Minn. jury awards $16M+ in crash of Cirrus plane

cmill said:
WTF? the parachute didnt save him?





Really tho, look at how cirrus builds and markets these things. They're basically taking a porsche and giving it to a 16 year old driver. a 16 year old driver with more money than brains. What did they really think was going to happen?
Click to expand...

So it's Cirrus' fault for a pilot being a dumbass? :banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
Number1atNumber2 said:
So it's Cirrus' fault for a pilot being a dumbass? :banghead::banghead::banghead:
Click to expand...



No its partly their fault for marketing to dumbasses, and also for having a terrible lawyers. Do you really think its a good idea to start out somebody with zero time in a high performance turbo charged airplane, get them they're cert, and then throw them out into the wild black yonder with all of 60 hours?


I know theres some excellent cirrus pilots out there, somewhere, but i guess east tx must be the land of mis-fit cirrus pilots.
 
cmill said:
No its partly their fault for marketing to dumbasses, and also for having a terrible lawyers. Do you really think its a good idea to start out somebody with zero time in a high performance turbo charged airplane, get them they're cert, and then throw them out into the wild black yonder with all of 60 hours?


I know theres some excellent cirrus pilots out there, somewhere, but i guess east tx must be the land of mis-fit cirrus pilots.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Cirrus markets a product. If the person with the $$$ to buy that product is too stupid to know their own limitations, and that then bites them in the ass; that's simply Darwin rearing himself.
 
I have no doubt the Lawyers are very upset the VLJ explosion did not take off as predicted. They were salivating like Pavlov's dog waiting for the first high roller to auger in from 410.
 
MikeD said:
Disagree. Cirrus markets a product. If the person with the $$$ to buy that product is too stupid to know their own limitations, and that then bites them in the ass; that's simply Darwin rearing himself.
Click to expand...


I partly agree, but cirrus definitely gives them plenty of tools to try and make it too easy.

IMC with no rating? no problem! Lets throw some synthetic vision in there

Don't know when and where ice forms? No problem, lets give em some tks fluid

Still cant manage to keep from effin up? Well, theres always a parachute.



The only thing cirrus could do to make it any easier is include a pilot with the plane. That shouldnt be a problem; theres always plenty of people willing to work for free.



The bottom line is, these planes are going to people who really dont have any business flying them. Traditionally, one starts in a 150, or 172 and works their way up. Cirrus said screw that, buy our plane, and we'll teach you how to "fly" the damn thing, or at least hit the right buttons.
 
cmill said:
I partly agree, but cirrus definitely gives them plenty of tools to try and make it too easy.

IMC with no rating? no problem! Lets throw some synthetic vision in there

Don't know when and where ice forms? No problem, lets give em some tks fluid

Still cant manage to keep from effin up? Well, theres always a parachute.



The only thing cirrus could do to make it any easier is include a pilot with the plane. That shouldnt be a problem; theres always plenty of people willing to work for free.
Click to expand...

Those are good points, and I see where you're coming from. From that perspective, I can see where Cirrus may make it sound too easy; still the pilot should know his own limits.....but sadly, too many pilots with the personal wealth to buy a plane, lack the personal judgement to operate it with due diligence
 
MikeD said:
Disagree. Cirrus markets a product. If the person with the $$$ to buy that product is too stupid to know their own limitations, and that then bites them in the ass; that's simply Darwin rearing himself.
Click to expand...

Exactly. Think the whole lawsuit is ridiculous. However, this is about responsibility of the operator. I see this as no different that a person who buys a gun, goes and shoots someone and then gun maker gets sued. Sorry, your actions have consequences.
 
MikeD said:
Those are good points, and I see where you're coming from. From that perspective, I can see where Cirrus may make it sound too easy; still the pilot should know his own limits.....but sadly, too many pilots with the personal wealth to buy a plane, lack the personal judgement to operate it with due diligence
Click to expand...


exactly, you have a more tactful way of putting things than i do. haha.
 
cmill said:
I partly agree, but cirrus definitely gives them plenty of tools to try and make it too easy.

IMC with no rating? no problem! Lets throw some synthetic vision in there

Don't know when and where ice forms? No problem, lets give em some tks fluid

Still cant manage to keep from effin up? Well, theres always a parachute.
Click to expand...

Ok I do see your what you're saying I think, those are good points. However, there are plenty of dumbass pilots out there, and this could probably just as easily happened in a Cessna. If the training was truly insufficient I can see some blame being placed on Cirrus, but sueing the company for THAT MUCH is ridiculous. Also there are plenty of pilots out there that get good training yet still go eff up when they are no longer under supervision.
 
Number1atNumber2 said:
The bottom line is, these planes are going to people who really dont have any business flying them. Traditionally, one starts in a 150, or 172 and works their way up. Cirrus said screw that, buy our plane, and we'll teach you how to "fly" the damn thing, or at least hit the right buttons.
Click to expand...

The airplane manufacturer/salesperson has NO responsibility for the way that the aircraft is operated once the pilot is out on his own.

The bottom line is that pilots screw up and die, and the aircraft manufacturer should not be held responsible for that.
 
I don't think cirrus should be held responsible either. All im saying is they knew their target demographic, and they know that American's have a hard on for lawsuits. But, if you cant blame Cirrus, then you really cant blame the lawyers either. Its the lawyer's job to sue just like it is Cirrus' job to build airplanes. Ultimately its the family that went out looking for this.




Also, number 1 didnt post that, i did. something must have screwed up when he tried to quote me. Im the one you're bickering with :p
 
Roger said:
The airplane manufacturer/salesperson has NO responsibility for the way that the aircraft is operated once the pilot is out on his own.

The bottom line is that pilots screw up and die, and the aircraft manufacturer should not be held responsible for that.
Click to expand...


I would imagine that just like a CFI is on the line should something happen to someone they signed off years back, the same can be said for the manufacturer, especially since htey appear to have provided some training.
 
cmill said:
Also, number 1 didnt post that, i did. something must have screwed up when he tried to quote me. Im the one you're bickering with :p
Click to expand...
En Garde then! To the death!

Wait what are we fighting about?

Yeah, you can't really blame the lawyers either. They're just taking advantage of our effed up legal system. Which is that way because (apparently) that's what the majority of us want. Yet people complain and whine about it. Kind of like how the approval rating of congress is awful...yet we continue to re-elect the same old, same old.
 
JEP said:
I would imagine that just like a CFI is on the line should something happen to someone they signed off years back, the same can be said for the manufacturer, especially since htey appear to have provided some training.
Click to expand...
And I would argue that unless a deficiency in the CFI's instruction can be proven, the CFI should not be held responsible.

And unless there was something in the Cirrus training program that taught the pilot that he could safely fly VFR in IMC at night, they should not be responsible for him being an idiot.
 
Roger said:
And I would argue that unless a deficiency in the CFI's instruction can be proven, the CFI should not be held responsible.

And unless there was something in the Cirrus training program that taught the pilot that he could safely fly VFR in IMC at night, they should not be responsible for him being an idiot.
Click to expand...


I have a hard time buying it as well, but I wonder if this 'helped' the jury:

The flight lesson entitled "IFR Flight (Non-rated)" was not conducted.
Click to expand...
 
When you place an ad on the back cover of Elite Traveler Magazine advertising your product as having "four first class seats", you need to check the ethics of your advertising strategy.
 
JEP said:
I have a hard time buying it as well, but I wonder if this 'helped' the jury:
Click to expand...



Hmmm, does that mean that the pilot was not rated for IFR flight(i know he wasnt) or that the lesson was about flying IFR and not being rated?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top