Comair Co-Pilot Sues Runway Lighting Company

[Stone Cold]

Sent to me by a friend of mine...haven't seen it posted yet...please delete if it's already out there.

Comair Co-Pilot Sues Runway Lighting Company
Wed, 29 Aug '07
Suit Alleges LEX Lighting Design 'Erratic And Haphazard'

The lone survivor of the Comair Flight 5191 accident has filed a lawsuit against the company that designed Blue Grass Airport's runway and taxi lights.

James Polehinke survived the accident that claimed the lives of the other 49 people on board the CRJ-100 that mistakenly took off from the wrong, too-short runway at LEX in the early morning hours of August 27, 2006 in Lexington, KY, and crashed. He lost a leg and suffered severe head injuries.
Polehinke's lawsuit against AVCON, Inc. alleges the company failed to use appropriate care in its lighting design, calling it erratic and haphazard, according to the South Florida Sun-Sentinel.
Federal investigators have said the main runway's lights were operational that morning, but the center lights were not.
As ANN reported, the National Transportation Safety Board ruled last month there were several factors that led to the accident.
"This accident has led us into the briar patch of human behavior," said NTSB board member Debbie Hersman. "No simple cause. No single solution. No 'aha' moment."
Polehinke faces a number of wrongful death lawsuits from families of victims of the crash.
FMI: www.ntsb.gov, www.avconinc.com

[Nick]

Weren't the lights on the short runway off?

I don't know what kind of case this is if they were.

[ready2fly]

Yeah....good luck with that.

[Murdoughnut]

Yeah - don't really see a case here. Poor guy - I hope this isn't so much his doing as it is his family/some shady attorney.

[ready2fly]

Originally Posted by Murdoughnut

Yeah - don't really see a case here. Poor guy - I hope this isn't so much his doing as it is his family/some shady attorney.

I would assume he's suing out of his perception of need rather than greed. After all, the guy is crippled for life and probably feels he needs to get paid for his injuries.

However, (and I'll probably catch some flack here) he was part of the team (captain & FO) that neglected to observe the sterile cockpit rules. He was part of the team that lined up on the wrong runway and neglected to cross check it with his heading bug. He was part of the team that lead to his injuries (and the deaths of his captain, crew and passengers).

While it's a sad thing that he feels the need to sue, it's even more sad that some teams of attorneys, paralegals, & their staffs will spend the next couple of years on this case and then tie up valuable time in the court.

But, that's the American way.

[Bigscrb15]

I imagine he is trying to get the money to be able to pay all the people sueing him.

[Murdoughnut]

Originally Posted by ready2fly

I would assume he's suing out of his perception of need rather than greed. After all, the guy is crippled for life and probably feels he needs to get paid for his injuries.

However, (and I'll probably catch some flack here) he was part of the team (captain & FO) that neglected to observe the sterile cockpit rules. He was part of the team that lined up on the wrong runway and neglected to cross check it with his heading bug. He was part of the team that lead to his injuries (and the deaths of his captain, crew and passengers).

While it's a sad thing that he feels the need to sue, it's even more sad that some teams of attorneys, paralegals, & their staffs will spend the next couple of years on this case and then tie up valuable time in the court.

But, that's the American way.

No disagreement here - it was a mistake that I think any pilot could make on any given day - but it doesn't change the facts.

I would hope there's something in place - maybe Comair's insurance, that would cover his medical expenses.

[Murdoughnut]

Originally Posted by Bigscrb15

I imagine he is trying to get the money to be able to pay all the people sueing him.

You may be right, but I don't think people will have luck going after him directly.

This is only somewhat related, but years ago my father was driving his rig on a two-lane highway when a school bus coming towards him blew a tire and crossed the yellow. My dad put his truck in the ditch to avoid a head on collision. The bus ended up being a church bus - and despite the fact that he and his company received numerous cards and gifts of appreciation from families of children on the bus, one family decided to sue both him and his company - why? Because ever since the accident, their child was terrified of 18-wheelers.

Fortunately the case was dismissed by the judge, but it doesn't change the fact that it caused my father a lot of stress for many months. Some people, I tell ya.

[surreal1221]

Agreed, no disagreement R2F.

[TheOneMarine]

Yea, It's sad, but don't see a case there because the lights were off for a reason. Unless perhaps he's suing for lack of signs maybe

[surreal1221]

*shurg* Read the NOTAMs I say, maintain a strong

[ready2fly]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

*shurg* Read the NOTAMs I say, maintain a strong

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

[surreal1221]

Never shurged your shoulders?

[PeanuckleCRJ]

The taxiway change wasn't in the notams...


However, taking off on a runway whose lights were percieved to be partially out and not checking your heading upon lining up with the runway is just irresponsible... especially on the CRJ, which is a plane that has considerable AHRS issues with compass alignment.

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by PeanuckleCRJ

The taxiway change wasn't in the notams...

Why would there have been a taxiway change?

Routings to a runway can vary a million and one ways.

Out of LEX it's pretty simple though. It's A to both 26 and 22 (via A7).

So, I suppose what I'm saying is. . .at an airport with a simple taxiway layout as such - there wouldn't ever be a need to NOTAM a taxiway routing change.

Unless there is something I'm missing here.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

Why would there have been a taxiway change?

Routings to a runway can vary a million and one ways.

Out of LEX it's pretty simple though. It's A to both 26 and 22 (via A7).

So, I suppose what I'm saying is. . .at an airport with a simple taxiway layout as such - there wouldn't ever be a need to NOTAM a taxiway routing change.

Unless there is something I'm missing here.

There was some construction going on.

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by Nick

There was some construction going on.

On Alpha? or Alpha 7?

Have any NTSB or FAA documentation that discusses this? I recall reading somewhere about "construction" but I can't recall where.

[esa17]

Did anyone else notice that in the accident report the captain was listed as having his sport license? Are they just grandfathering all of us into the sport category since we can fly under it or what?

[surreal1221]

The sport, and recreational licenses are a joke to me. . .but, I digress.

[Nick]

Originally Posted by surreal1221

The sport, and recreational licenses are a joke to me. . .but, I digress.

They are not a joke for people who can't get a medical and still want to fly for fun once in a while.

[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.

[Murdoughnut]

Originally Posted by Nick

They are not a joke for people who can't get a medical and still want to fly for fun once in a while.

Yeah, or for people who want to fly for fun and eat.

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by Nick

They are not a joke for people who can't get a medical and still want to fly for fun once in a while.

Yeah, I suppose.

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

[ctab5060X]

Funny how he is sueing the lighting company for "erratic and haphazard" lighting when there is something waaaay more obvious and a much better case than lighting...

I just guess the lighting company has more money and assets than a controller who was on duty with little rest who could have made/caught the mistake...

This just goes to show you how sue happy the people of the USA have become. This is obviously a situation where multiple people were at fault, yet one of the ones who should have prevented the situation is the one who is sueing. I hope this one gets thrown out of court so fast it breaks the sound barrier! IMO the only ones who have a legitimate legal course of action are the families of passengers.

[surreal1221]

Originally Posted by ctab5060X

I just guess the lighting company has more money and assets than a controller who was on duty with little rest who could have made/caught the mistake...

Separation of traffic is a controller's responsibility.

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

Remember, providing separation of traffic can and does occur in a non-radar / zero visibility environment. Works usually, until a crew decides to get disoriented and takes off on the wrong RWY.

There's a thing called PIC. . .the one who is responsible for the flight. Unfortunately, he is gone, and the First officer is left to deal with the wrath - wrongfully or rightfully.