Who would I sue then? I had a perfectly good lunch ruined when I ran out to help put out the fire on that stupid burning 172, also ruined a good pair of shoes, and tweaked my back. Not to mention the fact that I really didn't like seeing the mess inside that airplane.
I guess I could start with Cessna, for building an airplane that could be overloaded and stalled on takeoff. Boundary bay airport for not having a softer crash proof runway. Skyhawk restaurant for having the restaurant located in a manner that if there is an accident you might see it and therefore feel compelled to go and help. The pilot for reasons mentioned by others previously.
New Regency Lawsuit
Moderators: Sulako, lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, I WAS Birddog
-
yak driver
- Rank 2
- Posts: 84
- Joined: Sun Mar 28, 2004 7:54 pm
- Location: Vancouver, BC
-
golden hawk
- Rank 7
- Posts: 696
- Joined: Thu Oct 07, 2004 8:43 am
Negative. He was recently licensed- Since April 2002, ~ 2 months. He only had 60 hrs TT, close to 10 on the 172, but very little of the time on type was solo (maybe 1.5 hrs).golden hawk wrote: Was it a student? With 3 passengers???
Interestingly, the checklist the article refers to was found in the document bag. How could he have been using a checklist that was in the bag instead of on the glareshield or kneeboard? Trying to depart with two notches of flap despite a flap check in the Pre-Takeoffs tends to support the checklist was not being used in this case.
This guy will be found mostly responsible for his own accident, however, the court may also find that Regency was also negligent and thereby contributed to this accident, albeit to a lesser degree than the pilot hiimself.
Why did they rent him the airplane to go flying with 4 adults? Anyone remotely familiar with a 172 knows you will probably be over-gross. Why was the checklist not readily accessible? If the flaps were rigged incorrectly, why? Their actions, or lack of, may well have placed a number of links into the chain of events that culminated in this accident. If someone had asked, "Have you done a W&B?" Or, "Hold on there, I wan't to double check your W&B calculations," would this accident have happened. How about if they asked, "How much fuel is in the airplane?" Would they have immediately been able to recognize the AC was over gross and stop the guy?
You don't get to rent or allow somebody to use something of yours without doing what a reasonable and prudent person would do to first ensure themselves it will be used safely. Thats why car rental agencies, for example, ask questions like how many people will be in the car, who will be driving, where you will be going with it, etc. They also do things like place restrictions on what you can use it for, and where you can take it. Regency had a duty of care to this new pilot and his passengers. Maybe they did what they reasonably could do to ensure this rental was being dispatched safely, or maybe they looked the other way as soon as the credit card slip was signed. If they looked the other way, they will rightfully carry a percentage of the liability.
Why did they rent him the airplane to go flying with 4 adults? Anyone remotely familiar with a 172 knows you will probably be over-gross. Why was the checklist not readily accessible? If the flaps were rigged incorrectly, why? Their actions, or lack of, may well have placed a number of links into the chain of events that culminated in this accident. If someone had asked, "Have you done a W&B?" Or, "Hold on there, I wan't to double check your W&B calculations," would this accident have happened. How about if they asked, "How much fuel is in the airplane?" Would they have immediately been able to recognize the AC was over gross and stop the guy?
You don't get to rent or allow somebody to use something of yours without doing what a reasonable and prudent person would do to first ensure themselves it will be used safely. Thats why car rental agencies, for example, ask questions like how many people will be in the car, who will be driving, where you will be going with it, etc. They also do things like place restrictions on what you can use it for, and where you can take it. Regency had a duty of care to this new pilot and his passengers. Maybe they did what they reasonably could do to ensure this rental was being dispatched safely, or maybe they looked the other way as soon as the credit card slip was signed. If they looked the other way, they will rightfully carry a percentage of the liability.
The only questions I have ever been asked by a Car Rental company are:Wilbur wrote:This guy will be found mostly responsible for his own accident, however, the court may also find that Regency was also negligent and thereby contributed to this accident, albeit to a lesser degree than the pilot hiimself.
Why did they rent him the airplane to go flying with 4 adults? Anyone remotely familiar with a 172 knows you will probably be over-gross. Why was the checklist not readily accessible? If the flaps were rigged incorrectly, why? Their actions, or lack of, may well have placed a number of links into the chain of events that culminated in this accident. If someone had asked, "Have you done a W&B?" Or, "Hold on there, I wan't to double check your W&B calculations," would this accident have happened. How about if they asked, "How much fuel is in the airplane?" Would they have immediately been able to recognize the AC was over gross and stop the guy?
You don't get to rent or allow somebody to use something of yours without doing what a reasonable and prudent person would do to first ensure themselves it will be used safely. Thats why car rental agencies, for example, ask questions like how many people will be in the car, who will be driving, where you will be going with it, etc. They also do things like place restrictions on what you can use it for, and where you can take it. Regency had a duty of care to this new pilot and his passengers. Maybe they did what they reasonably could do to ensure this rental was being dispatched safely, or maybe they looked the other way as soon as the credit card slip was signed. If they looked the other way, they will rightfully carry a percentage of the liability.
- do you want the no fault insurance
- will there be another driver
- will the vehicle be taken out of (province, state, country)
Never have I been asked how many passengers will be transported.
Do aircraft rental agencies ask how many people you will be transporting or do they assum you will abide by the type limitations???
Just curious
With car rentals, I have been asked on occasion how many passengers I will be carrying; Usually when renting a van. With SUV's I have been asked what I plan to do with it, and have been told certain roads are off limits, or going off road is not allowed.
The times I've rented 172's with 2 or 3 others along with me, I've almost always been reminded of the weight limitations, been asked about how much fuel is in the airplane after doing my walk around, etc.
I suggest any flying school that would silently sit back and watch as a new pilot with only a couple hours on type loaded four adults in a 172 is conducting their business in a most foolhardy manner. What reasonable person would entrust a $60K dollar asset and three lives to the judgement of a rank beginner about to undertake an activity, that in the circumstances, is most probably unsafe and in violation of the regulations?
The times I've rented 172's with 2 or 3 others along with me, I've almost always been reminded of the weight limitations, been asked about how much fuel is in the airplane after doing my walk around, etc.
I suggest any flying school that would silently sit back and watch as a new pilot with only a couple hours on type loaded four adults in a 172 is conducting their business in a most foolhardy manner. What reasonable person would entrust a $60K dollar asset and three lives to the judgement of a rank beginner about to undertake an activity, that in the circumstances, is most probably unsafe and in violation of the regulations?
The only question is did the dumb-ass sign out 3-px's, or did he lie about how many were in the plane? & weights?
I heard the Harcus at CFC called transport to do a ramp check on a renter who said only he would be in the plane on the sign-out... but loaded 3-buddies into the pa-28. What do we need a "ramp-nanny" now?
Is it the FTU's responsibility to make sure that no one else gets into the aircraft, post sign out? I thought PIC was responsible....period.
I heard the Harcus at CFC called transport to do a ramp check on a renter who said only he would be in the plane on the sign-out... but loaded 3-buddies into the pa-28. What do we need a "ramp-nanny" now?
Is it the FTU's responsibility to make sure that no one else gets into the aircraft, post sign out? I thought PIC was responsible....period.
Couldn't agree more. From what I understand, the overload was the result of miscommunication between the instructor and the pilot. When released, the a/c as it was fueled would have been below MTOW albeit with an aft C of G. The pilot was told to "make sure to check the fuel", as while the calculated fuel burn from the last flight would have put the a/c under gross with the 4 on board, it had to be checked not assumed that the fuel load was low enough to allow it. I believe the miscommunication stemmed from the fact that in the case of the instructor "make sure to check the fuel" often meant "I forgot to fill the plane after the last flight- get gas". While the report states fuel was ordered by Regency itself, it was most likely the renter calling to get fuel as it was requested to be filled. As the accident a/c had Cessna's "long range" tanks installed, SOP at the time was that the school only filled it to 1/2 tanks unless requested, so as to not restrict the load it could carry. Therefore I find it hard to believe that the instructor who released the a/c and who flew it last would have called to get it filled to the top and hence over gross. This would only leave the renter to have made the unneeded fuel order.Wilbur wrote: I suggest any flying school that would silently sit back and watch as a new pilot with only a couple hours on type loaded four adults in a 172 is conducting their business in a most foolhardy manner. What reasonable person would entrust a $60K dollar asset and three lives to the judgement of a rank beginner about to undertake an activity, that in the circumstances, is most probably unsafe and in violation of the regulations?
Bottom line is the a/c as dispatched, before it was fuelled, was below MTOW even with the 3 passengers. Other posters make a good point that maybe this renter needed a little more guidance due to his inexperience. No doubt that could have made all the difference in this case. When in a simillar circumstance with a student of mine, all I did was make sure he had a W+B done and suggest he put the two females in back and his heavy male buddy in front to help the C of G. No problems whatsoever were the result.
Maybe the instuctor was overestimating the renters ability, I don't know. He could have taken the time for a quick chat and explaned the fuel situation a bit more clearly. However, he didn't and we have read about the result. While not my style, some instructors cut the apron strings pretty abruptly after a student is licensed. I can understand that as self reliance must be built up after training. The student has passed the tests and demonstrated the knowledge required- He/She is a licenced pilot now. Should you have treat someone with a PPL like a student sometimes? It is a judgement call on the instructors part and not an easy one at that. In retrospect I would say this renter should have been treated like a student still despite the license, but that is easy to say now. As the saying goes hindsight is 20/20....
