointed supervisor.
photofly wrote: Tue Nov 27, 2018 10:30 am But overall something went horribly wrong.
Unfortunately yes.
---------- ADS -----------
 
As an AvCanada discussion grows longer:
-the probability of 'entitlement' being mentioned, approaches 1
-one will be accused of using bad airmanship
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by photofly »

Something that gets the school off the hook (and about the only thing) is a specific instruction: “I told him not to fly, but he did it anyway, against my express command”.

And, hopefully, “I followed up the phone call with a text message and the instructor acknowledged with a text message, and here are the messages, and I even took a printout at the time for the records.”

Any suggestion of that here? Because *that* would change the landscape.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by photofly »

Here are some of the court documents. Two Complaints, and a placeholder response.

The suits are:

1. The pilot's family (Tawfig) vs. The Club, TC and the FAA
2. The passenger's families (Mijac and Jeffries) vs. The Club and the manufacturer of the vacuum pump fitted to the aircraft

They reveal a few new details, but mostly they are of the "throw absolutely as much mud as possible at everyone, and see what sticks" approach. Whoever asked what the FAA was being blamed for, you'll find the answer in here. It looks like negligent ATC procedures in not warning the aircraft away, basically.

Yes, many of the claims might look unreasonable to knowledgeable eyes and ears, and everyone (including the lawyers) knows that. It's legal strategy, I guess.

An answer to one claim from the Club has been filed, which basically says "we don't agree with your conclusions, we don't know the facts you've stated are true, and you're saying the law requires XYZ which we require you to prove in court."

So the ball is in the plaintiff's court (no pun intended) to prove their claim; there's no examination of facts or repudiation from the school published.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Attachments
1-main (1).pdf
(265.52 KiB) Downloaded 57 times
1-main.pdf
(370.12 KiB) Downloaded 51 times
5912973-0--24130.pdf
(316.19 KiB) Downloaded 54 times
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by pelmet »

photofly wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:35 am They reveal a few new details, but mostly they are of the "throw absolutely as much mud as possible at everyone, and see what sticks" approach. Whoever asked what the FAA was being blamed for, you'll find the answer in here. It looks like negligent ATC procedures in not warning the aircraft away, basically.

Yes, many of the claims might look unreasonable to knowledgeable eyes and ears, and everyone (including the lawyers) knows that. It's legal strategy, I guess.
This is what pisses me off(along with the people that say I shouldn't complain because the poor family lost a loved one even though they are suing innocents). When someone decides to sue innocent people, I really don't care about your sadness and loss. It doesn't justify your greed.

One of the clubs where I fly had a Cessna come through a few years ago and pick up some fuel. They took off and did stupid stuff and crashed. I have been told that the family is suing the club. Under normal circumstances, I would just believe in leaving the family alone as it probably doesn't provide any benefit to say how their loved one is responsible. Bit because of their decision to sue people not responsible for the crash, I believe that the family needs to be told how incompetent their loved one was and made to pay our costs and maybe countersued to hurt them financially. And if that hurts them emotionally, too bad. I don't appreciate being sued for no good reason.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pelmet on Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:34 am, edited 2 times in total.
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by photofly »

pelmet wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:01 am One of the clubs where I fly had a Cessna come through a few years ago and pick up some fuel. They took off and did stupid stuff and crashed. I have been told that the family is suing the club. Because of this decision, I believe that the family needs to be told how incompetent their loved one was and made to pay our costs and maybe countersued to hurt them financially. And if that hurts them emotionally, too bad. I don't appreciate being sued for no good reason.
I'm sure that they'll hear all about how stupid their loved one was, and if they lose, they'll pay a big chunk of your costs. As well as their own.

But for now, we only have your word for it that you're being sued "for no good reason". That's what courts are there to decide, so until the court does...

Countersued for what? What duty to you have they breached?
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by pelmet »

photofly wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:19 am
pelmet wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:01 am One of the clubs where I fly had a Cessna come through a few years ago and pick up some fuel. They took off and did stupid stuff and crashed. I have been told that the family is suing the club. Because of this decision, I believe that the family needs to be told how incompetent their loved one was and made to pay our costs and maybe countersued to hurt them financially. And if that hurts them emotionally, too bad. I don't appreciate being sued for no good reason.
I'm sure that they'll hear all about how stupid their loved one was, and if they lose, they'll pay a big chunk of your costs. As well as their own.

But for now, we only have your word for it that you're being sued "for no good reason". That's what courts are there to decide, so until the court does...

Countersued for what? What duty to you have they breached?
As you said....
photofly wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 8:35 am Yes, many of the claims might look unreasonable to knowledgeable eyes and ears, and everyone (including the lawyers) knows that. It's legal strategy, I guess.

Being a victim does not give you the right to victimize others. I'm sure that a frivolous counter-lawsuit would be appropriate. Call it my legal strategy. If you want to play that game....OK, you started it.

Suing people/companies not responsible for aviation accidents has crippled the industry over the years. Time to fight back.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
PilotDAR
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4053
Joined: Sun Sep 30, 2012 6:46 pm
Location: Near CNJ4 Orillia, Ontario

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by PilotDAR »

What duty to you have they breached?
In general, I hope that we each have a duty to all other people to not launch an action which is without merit (meaning we don't throw the mud everywhere just to see what sticks). To me this is the theme of not undertaking needless work. We trust a doctor not to perform an un needed operation, shouldn't we trust other people and professionals to take action which is reasonable with respect to the event? People can't complain that insurance they want is extra expensive, and the court system that they need to use is delayed, if they are willing to use the throw the mud approach, rather than actually understanding where fault may reasonably be found.

I read that a vacuum pump manufacturer is being sued? Should I interpret that to mean that every time I've managed a safe landing following a system/component failure I could have launched legal action for the trauma of having to apply the flying skills taught to me to handle system failures?

I'm not saying that legal action is inappropriate, but the anonymity of aiming a lawyer at someone who is only very remotely associated with a sad event seems too easy.
---------- ADS -----------
 
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by photofly »

pelmet wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:36 am


Being a victim does not give you the right to victimize others. I'm sure that a frivolous counter-lawsuit would be appropriate. Call it my legal strategy. If you want to play that game....OK, you started it.

Suing people/companies not responsible for aviation accidents has crippled the industry over the years. Time to fight back.
A court doesn't recognize the use of its own process as "victimization". Lots of people lose lawsuits - in fact every law suit that goes to trial has one side whose claims are judged to lack merit. If every losing side was entitled to damages just for being sued, that would be a nonsense. It's possible that you can have *all* your costs paid by the person suing you, if the court decides exceptionally, that the claims against you should never have been brought. But that's unusual.

You might not enjoy being sued (you'd be strange if you did) but there has to be an arena where people can have their claims tested without fear of being punished for doing so.

If you issue a countersuit without a legitimate cause of action, it would be thrown out on a "motion to dismiss" (I think, in the US under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in Canada see rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure) - you'd never get to court.

If you feel that strongly, you can ask for the complainant to be declared a vexatious litigant. But it typically requires a repeated pattern of frivolous claims by someone for a court to go that far.

In Canada there is also this rule:
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

Again, from the Rules of Civil Procedure.

You may remember that in the US general aviation manufacturing more or less shut down at the end of the 1980s because of a string of speculative lawsuits. The solution was the US's General Aviation Revitalisation Act which was passed in 1994.


I'm sorry about your club. It might appear obvious to you that the accident had nothing to do with the fuel. But there has to be a venue where someone who can show they suffered a loss can claim that it did have something to do with the fuel, and have that claim examined in a fair manner. I don't think it's fair to make their motives (or your impression of their motives) for doing so part of the consideration. The claim has to stand or fall on its own merits.
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by pelmet »

photofly wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 11:13 am
pelmet wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:36 am


Being a victim does not give you the right to victimize others. I'm sure that a frivolous counter-lawsuit would be appropriate. Call it my legal strategy. If you want to play that game....OK, you started it.

Suing people/companies not responsible for aviation accidents has crippled the industry over the years. Time to fight back.
A court doesn't recognize the use of its own process as "victimization". Lots of people lose lawsuits - in fact every law suit that goes to trial has one side whose claims are judged to lack merit. If every losing side was entitled to damages just for being sued, that would be a nonsense. It's possible that you can have *all* your costs paid by the person suing you, if the court decides exceptionally, that the claims against you should never have been brought. But that's unusual.

You might not enjoy being sued (you'd be strange if you did) but there has to be an arena where people can have their claims tested without fear of being punished for doing so.

If you issue a countersuit without a legitimate cause of action, it would be thrown out on a "motion to dismiss" (I think, in the US under rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and in Canada see rule 21.01 of the Rules of Civil Procedure) - you'd never get to court.

If you feel that strongly, you can ask for the complainant to be declared a vexatious litigant. But it typically requires a repeated pattern of frivolous claims by someone for a court to go that far.

In Canada there is also this rule:
2.1.01 (1) The court may, on its own initiative, stay or dismiss a proceeding if the proceeding appears on its face to be frivolous or vexatious or otherwise an abuse of the process of the court. O. Reg. 43/14, s. 1.

Again, from the Rules of Civil Procedure.

You may remember that in the US general aviation manufacturing more or less shut down at the end of the 1980s because of a string of speculative lawsuits. The solution was the US's General Aviation Revitalisation Act which was passed in 1994.


I'm sorry about your club. It might appear obvious to you that the accident had nothing to do with the fuel. But there has to be a venue where someone who can show they suffered a loss can claim that it did have something to do with the fuel, and have that claim examined in a fair manner. I don't think it's fair to make their motives (or your impression of their motives) for doing so part of the consideration. The claim has to stand or fall on its own merits.
I remember what happened in the US very well. Thanks for the reminder for those who may not have realized what happened. From what I understand, the lawsuit risk as a result of that legislation now rests mostly on the mechanics who typically have much shallewer pockets but are still vicimized(or can be). Plus it affects all of us indirecty. Perhaps buddy in his cool airplane might offer to give us a ride but won't because he knows that the family will likely sue him even if the cause of the accident was not his fault. So we don't get the offer for a free ride in a cool airplane. I have an airplane and operate it that way. If you have done something for me, you might get a ride but the average person can forget it.

Appreciate the law details of your interpretation as always. And there are good reasons for those rules but at least we could piss of the people suing us, waste their time, and cost them some money(even if it is only temporary).
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by rookiepilot »

pelmet wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:01 am
This is what pisses me off(along with the people that say I shouldn't complain because the poor family lost a loved one even though they are suing innocents). When someone decides to sue innocent people, I really don't care about your sadness and loss. It doesn't justify your greed.

One of the clubs where I fly had a Cessna come through a few years ago and pick up some fuel. They took off and did stupid stuff and crashed. I have been told that the family is suing the club. Under normal circumstances, I would just believe in leaving the family alone as it probably doesn't provide any benefit to say how their loved one is responsible. Bit because of their decision to sue people not responsible for the crash, I believe that the family needs to be told how incompetent their loved one was and made to pay our costs and maybe countersued to hurt them financially. And if that hurts them emotionally, too bad. I don't appreciate being sued for no good reason.
Ah. Now I understand the ranting. Well done.

If you can't keep your bias out of your comments, I suggest not posting, and leave the discussion to others. Your comments are vindictive towards parents who have endured an unspeakable tragedy, and are the opposite of a unemotional, level headed examination of the facts I would expect from a professional pilot.

Why again, do the families of the 2 teenage students who died need to be countersued and hurt in any way more than they have exactly? How exactly were they incompetent?

As for declaring the club is not responsible, you are not even qualified to make that statement. That is for a court of law to decide sir. That is why they exist.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by pelmet »

PilotDAR wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:43 am I read that a vacuum pump manufacturer is being sued? Should I interpret that to mean that every time I've managed a safe landing following a system/component failure I could have launched legal action for the trauma of having to apply the flying skills taught to me to handle system failures?

I'm not saying that legal action is inappropriate, but the anonymity of aiming a lawyer at someone who is only very remotely associated with a sad event seems too easy.
So the greedy family is now suing the vacuum pump manufacturer. How ironic. Read below about one of the most famous aviation lawsuits in the US. A guy running for congress is flying his twin Cessna and and the vacuum pump(s) failed. So who do the greedy relatives sue.....along with Cessna, they sue the maker of the artificial horizon. They want a billion dollars, these greedy people. In the end they get 2.5 million undeserved dollars from this company which we as the public pay for eventually. Read aboutit below.......

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?do=m ... c5918c38a4

https://pol.parker.com/forums/Document. ... 805339B9FF
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pelmet on Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by pelmet »

rookiepilot wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:37 pm
pelmet wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 10:01 am
This is what pisses me off(along with the people that say I shouldn't complain because the poor family lost a loved one even though they are suing innocents). When someone decides to sue innocent people, I really don't care about your sadness and loss. It doesn't justify your greed.

One of the clubs where I fly had a Cessna come through a few years ago and pick up some fuel. They took off and did stupid stuff and crashed. I have been told that the family is suing the club. Under normal circumstances, I would just believe in leaving the family alone as it probably doesn't provide any benefit to say how their loved one is responsible. Bit because of their decision to sue people not responsible for the crash, I believe that the family needs to be told how incompetent their loved one was and made to pay our costs and maybe countersued to hurt them financially. And if that hurts them emotionally, too bad. I don't appreciate being sued for no good reason.
Ah. Now I understand the ranting. Well done.

If you can't keep your bias out of your comments, I suggest not posting, and leave the discussion to others. Your comments are vindictive towards parents who have endured an unspeakable tragedy, and are the opposite of a unemotional, level headed examination of the facts I would expect from a professional pilot.

Why again, do the families of the 2 teenage students who died need to be countersued and hurt in any way more than they have exactly? How exactly were they incompetent?

As for declaring the club is not responsible, you are not even qualified to make that statement. That is for a court of law to decide sir. That is why they exist.
You need to start reading and understanding. The incompetent one was the pilot who crashed his Cessna after refuelling at my club. I have never made any specific statement about whether the St. Catherines Flying Club did anything wrong. I just put you in your place for saying that the owners(ie which would be the members of a club) should be put into bankruptcy. The bottom line is.....You have trouble reading and understanding and you think many of us should be put into bankruptcy for stuff we are not responsible for.

Reading and comprehending is also an important quality a pilot should have.
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by rookiepilot »

pelmet wrote: Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:34 pm

You have no evidence of anything you say. As far as I'm concerned, this was a personal flight by the PIC with passengers that crashed. One of the passengers happened to be a student pilot.

Perhaps you should be sued by the flying club for defamation of character....unless other evidence comes to light.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by pelmet »

rookiepilot wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 12:50 pm
pelmet wrote: Sat Nov 24, 2018 4:34 pm

You have no evidence of anything you say. As far as I'm concerned, this was a personal flight by the PIC with passengers that crashed. One of the passengers happened to be a student pilot.

Perhaps you should be sued by the flying club for defamation of character....unless other evidence comes to light.
Once again, already discussed and resolved.

http://www.avcanada.ca/forums2/viewtopi ... 5#p1060090

Bottom line, you feel it is justified for victims to victimize other innocent people. I suggest fighting back.
Next.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by pelmet on Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:10 pm, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by rookiepilot »

Let me understand this:

Air Canada, with 2 highly experienced, professional pilots, crashes a jet at YHZ and sues everyone else in sight, like Airbus and the airport authority.

Funny enough -- I don't recall you ever saying they should countersue Air Canada.

2 student pilots died in an accident, one in the back seat, because, charitably stated, the process of supervision of the PIC -- broke down somewhere. Badly.

And you are certainly implying with your multiple comments, the flying club is not responsible, and these families should be countersued.

Got it.
---------- ADS -----------
 
pelmet
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 7138
Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2005 2:48 pm

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by pelmet »

rookiepilot wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:09 pm Let me understand this:

Air Canada, with 2 highly experienced, professional pilots, crashes a jet at YHZ and sues everyone else in sight, like Airbus and the airport authority.

Funny enough -- I don't recall you ever saying they should countersue Air Canada.

2 student pilots died in an accident, one in the back seat, because, charitably stated, the process of supervision of the PIC -- broke down somewhere. Badly.

And you are certainly implying with your multiple comments, the flying club is not responsible, and these families should be countersued.

Got it.
It is easy to get off track by debating the endless frivolous lawsuits that have happened. No doubt corporations have done similar as families. I am implying that my flying club is not responsible for the crash of the pilot who fuelled there. Just because I didn't happen to participate in the AC YHC accident discussion(or the hundreds of other discussions that have no doubt happened on the internet abou aviation lawsuits) doesn't have anything to do with whether I am right or wrong here.

As for St. Catherines Flying Club being responsible(or partially responsible) for their accident...no idea at this point. As for the FAA, and the manufacturer of the vacuum pumps in the PA-28 accident in the US who appear in my eyes to be victims of a frivolous lawsuit(based on my interpretation of the final report by the NTSB), perhaps they will countersue. I would if I were named and not responsible.

However, once again....if you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it....and I will potentially change my opinion.
---------- ADS -----------
 
flyguy73
Rank 2
Rank 2
Posts: 71
Joined: Tue Nov 03, 2009 7:10 pm

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by flyguy73 »

This is probably a dumb question, but one that I honestly don't know the answer to. Since the US does not have a night rating, is the question of night currency applicable? Since the flight was operating in the US, wouldn't it be governed by US regulations? If the Instructor filed IFR and was IFR current, then isn't the fact that it was done at night without being night current in Canada irrelevant?

The fact he filed IFR implies to me that it was not a training flight as there is no place for IFR filing in PPL training. So the question is why was the student in the left seat? Had the Instructor been in the left seat, would be simply be attributing this accident to poor decision making and uncontrolled loss in IMC?
---------- ADS -----------
 
User avatar
rookiepilot
Rank 11
Rank 11
Posts: 4403
Joined: Sat Apr 01, 2017 3:50 pm

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by rookiepilot »

pelmet wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 1:34 pm
As for St. Catherines Flying Club being responsible(or partially responsible) for their accident...no idea at this point. As for the FAA, and the manufacturer of the vacuum pumps in the PA-28 accident in the US who appear in my eyes to be victims of a frivolous lawsuit(based on my interpretation of the final report by the NTSB), perhaps they will countersue. I would if I were named and not responsible.

However, once again....if you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it....and I will potentially change my opinion.
Photofly and I have presented evidence proving it was an instructional flight,which requires proper supervision of the class 4 PIC. Student was in the left seat.

It's open and shut in a courtroom, unless the club could prove it was a personal trip by the instructor, paying all the bills, carrying 2 students of his, and coincident with 4 other aircraft, something you have argued without a shred of evidence.

And if it was, it was an illegal flight as the pilot was out of night currency. Cars violation. Any waiver the passengers signed would be voided. It's willful misconduct and there isn't immunity.

You want to present that argument to a judge, and then countersue the parents? You'd get slaughtered in court, and probably get a vicious tongue lashing from the judge, too.

You can't countersue someone blindly for damages because you don't like what they are doing. You had better have a good legal reason. No lawyer would be stupid enough to take that case.

It's rare I would get pleasure from anything avaition related failing.

This is different and one of those times. Book should be thrown at those responsible, and that isn't the 2 teenage students.

Sue me for saying so. This accident makes me sick.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by rookiepilot on Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by photofly »

This is probably a dumb question, but one that I honestly don't know the answer to. Since the US does not have a night rating, is the question of night currency applicable?
I don't think that's a dumb question. It does seem ambiguous as to whose rules apply. I thought the rules of operation of the state of registration of the airplane apply, and the rules of the airspace of the country in which it flies. But I don't know why I think that.

Regardless - not much has been made of the lack of recency (or otherwise) of the pilot, and it's a very small hook on which to hang such a big coat. To my mind it is more indicative of a lack of preparation and supervision than a violation on its own.
The fact he filed IFR implies to me that it was not a training flight as there is no place for IFR filing in PPL training.
I think the finding of fact as to whether this was a training flight or not should hinge on what was done and said on the flight, not on what rules were followed. In other words if it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck...
So the question is why was the student in the left seat?
The only sensible answer is, because it *was* a training flight, or intended to be.
Had the Instructor been in the left seat, would be simply be attributing this accident to poor decision making and uncontrolled loss in IMC?
I think there would equally be a case to answer as to why a flying club was allowing a inexperienced pilot who worked for the club to ferry passengers around in IMC, outside the rules for commercial IFR taxi flight.
---------- ADS -----------
 
Last edited by photofly on Fri Nov 30, 2018 3:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
photofly
Top Poster
Top Poster
Posts: 11306
Joined: Tue Jan 18, 2011 4:47 pm
Location: Hangry and crankypated

Re: St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

Post by photofly »

rookiepilot wrote: Fri Nov 30, 2018 2:56 pm It's open and shut in a courtroom,
If only!
---------- ADS -----------
 
DId you hear the one about the jurisprudence fetishist? He got off on a technicality.
Post Reply

Return to “Accidents, Incidents & Overdue Aircraft”