Comair Co-Pilot Sues Runway Lighting Company

[mtsu_av8er]

Originally Posted by esa17

Are they just grandfathering all of us into the sport category since we can fly under it or what?

Well, kind of. If you hold a Private (or higher) certificate, you can exercise the privileges of the Sport Pilot Certificate.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Yeah, I suppose.

And then after they have 40+ hours, I wonder if they kick themselves for not getting the real deal. . .

I was thinking of it the other way around.

Someone like Bob Hoover who used to fly the world's most incredible airshow routines with a business prop plane should be able to take something up in the air if he can't get a medical anymore.

[ctab5060X]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Not making sure the crew is taxing to the right runway for which he/she instructed them to.

Very true...

But you mean to tell me that if the controller did notice the mistake by the flight crew, he/she wouldn't say anything at all?

Example...coming into MEM one night, tower issued a takeoff clearance to an RJ departing the center runway. Shortly after this I hear the controller call back with "xxx cancel takeoff clearance, stop, stop, stop. That is not the runway, that is taxiway..."

Point is somebody (controller, flight crew) could/should have noticed the mistake. I know it is not the controllers resposibility, but nothing is stopping him/her from keying the mike and saying something.

[Bumblebee]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Never shurged your shoulders?

I'm shurgin them know

By the way, accrdng toe my wiffe (pesky lwyrs) if the lighting company was found to be 5% at fault and the pilots are found to be 95% at fault the lighting could have to pay, if included into the suit from the families of the victims. Spelling errrrrs intndnd

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by ctab5060X

Very true...

But you mean to tell me that if the controller did notice the mistake by the flight crew, he/she wouldn't say anything at all?

Certainly. I would have said something. But, can you expect someone also working a radar sector with his head down working approach/departure, keeping separation of airborne traffic to be all too concerned with a professional flight crew taxiing? Especially considering the easy taxiway layout? Your example of MEM, or any other high density, large landscape airport is fine - but a two runway, easy layout such as LEX? There shouldn't be much concern there. It's Alpha, Alpha 7 to 22. Not complicated.

I suppose my problem with this argument has always been the underlying attempt to scapegoat a single controller - in the tower. When it is the FAA's policies that dictated controller staffing - which have remained unchanged to this date.

I see this argument most often coming from pilots, who while they are very well in tuned with their own work environment - they lack the needed understanding of a controller's environment.

I would highly suggest more pilots taking on the roll of a fellow team member for NATCA. Fighting for better infrastructure, better technology (not the same stuff that is sent to the front lines without it actually being tested by FPL controllers). NATCA and ALPA have a great deal in common. Controllers and pilots want a better National Airspace System, but neither will get it without the help from the other.

Originally Posted by ready2fly

What the frick is a "shurg"????

Yeah yeah - shrug.

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Never shurged your shoulders?

Silly me - TWICE!!!11

Originally Posted by bumblebee

I'm shurgin them know

By the way, accrdng toe my wiffe (pesky lwyrs) if the lighting company was found to be 5% at fault and the pilots are found to be 95% at fault the lighting could have to pay, if included into the suit from the families of the victims. Spelling errrrrs intndnd

Damn it. . .I see it now. lol

[RPJ]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Yeah, I suppose.

And then after they have 40+ hours, I wonder if they kick themselves for not getting the real deal. . .

The whole point of the rec and sport license is to get more people into GA faster with less stipulations in hopes that once the pilot gets a "taste" of aviation, they will want to get more advanced licenses. Not to mention the medical issue.

[surreal1221]

Well, I hope it's working.

But from my vantage point, I can't really tell - or maybe it's because it's not working. I don't see too many recreational pilot students coming through the flight school.

[H46Bubba]

Originally Posted by moxiepilot

Boo hoo comair dude. Sueing the lighting comapany? He should also sue the local municipality for letting the trees grow too high near the departure end of the wrong runway, and the gas people for having it be a combustable material. Oh yeah, and the doctor who took off his leg.

Real mature! Totally uncalled for man.

[ctab5060X]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

I suppose my problem with this argument has always been the underlying attempt to scapegoat a single controller - in the tower. When it is the FAA's policies that dictated controller staffing - which have remained unchanged to this date.

I see this argument most often coming from pilots, who while they are very well in tuned with their own work environment - they lack the needed understanding of a controller's environment.

Personally, I don't think the controller should be held accountable for the accident, I was just pointing out that it would make more sense than sueing the lighting company. Then again, like I said earlier, the only ones that really have a case here are the families of the victims. If the co-pilot wants to sue somebody because they were at fault, I guess he needs to take a long hard look in the mirror.

As for controllers, I have several freinds who are controllers and have had many long discussions with them concerning each others point of view. I have to say, knowing someone who works in ATC and being able to discuss issues with them and pick their brain has helped me become a better pilot because I understand what they go through each and every day. The same can be said for them. They told me more than once that it really does help getting feedback from pilots because they really had no clue as to what all was happening with us in the cockpit during certain situations. So I guess the door swings both ways, and yes, pilots and controllers need to work together for a better National Airspace System or we will end up with something like Flight Service has become.

[ctab5060X]

Originally Posted by H46Bubba

Real mature! Totally uncalled for man.

Actually that is about how it works. Wouldn't surprise me that in the beginning of a wrongful death suit that as many individuals as possible who could have any accountability were listed. Let's face it, in todays legal system, it would not seem out of the ordinary for someone to want to sue not only the lighting company, but the controllers, the surviving pilot, the Blue Grass airport (confusing layout, runways too short for aircraft serving airport, etc.), the aircraft and avionics manufacturer, Comair for inadequate training (not saying there is any), the construction company. No offense, but that is just how our legal systems works these days. In the end most of those are dropped from a suit anyhow and whoever holds the majority of the responsibililty will be left.

I don't see why we can't just let something be. For once I actually agree with the NTSB - "No simple cause. No single solution. No 'aha' moment."

[moxiepilot]

Originally Posted by H46Bubba

Real mature! Totally uncalled for man.

you mean to tell me you don't see the absurdity in what is being done?

should i have included a tag to make that absurdity clear?

Let me point out the facts:

This is a tragedy caused by the operators of the airplane. The aforementioned operator is suing in order to remove the blame of the mishap from himself. He is blaming a lighting company as one of the root causes of the accident.

He's trying to throw the definition of PIC out the window..."is responsible for and the direct authority as to the operation of the aircraft."

In suing the lighting company he is shirking the culpability of his actions and basically saying that in no uncertian terms he is not responsible for what happened.

Mature? At least I have the cajones to own up to what I say and do as compared to the comair pilot. Just because I have no sympathy for someone who is having a tough life and choosing to blame others for that life does not mean that I am immature.

[ctab5060X]

Originally Posted by moxiepilot

you mean to tell me you don't see the absurdity in what is being done?

I think one word sums all of this lawsuit stuff up...frivolous.

[c150pilot]

As for the suit against the lighting company, the case he is trying to make is that they had a contract to install and maintain the lighting during the construction at the airport. Multiple times before this crash, there were instances in which sections of lighting were not operational. The first officer even arrived at LEX at around 1:40 am the previous morning and noted that some of the runway lighting was out. The captain and the first officer each made a comment about the lack of lights on the runway (picked up by the voice recorder) as they began the takeoff run. The fact that they had both experinced issues of lights out at this very airport is the reason no red flags were raised when they began the takeoff. I think this is what the lawsuit is getting at. This is only what I have read, obviously there are many factors that could have changed the outcome of this tragedy and that is why the blame gets spread all around in these lawsuits.

[H46Bubba]

Originally Posted by moxiepilot

you mean to tell me you don't see the absurdity in what is being done?

should i have included a tag to make that absurdity clear?

Let me point out the facts:

This is a tragedy caused by the operators of the airplane. The aforementioned operator is suing in order to remove the blame of the mishap from himself. He is blaming a lighting company as one of the root causes of the accident.

He's trying to throw the definition of PIC out the window..."is responsible for and the direct authority as to the operation of the aircraft."

In suing the lighting company he is shirking the culpability of his actions and basically saying that in no uncertian terms he is not responsible for what happened.

Mature? At least I have the cajones to own up to what I say and do as compared to the comair pilot. Just because I have no sympathy for someone who is having a tough life and choosing to blame others for that life does not mean that I am immature.

I don't agee that he should be suing the lighting company as well. I think some slick attourney got ahold of him and his parents and sold them a good one. There needs to be a major tort reform in this country and this is another example why.

Now, tell me who's PIC whilest flying Part 121? Make sure you know that before you go to an interview... mmkay! FO's are only operating as SIC. I don't shirk any of the FO's responsibilties in the crash one bit. He's as guilty as the CA. It was the flight crew as a whole that caused the misshap. This was a very unfortunate event for all parties involved. Almost everything the NTSB said that led up to the crash happened or happens on a daily basis (minus the runway part). I would love to listen to all the cockpit voice recorders out there while everyone is out taxing. It was just unfortunate that CMR 5191 were the ones who had no missing links in the chain to prevent them from going past the point of no return. It could have happened to anyone else. James Polhinki is the lone survivior and he will have to live with being part of taking 49 lives, and living with his injuries the rest of his life. For us, we learn from their mistakes, so we don't make them ourselves, and move on.

[skidz]

Moral of the story...in aviation business if you screw up, make sure you don't survive.

[ctab5060X]

Originally Posted by skidz

Moral of the story...in aviation business if you screw up, make sure you don't survive.

yeah, but that would make the NTSB's job too easy...pilot/pilots failure to blah, blah, blah

[flying_ME]

Originally Posted by skidz

Moral of the story...in aviation business if you screw up, make sure you don't survive.

That works for you, the pilot, but then everyone will just turn around and make sure your family suffers dearly (and financially) for your mistake

I'm on the fence here... I don't think pilots or their estates should be fair game after an accident (in terms of lawsuits, etc), but in this case there is plenty of evidence of negligence.

[flying_ME]

Also, the FAA, the airport, some individuals (contractors), and Jeppesen(!) have been added to the list of guilty parties.

http://www.kentucky.com/181/story/162368.html

[alphaone]

This whole situation sucks.