Boca pilot's family awarded $25 million in fatal mid-air collision near Deerfield

[SoFlo]

Boca pilot's family awarded $25 million in fatal mid-air collision near Deerfield
--------------------

By Tonya Alanez
South Florida Sun-Sentinel

March 30, 2006

A Broward jury awarded $25.2 million Wednesday to the family of a pilot killed in a collision of two planes near Deerfield Beach almost three years ago.

The family of Steve Ross, a Boca Raton chaplain, filed the wrongful-death suit against Robinson Aviation, a private contractor operating the Boca Raton and Pompano Beach control towers.

Ross was one of five people who died when two small planes crashed in the water off Deerfield Beach on the evening of June 16, 2003.

Ross is survived by his wife, Julie, and four children: Ashley, 21; Jorden, 19; Benjamin, 14, and McKenzie, 9.

The jury in Circuit Judge Victor Tobin's courtroom awarded $1.2 million for economic damages and, for pain and suffering, $10 million to Julie Ross and $3.5 million to each of the four children.

Steve Ross and a longtime friend, Douglas Bauer, 48, were flying a Cessna 182 north to Boca Raton Airport. They were returning from a missionary trip in the Bahamas and had just cleared U.S. Customs at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport.

A Cessna 172, with a family of three aboard, was headed south to Fort Lauderdale Executive Airport. At the controls was private pilot Johnny Mark Willey, 39, of Margate, who was learning to be an airline pilot at Gulfstream Training Academy.

Willey was taking his wife, Susan, 43, and his daughter, Shelbi, 12, for a ride along the coast.

The two planes plowed into each other about 1,000 feet above the Deerfield Beach International Fishing Pier and plunged into the water as stunned beachgoers looked on.

According to the lawsuit, the two planes collided moments after both pilots had made contact with air traffic controllers in Pompano Beach and Boca Raton.

"Robinson Aviation ... otherwise directed or failed to direct air traffic so as to avoid the mid-air collision of the two aircraft," the lawsuit reads.

Attorneys representing Robinson Aviation could not be reached for comment Wednesday.

Robinson contended it was "obligated to provide traffic advisory and traffic alerts only if they were actually aware of a potential danger," said Steven C. Marks, the attorney representing the Ross family.

"If you carry their position to the illogical extreme, they could be doing anything, if they're sleeping they're not aware. And their position is that if they're not aware they don't have to do anything. ... It was an absurd argument. Fortunately, the jury didn't buy it.

"Our position was there's nothing more important, the highest priority of anybody in the tower has to be providing advisories and alerts to prevent midair collisions."

The Ross family settled with Gulfstream Training Academy for an undisclosed amount more than a year ago, contending that Willey was "not fit, qualified or properly trained."

Ross was a chaplain at Boca Raton Christian School. He was a "stellar individual" and left behind "a stellar family," Marks said.

"As [Julie] was listening to the case and learning how easily this could have been prevented had the controllers done their job, all the time her reaction was, `and my children could have had their father,'" Marks said. "That speaks volumes about her character. She doesn't think in terms of herself, she thinks in terms of the children losing their dad, not that I lost my husband and I'm raising these four kids by myself."

Tonya Alanez can be reached at tealanez@sun-sentinel.com or 954-356-4542.



Copyright (c) 2006, South Florida Sun-Sentinel

Visit Sun-Sentinel.com

 

[SoFlo]

"If you carry their position to the illogical extreme, they could be doing anything, if they're sleeping they're not aware. And their position is that if they're not aware they don't have to do anything. ... It was an absurd argument.

That pisses me off.

 

[flyover]

Oh man, a chaplain with 4 kids. This is what gives lawyers wet dreams.

"That speaks volumes about her character. She doesn't think in terms of herself, she thinks in terms of the children losing their dad, not that I lost my husband and I'm raising these four kids by myself."

Speaking of which, I wonder if the widow is dating again. Hmm.

 

[FlyingNole]

And for all you haters, the Gulfstream Academy, is the Gulfstream Airlines...They ceased their GA training after the accident. I dont get it though, everyone has to use extreme caution up and down the coast. The first thing for collision avoidence down here is see and avoid. Most of the time airplanes are well past you by the time TWR notifies you of their position. Sad, but totally avoidable, I remember when it happened.

 

[hattrick]

sad, but i thought traffic avoidance while in vmc was the pilots job. i dont know what i would do if i were in their shows but it kinda seems that they are trying to profit off their family members death a bit much

 

[DE727UPS]

"The Ross family settled with Gulfstream Training Academy for an undisclosed amount more than a year ago, contending that Willey was "not fit, qualified or properly trained."

"Gulfstream Academy, is the Gulfstream Airlines...They ceased their GA training after the accident"

Holy cow...

Would love to see how the attorney proved that Gulfstream Academy was negligent in their training.

 

[SeanD]

:yeahthat: I was taught in ground school all the things to look for such as if there is no change in another aircrafts position at your 12 oclock and it appears to be at your flight level then chances are it is coming towards you. If your a GA pilot in that kind of airspace it is the PIC who is responsible for the safety of the aircraft and people on board. What about the "right of way" procedure? Im just curious because this seems to be pilot error to me, Im not sure I completly understand how this widow is recieving such a large amount of money.

 

[Theotokos]

:yeahthat: I was taught in ground school all the things to look for such as if there is no change in another aircrafts position and it appears to be at your flight level then chances are it is coming towards you. As if your a GA pilot in that kind of airspace it is the PIC who is responsible for the safety of the aircraft and people on board. What about the "right of way" procedure? Im just curious because this seems to be pilot error to me, Im not sure I completly understand how this widow is recieving such a large amount of money.

People just want to look for someone to blame. Even as a student, this makes me mad. I mean it is tradgic and I mean not to impune the dead, but it is the PIC's DUTY to look for traffic, even under the "blanket of ATC". I believe there is a story in Mike's Aviation Safetey section about this. I mean, anytime I am in the pattern, I always keep a look out for possible traffic, because for all you know before you got airborne, ATC could have cleared a guy to enter on the base and you be on the downwind. Now if you did not hear ATC tell them, and ATC does not tell you about them, you may colide. The family knew nothing about aviation I assume, and likeley thought ATC was there to look out for people--they are, but so is the PIC.

 

[SoFlo]

The family knew nothing about aviation I assume, and likeley thought ATC was there to look out for people--they are, but so is the PIC.

Last I checked you where a student pilot, not the NTSB.

 

[Theotokos]

Last I checked you where a student pilot, not the NTSB.

Not saying I am. Just saying it is not only ATC that has too look out for other planes. Not trying to sound arrogant. I know I know little about this, but I do know that you have to always be alert, even with ATC. Sorry if I sounded that way. Besides I'm the FAA.

 

[grassrootsflying]

Interesting points here.... though regardless of the facts, when you say their "profit" is excessive, you're really jumping to judgement.. Without being there, you have to assume that the jury made this decision for a reason. Who can fairly say what is a fair amount of profit to make off a death? Oklahoma city bombing victims and the terrorist embassy bombing victims received nothing, but most sept 11 victims received large amounts. Then again, later deaths from the war on terror involving soldiers kia don't get sept 11 amounts either. So what is a fair price on your loved one's life? You can't say, so why say that this family is excessively profiting from someone's death, or that the widow is happily dating now? If your parent was killed, you wouldn't want people saying that about you, right?

I notice there are a lot of judgemental posts here regarding the accident and the jury award. Just know that you know nothing about the facts of the case, or the jury, or the family, or the attorney, or the aftermath of all this. You only know what you have read in a few paragraphs-awards almost certainly get knocked down or settled anyways. I just hope that if you're ever on a jury or need a jury, that the jurors have an open mind.

 

[TheFlyingTurkey]

I smell an ambulance chaser!

 

[SoFlo]

Interesting points here.... though regardless of the facts, when you say their "profit" is excessive, you're really jumping to judgement.. Without being there, you have to assume that the jury made this decision for a reason. Who can fairly say what is a fair amount of profit to make off a death? Oklahoma city bombing victims and the terrorist embassy bombing victims received nothing, but most sept 11 victims received large amounts. Then again, later deaths from the war on terror involving soldiers kia don't get sept 11 amounts either. So what is a fair price on your loved one's life? You can't say, so why say that this family is excessively profiting from someone's death, or that the widow is happily dating now? If your parent was killed, you wouldn't want people saying that about you, right?

I notice there are a lot of judgemental posts here regarding the accident and the jury award. Just know that you know nothing about the facts of the case, or the jury, or the family, or the attorney, or the aftermath of all this. You only know what you have read in a few paragraphs-awards almost certainly get knocked down or settled anyways. I just hope that if you're ever on a jury or need a jury, that the jurors have an open mind.

I was getting ready to post something along the lines of that. Thank you.

 

[BCTAv8r]

My teacher was the one who called the coast guard as he was there and saw it happen. According to him it was a clear day and the planes were coming straight at each other. It wasn't ATCs fault, but pilot error.

(Teacher is a pilot btw.)

 

[derg]

If you're in VFR conditions, even if you're on an IFR flight plan and under positive control, you have to take responsibility for traffic avoidance.

 

[GaTechKid]

It's your legal responsibility to see and avoid in VFR. Period.

 

[jtrain609]

It's your legal responsibility to see and avoid in VFR. Period.

WAS, obviously proven wrong now

 

[GaTechKid]

There's always appeal.

 

[grassrootsflying]

Well the article says that both pilots were at fault...no doubt about that. But looking only at the jury award, I was just saying that it's wrong to suggest that you've got a merry widow dancing on her husband's grave, clutching bags of money while doing a ashlee simpson-saturday-night-live-sanfu-esuque hee-haw dance, and that they are profiting from this man's death. I thought it would be nice to have a little sympathy for the real victims, instead of saying that they are "trying to profit off their family members death a bit much".

 

[jtrain609]

This is what bothers me, these guys broke the regs and their family was still able to sue when the neglegance was obviously on the part of the pilots involved when you read 91.113.

Sec. 91.113

Right-of-way rules: Except water operations.


(a) Inapplicability. This section does not apply to the operation of an aircraft on water.
(b) General. When weather conditions permit, regardless of whether an operation is conducted under instrument flight rules or visual flight rules, vigilance shall be maintained by each person operating an aircraft so as to see and avoid other aircraft. When a rule of this section gives another aircraft the right-of-way, the pilot shall give way to that aircraft and may not pass over, under, or ahead of it unless well clear.
(c) In distress. An aircraft in distress has the right-of-way over all other air traffic.
(d) Converging. When aircraft of the same category are converging at approximately the same altitude (except head-on, or nearly so), the aircraft to the other's right has the right-of-way. If the aircraft are of different categories--
(1) A balloon has the right-of-way over any other category of aircraft;
[(2) A glider has the right-of-way over an airship, powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.
(3) An airship has the right-of-way over a powered parachute, weight-shift-control aircraft, airplane, or rotorcraft.]
However, an aircraft towing or refueling other aircraft has the right-of-way over all other engine-driven aircraft.
(e) Approaching head-on. When aircraft are approaching each other head-on, or nearly so, each pilot of each aircraft shall alter course to the right.
(f) Overtaking. Each aircraft that is being overtaken has the right-of-way and each pilot of an overtaking aircraft shall alter course to the right to pass well clear.
(g) Landing. Aircraft, while on final approach to land or while landing, have the right-of-way over other aircraft in flight or operating on the surface, except that they shall not take advantage of this rule to force an aircraft off the runway surface which has already landed and is attempting to
make way for an aircraft on final approach. When two or more aircraft are approaching an airport for the purpose of landing, the aircraft at the lower altitude has the right-of-way, but it shall not take advantage of this rule to cut in front of another which is on final approach to land or to overtake
that aircraft.

And if you're not seeing and avoiding, then you're going to be busting this one too!

Sec. 91.13

Careless or reckless operation.

(a) Aircraft operations for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.
(b) Aircraft operations other than for the purpose of air navigation. No person may operate an aircraft, other than for the purpose of air navigation, on any part of the surface of an airport used by aircraft for air commerce (including areas used by those aircraft for receiving or discharging persons or cargo), in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.