UPS MD-11 crash at SDF

15th victim now. Passed away Christmas Day.


I’d have to look it up. By the law/rules, is it only considered attributed to the crash if the death is within 30 days? I thought there was some official rule and for some reason 30 days sticks in my mind.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
15th victim now. Passed away Christmas Day.


I’d have to look it up. By the law/rules, is it only considered attributed to the crash if the death is within 30 days? I thought there was some official rule and for some reason 30 days sticks in my mind.
Click to expand...
Not sure but I know that they theoretically could have upgraded Hinkley to murder charges decades after shooting James Brady and I think his COD was gunshot wound or complications. If this victim has been continuously hospitalized since that day I wouldn't think there was a question.
 
WacoFan said:
Not sure but I know that they theoretically could have upgraded Hinkley to murder charges decades after shooting James Brady and I think his COD was gunshot wound or complications. If this victim has been continuously hospitalized since that day I wouldn't think there was a question.
Click to expand...



Found it. It’s an actual NTSB definition.

Section 830.2

Fatal injury means any injury which results in death within 30 days of the accident.
 
NovemberEcho said:
Does that mean if you die 31 days later your family can’t sue?
Click to expand...

You know, I’d be curious to hear the legal ramifications. Imagine this guy’s family being told that legally speaking, this isn’t an accident fatality. I’d be POed. I can understand having some sort of statute of limitations on accident related deaths, but 30 days seems too soon especially when burn injuries are involved.

Ugh. Ugly situation all around :(
 
830 is being used as general definition.
The classification determines possible changes in structure, procedures, training
For this accident, it's irrelevant.

For any civil litigation, it will be defined by different standards, especially since it is absolutely obvious that the death was cause by the events of the MD11 crash.
A jury will not consider 830 in reference to damages.
 
DropTank said:
830 is being used as general definition.
The classification determines possible changes in structure, procedures, training
For this accident, it's irrelevant.

For any civil litigation, it will be defined by different standards, especially since it is absolutely obvious that the death was cause by the events of the MD11 crash.
A jury will not consider 830 in reference to damages.
Click to expand...
Glad you mentioned the civil aspect vs the criminal aspect (although without knowledge of the particulars I'd assume criminal charges could be brought eventually). If the family of this or any other victim files a civil lawsuit they'll have to convince a jury that whoever they're suing caused their loss, and that might include the families of the pilots suing UPS. The benchmark gold standard of aircraft accident investigation (NTSB) is working on it but it takes a long time to get it right and I don't think they want to make any statement without some sort of evidence to back it up. Oddly enough when the other DC-10 that lost an engine on take-off and crashed someone from the NTSB offered a bit of speculation as a statement as the investigation had barely gotten started and it was wrong, given that history I'm pretty sure they're going to be very tight lipped until they know what, when, why and who.
 
Cherokee_Cruiser said:
Found it. It’s an actual NTSB definition.

Section 830.2

Fatal injury means any injury which results in death within 30 days of the accident.
Click to expand...
That’s only for NTSB reporting/recording purposes. Has no legal standing*.



[*Neither do I, so my opinion is worth exactly what you paid me.]
 
NovemberEcho said:
Does that mean if you die 31 days later your family can’t sue?
Click to expand...

As DropTank said above and quoted below, this is only for the purposes of defining as an accident with fatal injuries, serious injuries, minor injuries, etc.

DropTank said:
830 is being used as general definition.
The classification determines possible changes in structure, procedures, training
For this accident, it's irrelevant.

For any civil litigation, it will be defined by different standards, especially since it is absolutely obvious that the death was cause by the events of the MD11 crash.
A jury will not consider 830 in reference to damages.
Click to expand...
 
knot4u said:
Glad you mentioned the civil aspect vs the criminal aspect (although without knowledge of the particulars I'd assume criminal charges could be brought eventually). If the family of this or any other victim files a civil lawsuit they'll have to convince a jury that whoever they're suing caused their loss, and that might include the families of the pilots suing UPS. The benchmark gold standard of aircraft accident investigation (NTSB) is working on it but it takes a long time to get it right and I don't think they want to make any statement without some sort of evidence to back it up. Oddly enough when the other DC-10 that lost an engine on take-off and crashed someone from the NTSB offered a bit of speculation as a statement as the investigation had barely gotten started and it was wrong, given that history I'm pretty sure they're going to be very tight lipped until they know what, when, why and who.
Click to expand...

Yeah, Elwood Driver screwed that up by holding up the pin for all to see as some kind of smoking gun, and the media running with it. DC-10 earned a rep from that, that it never recovered from. Hence why raw evidence shouldn’t be discussed openly, when no correlation as to where it fits in the overall puzzle, has even been remotely established.

And yes, 830 definitions for record keeping purposes and stats only, not for legal uses.
 
You know, even for official record keeping purposes, I still think the guy who died from his burn injuries should count as a UPS crash fatality. He’d be alive if it wasn’t for his burns and injuries from the crash. And he was in the hospital the entire time. Sure, legality wise the family can sue, get money, etc.

But there’s something to say about the official count of death for the accident versus not.
 
Ran across a parked MD tonight (er, last night, whatever) in SJU. It was powered up and there were ladders all over the place, so El Capitan ventured over and button-holed a line mechanic. Said line mechanic was just doing routine mx, but believed that they'd be back flying in the May/June area. (He also said that there was not as yet any directive on how to comply with the AD, so). Worth what you paid for it, but interesting.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Ran across a parked MD tonight (er, last night, whatever) in SJU. It was powered up and there were ladders all over the place, so El Capitan ventured over and button-holed a line mechanic. Said line mechanic was just doing routine mx, but believed that they'd be back flying in the May/June area. (He also said that there was not as yet any directive on how to comply with the AD, so). Worth what you paid for it, but interesting.
Click to expand...

Got to run the plane every X days or the return to service checks get more difficult. Lessons learned from the Neo/PW groundings.
 
Boris Badenov said:
Ran across a parked MD tonight (er, last night, whatever) in SJU. It was powered up and there were ladders all over the place, so El Capitan ventured over and button-holed a line mechanic. Said line mechanic was just doing routine mx, but believed that they'd be back flying in the May/June area. (He also said that there was not as yet any directive on how to comply with the AD, so). Worth what you paid for it, but interesting.
Click to expand...

CEO: "The MD-11's have to be back online May/June or I don't get my BONUS!"
Mechanic: "WAT"
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top