If you fly, you take the responsibility for your actions. The people were on the beach, not a landing strip. They were dressed for the beach. To think they should have seen the plane or dressed in bright colors is just redicious. If the pilot couldn't see that the area was clear, then he shouldn't have attempted to land there. He should have ditched the plane vs trying to save the plane. His choice was a bad one and two people died because of it.
Nice sentiment from your couch. However, being faced with an engine-out situation is quite scary. Normally you don't have time to think of options, especially in the low altitude regime these airplanes normally fly. A well trained pilot will have thought about where to go beforehand and act from memory. When the adrenaline kicks in you just have seconds to act.
(I would bet he never saw them until it was too late. Just my opinion from 10,000+ hours of flying.)
If you fly, you take the responsibility for your actions. The people were on the beach, not a landing strip. They were dressed for the beach. To think they should have seen the plane or dressed in bright colors is just redicious. If the pilot couldn't see that the area was clear, then he shouldn't have attempted to land there. He should have ditched the plane vs trying to save the plane. His choice was a bad one and two people died because of it.
He made a judgment call at the time that the beach was clear for a landing based on what he could see. He, as the pilot, was attempting to make a landing in an effort to save the lives of the people on the plane. Hindsight is always 20 - 20. If he knew that landing there would result in harm and/or death, he surely would have looked for another option.
When you fly, you take on the responsibility for what happens to that plane, and that was my point. Poor judgement is not an excuse. He was able to get the plane to land on a beach, he should have had enough time to verify it was clear. If not, he shouldn't have made the landing there. Yes, it is easy to sit "on my couch" and talk about this, but it doesn't make my point any less valid. Pilots have a higher responsibility than others and making excuses is pretty weak. If the pilot couldn't make a clear judgement call, then he/she shouldn't be flying.
jaskispyder, Do you have a pilot's license? If you do not, you are quite unqualified to make a call that the pilot used poor judgement.
Nope, no license, but based on the fact that two people (ON THE GROUND) are dead, I still say poor judgement was used in selecting where to land. Right or wrong, a decision was made. Just because the guy had a license doesn't make him immune from making mistakes. Lots of people have licenses, but they still make mistakes or make poor decisions. The pilot said he selected this beach over a different one, so it sounded like he had some time to make a decision. I am sure more will come out with the investigation.
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 07-30-2014).]
Nope, no license, but based on the fact that two people (ON THE GROUND) are dead, I still say poor judgement was used in selecting where to land. Right or wrong, a decision was made. Just because the guy had a license doesn't make him immune from making mistakes. Lots of people have licenses, but they still make mistakes or make poor decisions. The pilot said he selected this beach over a different one, so it sounded like he had some time to make a decision. I am sure more will come out with the investigation.
Nope, no license, but based on the fact that two people (ON THE GROUND) are dead, I still say poor judgement was used in selecting where to land. Right or wrong, a decision was made. Just because the guy had a license doesn't make him immune from making mistakes. Lots of people have licenses, but they still make mistakes or make poor decisions. The pilot said he selected this beach over a different one, so it sounded like he had some time to make a decision. I am sure more will come out with the investigation.
My guess is once he was near the beach the choice became land on sand or in water. Do you mean maybe he could have put it in water instead?
The pilot said in an interview he thought that beach looked empty. He NEVER saw the people...He SAID he never seen them. He didnt know hed even hit anyone till after he got out of the plane. Like I said already, a person (even 2) is nearly impossible to see from a 1/4-1/2 mile away and higher than them. By the time he could be able to see them, he was on his final. If you were a pilot, you would know at that point you pull the nose up (flare) to land in a tail down attitude. The engine and nose of the plane block out anything you can see directly ahead of you for a few hundred yards. Its like coming over a hill top on the highway...about all you see ahead is sky.When you feel it settle on the runway and lower the nose is when you can again see in front of you.
There will be no charges or lawsuits against him that can win. FAA will say its an accident caused by whatever malfunction happened to the plane. The only possible suit would be to a A&P mechanic who fixed or signed off something he did improperly. The FAA will know what caused the problem because of relative minor damage to the plane. The only things that would make the pilot responsible are things like he didnt drain water from the sumps, or took off with a known problem (like say knowing it had a bad fuel pump or taking off with the wrong fuel tank switched on).
You falsely believe that anything that happens to an airplane is the pilots responsibility which is totally an untrue statement. What is true is the pilot is responsible for any of his actions in operating the plane in an unsafe manner or condition. He is following regulations that you land in the closest available area you can in an emergency, that you deem safe. He thought the beach was empty since he could see no one there. You have seconds to pick a spot, you dont have the luxury of flying around till you see a runway. What would you say if he landed in the water instead and killed a group of boaters ? Even trained Coast Guard searchers have a hard time finding a 20' boat in the ocean with waves and whitecaps. They could barely see 30' square pieces of metal floating in the ocean looking for the Malaysian airliner.
You may think your an expert at some things, but you are not a pilot so not qualified to say anything about pilots or flying except your own opinions. I am, so I overrule you.
Perhaps the gentleman and his daughter saw the plane come in and thought the plane was going to land on the water as a normal landing and got right in front of it not even realizing this was an emergency crash landing.
Perhaps the innocent and maybe NIAVE bystander caused his own death.
The pilot said in an interview he thought that beach looked empty. He NEVER saw the people...He SAID he never seen them. He didnt know hed even hit anyone till after he got out of the plane.
You may think your an expert at some things, but you are not a pilot so not qualified to say anything about pilots or flying except your own opinions. I am, so I overrule you.
So the guy admitted he didn't see anyone? That would fall under his responsibilty to verify the location was clear. He is responsible for his decisions. Maybe he thought he was an expert, like you.
Overrule me? Yeah what ever... you sure talk a good story of how you know everything, but yet you have been proven wrong many times. This guy can be held responsible in a civil lawsuit, any good lawyer would have a field day. But hey maybe you are an expert in law also.
Perhaps the gentleman and his daughter saw the plane come in and thought the plane was going to land on the water as a normal landing and got right in front of it not even realizing this was an emergency crash landing.
Perhaps the innocent and maybe NIAVE bystander caused his own death.
Blame the dead? Interesting, but that is a stretch as they were not standing next to a runway, but a BEACH.... where planes don't normally land.
Blame the dead? Interesting, but that is a stretch as they were not standing next to a runway, but a BEACH.... where planes don't normally land.
Ya know something....a introductory flight is only 25 or 50 bucks at your local airport. An instructor will take you up for 1/2 an hour, let you try out the controls (dont worry, you cant screw it up, most trainers fly hands-off properly trimmed, and the instructor will trim it before he gives it to you)---and on landing tell him you want to do a simulated engine failure (and why)....then come back and tell us again all about the viability, maneuverability, ect....
So the guy admitted he didn't see anyone? That would fall under his responsibilty to verify the location was clear. He is responsible for his decisions. Maybe he thought he was an expert, like you.
Overrule me? Yeah what ever... you sure talk a good story of how you know everything, but yet you have been proven wrong many times. This guy can be held responsible in a civil lawsuit, any good lawyer would have a field day. But hey maybe you are an expert in law also.
You really don't know the rules, protocols and guidelines of airspace, do you? No lawyer will win this case if the FAA/NTSB find no fault that could be avoided and the pilot followed procedure and protocols. But disregard my input. I know absolutely nothing about the FAA and Air Traffic Control and how it operates.
Ya know something....a introductory flight is only 25 or 50 bucks at your local airport. An instructor will take you up for 1/2 an hour, let you try out the controls (dont worry, you cant screw it up, most trainers fly hands-off properly trimmed, and the instructor will trim it before he gives it to you)---and on landing tell him you want to do a simulated engine failure (and why)....then come back and tell us again all about the viability, maneuverability, ect....
What does this have to do with blaming the dead for being on a beach, not watching for an airplane that may or may not be landing on that beach?
I don't need to pay anything to know that people on a beach shouldn't have to be watching the skies for airplanes trying to land. Feel free to defend the pilot, etc, but his actions killed two people, and yet, somehow we have a few people here who want to blame those people. I thought we had people here to believed in personal responsibility, yet, here, we have bystanders getting blamed and justification of someone's actions because they were flying a plane (as if they don't have any responsibility of where they put down). I wonder how you would feel if it was someone you loved who was run over by the plane.... oh wait, maybe you would be fine and pat the pilot on the back for landing the plane without causing injury to the occupants.
You really don't know the rules, protocols and guidelines of airspace, do you? No lawyer will win this case if the FAA/NTSB find no fault that could be avoided and the pilot followed procedure and protocols. But disregard my input. I know absolutely nothing about the FAA and Air Traffic Control and how it operates.
So, the protocol was to land the plane and then say "oops, sorry, didn't see you down there". Nope, sorry, in a civil court, it isn't about "FAA/NTSB"... it is about what the jury finds the pilot liable for. As I said, a good lawyer will snap this case up and it is pretty much money in the bank. (unless the pilot's insurance makes a HUGE settlement).
[This message has been edited by jaskispyder (edited 07-31-2014).]
So, the protocol was to land the plane and then say "oops, sorry, didn't see you down there".
That's exactly what I'm saying. But, don't take my word for it. I've never seen the outcome of situations like this in my line of work. ~heavy sarcasm~
Anything Ive been proven wrong on (few) I readily admitted to. Im a 45 year pilot, flight training and combat flying in jet fighters. I owned 8 single engine planes. I am current and still own a high performance one. I have 20,000 hours flight time. Yes, that makes me an expert. As here, your wrong, as YOUVE been proven many times. Ill give you credit that as far as I know you may be a good mechanic, although your expertise also seems to try and find a fault with ANYTHING I say.
Yes, im pretty knowedgeable on legal issues in Ohio...usually from first hand experiences. I think I have above average knowledge about just about anything. About flying and painting vehicles I DO consider myself an expert. On those, I can probably testify in a court case as an expert witness. I do NOT know everything, and never said I did. I do know more than most about anything other than sports (I know virtually nothing). That all comes with associating with all kinds of people, having lots of different interests, and being 65 years old.
AGAIN, since you never seem to pay attention (ADD?) this pilot wont be accused or sued for anything...unless its proven he did something wrong. Its exactly the same as if your tire blows out and you hit a schoolbus stop killing 2 kids. You wouldnt be responsible for the actions of your tire...it would be an accident.
Along the same subject I seen another small plane had an engine failure in California (I think) and crashed into a shopping center parking lot. How dare they fall in a crowded parking lot during the busy day......right ? I say they were lucky the plane didnt fall into a crowded store instead.
AGAIN, since you never seem to pay attention (ADD?) this pilot wont be accused or sued for anything...unless its proven he did something wrong. Its exactly the same as if your tire blows out and you hit a schoolbus stop killing 2 kids. You wouldnt be responsible for the actions of your tire...it would be an accident.
Along the same subject I seen another small plane had an engine failure in California (I think) and crashed into a shopping center parking lot. How dare they fall in a crowded parking lot during the busy day......right ? I say they were lucky the plane didnt fall into a crowded store instead.
The pilot caused the death of two people. A civil case is all that is needed. Look at OJs case. The falling engine is slightly different... the pilot of the small plane made a decision to land at that location and admitted not seeing the people. He can be accused of being negligent in a civil case. I know I would get the best lawyer and make the guy pay for lost companionship, income, etc. This type of case is popular in auto accidents and can lead to multimillion dollar awards.
Mark my words. NO KIND of charges or any winning lawsuits will come out of it. Sure they can sue anyone they want. Proving any negligence in an ACCIDENT like this would be impossible if the FAA says it was a simple accident. End of story. They would have to prove the pilot caused the engine to quit. AGAIN....AGAIN, the ONLY suit they could get with any possible win would be against anyone who serviced or built the plane.
You didnt answer the question if he had hit a boatload of people in the ocean instead either.....Guess that would be OK with you because he didnt try the beach.
Good one Formula....LOL. I cant see how he can be such a bonehead and not understand how things work. He prob voted for Obuma too....twice.
[This message has been edited by rogergarrison (edited 07-31-2014).]
The pilot caused the death of two people. A civil case is all that is needed. Look at OJs case. The falling engine is slightly different... the pilot of the small plane made a decision to land at that location and admitted not seeing the people. He can be accused of being negligent in a civil case. I know I would get the best lawyer and make the guy pay for lost companionship, income, etc. This type of case is popular in auto accidents and can lead to multimillion dollar awards.
Does that mean GM could sue every driver who has an at fault accident ?
The pilot caused the death of two people. A civil case is all that is needed.
So if the FAA finds no negligence of the pilot. How is the family going to win a wrongful death lawsuit???? This is why an attorney is going to pick up the phone and talk to the insurance company to get the most out of an insurance company, because they know they have no chance in a court of law if the FAA or NTSB has found no negligence from the pilot.
I'll be more than happy to post the public record findings as soon as they are released to the public. You probably won't see the press publish them.
[This message has been edited by aceman (edited 07-31-2014).]
That's exactly what I'm saying. But, don't take my word for it. I've never seen the outcome of situations like this in my line of work. ~heavy sarcasm~
Dont worry about dude....he is just talking to get our butons and bait us...he has never in his life been in left chair, and doesn't know sheet from shinola about it
Next time you are in an AC500, pull back both, left rudder to the floor, and yoke as far right as you can get it--goddamit THATS why Bob Hover loved those things....just think about it, and a Commander will do it.
I have about 200 hours in N194Z when I flew for the Arkansas Forestry Commission. That was one hell of an airplane. 1965 Aero Commander AC-500B. I saw Bob Hoover fly his Commander many years ago including the engine out loop. Good stuff.
"Overrule me? Yeah what ever... you sure talk a good story of how you know everything, but yet you have been proven wrong many times. This guy can be held responsible in a civil lawsuit, any good lawyer would have a field day. But hey maybe you are an expert in law also."
Yea, Im obviously smarter than you think you are about most things. I know very little about any sport other than racing. Sorry I cant recall a single time ive been proven wrong by anyone...that I didnt admit to when I really didnt know. If you know of some let me know.
Any lawyer that took the case you say, better get paid up front. He will never be able to win it...unless of course the Feds say the pilot did anything wrong. Theres no law against crash landing an airplane. Different story if he was just out for a good time and thought hed land on the beach. They should use the same lawyer that represented the geese the airliner killed before crashing into the Hudson River. What a dumb azz.
I thought we had people here to believed in personal responsibility, yet, here, we have bystanders getting blamed and justification of someone's actions because they were flying a plane (as if they don't have any responsibility of where they put down). I wonder how you would feel if it was someone you loved who was run over by the plane.... oh wait, maybe you would be fine and pat the pilot on the back for landing the plane without causing injury to the occupants. 
