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

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...

Opps, that paragraph was not supposed to show up as my words, somehow I screwed up the quote function...

I very much agree with you Roger, Roger. Hell even CFI's can have students they train and then the student goes up a gets themselves and sometimes others killed. You cannot control a person's actions after you've trained them.
 
I sold new airplanes for several years and followed Cirrus during that time. More than once, I had clients tell me "The guy said it would fly itself." This was said to the owner of the SR22 that crashed in MD (Annapolis, maybe?) when he (not even a student pilot at the time) was sold a new SR22. His brother crashed it because he wanted to do a go around and forgot to add power.

The preached the reliance on automation over developing pilot skill and ADM. Was the guy dumb for doing what he did? You betchya!

Accidents, like this, occur when a pilot runs out of altitude, airspeed, and experience -- all at the same time.
 
Say didn't Clinton sign some big bill that prevents this from happening? Oh yeah he did!

(a) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in subsection (b), no civil action for damages for death or injury to persons or damage to property arising out of an accident involving a general aviation aircraft may be brought against the manufacturer of the aircraft or the manufacturer of any new component, system, subassembly, or other part of the aircraft, in its capacity as a manufacturer if the accident occurred—
  • (1) after the applicable limitation period beginning on—

    • (A) the date of delivery of the aircraft to its first purchaser or lessee, if delivered directly from the manufacturer; or

    • (B) the date of first delivery of the aircraft to a person engaged in the business of selling or leasing such aircraft; or

  • (2) with respect to any new component, system, subassembly, or other part which replaced another component, system, subassembly, or other part originally in, or which was added to, the aircraft, and which is alleged to have caused such death, injury, or damage, after the applicable limitation period beginning on the date of completion of the replacement or addition.
Click to expand...

 
I knew this would turn into a Cirrus bashing thread just by reading the title. I remember a couple years back a Cessna crashed and the families got millions and everyone was complaining how screwed up the justice system was. However if its a Cirrus that a dumb pilot cant fly, its Cirrus's fault.
 
contactground.9 said:
so was this bill shot down or later repealed? How did this happen if this law is in place?
Click to expand...
I think I posted too soon. I did some further research on it, apparently it only protects the manufacturer after the airplane/part/whatever is 18 years or older. So in this case, the SR-22 was new and therefore Cirrus was sueable.
 
Sad that people can't take responsibility for their own actions.. or know their limits. Read the report, i can't see how even 75% was Cirrus fault..
 
Fly_Unity said:
I knew this would turn into a Cirrus bashing thread just by reading the title. I remember a couple years back a Cessna crashed and the families got millions and everyone was complaining how screwed up the justice system was. However if its a Cirrus that a dumb pilot cant fly, its Cirrus's fault.
Click to expand...

I don't think there's anything wrong with the Cirrus; seems to be a fine plane, like a Cessna or Piper, etc, et al.

As Clint Eastwood said: "A man's got to know his limitations....."
 
Seriously? how is this cirrus' fault? people someone can't make a decision about their own limitations and decides to go fly in weather they shouldn't be, and the manufacturor is at fault?

it isn't even marketing, yes they did kind of bring it on themselves, but at the end of the day, it was the pilots decision to fly in weather he should not have, so i guess here you go.

if anything the friends family should have sued this guy for killing the passenger.
 
What worries me is that this lawsuit wasn't against Cirrus the manufacturer, rather Cirrus the trainer. They have now (prior to the award, but probably while the lawsuit was pending) shut down the UND training center, and have sourced the training to local training centers, such as the flight school that I work at. Now the training exposure is on us, and trust me, a 16 million dollar lawsuit against our school for some dumbasses actions would hurt one family owned business so hard that there would be nothing left sans the clothes that were worn to the court hearing. Better wear layers.

I want to know why drivers ed schools aren't sued out of existence when johnny teenager drives into a wall at 100 mph trying to see how fast his car can go after he gets his license (doing something illegal and stupid), but flight schools and instructors are when someone flies 100 feet over the ground over houses dodging clouds at night after he gets his license (doing something illegal and stupid)

Personal opinion here, If its night out and you get into clouds on a 'VFR license' CLIMB SO YOU WON'T HIT ANYTHING, (Max elevation figures on the sectional, thats what they are there for) then use your tools in your airplane get out of the situation. Not that I know from experience or anything;)
 
So now every CFI needs to have some kind of waiver, by which the student signs, stating that if the airplane gets into an accident and the student dies, that the family will not sue the instructor or flight school, etc.

Also added with that is higher instructor fees for the "What if" situation, if it should ever happen, an accident that is.

Why, why, why?
 
flyingmaniac said:
So now every CFI needs to have some kind of waiver, by which the student signs, stating that if the airplane gets into an accident and the student dies, that the family will not sue the instructor or flight school, etc.

Also added with that is higher instructor fees for the "What if" situation, if it should ever happen, an accident that is.

Why, why, why?
Click to expand...


Wont hold up, you can't waive the rights of others.
 
trafficinsight said:
Wont hold up, you can't waive the rights of others.
Click to expand...

So I guess we can sue the people who are suing the companies and schools for one reason or another. I'm pretty sure we could think of a hundred reasons to sue the unthoughtful crooks.

1. Mis-representing the good name of Cirrus Aircraft.
 
Fly_Unity said:
I knew this would turn into a Cirrus bashing thread just by reading the title. I remember a couple years back a Cessna crashed and the families got millions and everyone was complaining how screwed up the justice system was. However if its a Cirrus that a dumb pilot cant fly, its Cirrus's fault.
Click to expand...

I haven't seen anyone bashing the Cirrus plane here. I have seen bashing of the marketing, and the perception that Cirrus puts out that "even a caveman could do it". I would also say that Cirrus needs to direct a portion of their marketing budget toward their legal budget and hire some attorneys that know what they are doing.
 
WacoFan said:
I haven't seen anyone bashing the Cirrus plane here. I have seen bashing of the marketing, and the perception that Cirrus puts out that "even a caveman could do it". I would also say that Cirrus needs to direct a portion of their marketing budget toward their legal budget and hire some attorneys that know what they are doing.
Click to expand...

I'll bite.

Cirrus aircraft are junk. They are poorly constructed and I'll bet money that any given Cirrus won't last more than 15 years without some serious cash being dumped into keeping it airworthy. We have an 07 model with 600 some odd hours on it and you wouldn't believe how many parts and pieces have fallen or are falling off of the airplane.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top