How about the more modern day crashes ?

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

We don't want a 'no blame' culture, and what's been spoken about isn't a no blame culture. the healthcare industry is a fairly good example of a no blame culture, where no-one is held accountable for mistakes, from the people on the floor to the executives. This is why healthcare kills more people than aviation through preventable errors.
What we currently aim for with aviation safety management is a 'just culture' where, if blame is appropriate, it is apportioned, and to the right people. If blame is not appropriate, then the system is responsible and corrected.

The differences between 'no-blame' and 'just' cultures are subtle but have large impacts.
 
pbehn said:
Guys, in an airplane incident or crash being investigated to what extent does no blame culture apply. If the pilot or other does something wrong but there are reasons for him/her doing it wrong what happens?
Click to expand...

We call it "Just Culture & Fair Blame" We look into everything including our own policies and procedures, and try and determine if there were sufficiebt barriers in place. Sometimes you find that the pilot had followed our procedures to a T, but that there was a gap.
 
Yeah, you'll be using a process something like this for decision-making regarding where accountability lies:


It's only really the two on the left where complete blame lies with the individual, and the one on the right where it is deemed 'blameless'. Everything else is a sliding scale, with joint responsibility between the system and the individual.
 
Everything on the right half of that diagram is "grey area" where in the real world official penalty may or may not occur, but plaintiffs attorneys with malleable juries in hand will find the mining profitable. There's a case I read about where a company was "taken to the cleaners" because the SIC who was PF at the time had failed ONE checkride at some point in her primary flight training history and was thus "proven" eternally incompetent and the company negligent in hiring her.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Well, that's the American legal system for ya....
That's not an issue with company investigation procedures, that's some overzealous attorneys, and a trial by jury where the juror's don't know what they're doing.
 
Here's one of the stranger one's I heard of

MIA92FA051

The co-pilot's seat was reclined to act like a bed, neither were wearing shoulder harnesses, and they were partially clothed. Since there was no indication of ripping to zippers and belts, it's likely this was voluntary and they were trying to have sex in flight. The plane went out of control either due to nobody flying the plane, or them being unable to do so in the positions they were in.

They snapped the wings off.
 
Zipper730 said:
The plane went out of control either due to nobody flying the plane, or them being unable to do so in the positions they were in.
They snapped the wings off.
Click to expand...

That is a Turbo Seneca, which is essentially a Cherokee 6 with two engines and retractable landing gear. The Cherokee 6 wing was pointed out to us by our Airframes instructor as the most egregious example of the bare minimum acceptable rivet sizing and spacing permissible under Part 23 airworthiness standards. No extra margin built in. He looked straight at me (the only pilot in the class), and said "Think twice about this the next time you're tempted to fly one of these POS's or its derivatives."
I can imagine things getting hot and heavy in the right seat with the autopilot engaged when somebody's exuberant toe catches the right side mixture knob and pulls it to idle cutoff.
An almost identical accident occurred in the winter of 1990 over Lake Winnipesaukee in NH, same type aircraft, same scenario, but the wreckage went through the ice into deep water. Bit of a scandal, as the two individuals involved were married/engaged to other employees of the company.
 
X XBe02Drvr

So, the crew bear primary responsibility for the crash, but the plane was flimsy, and the break-up might not have happened with an aircraft that was more structurally sound?

Out of curiosity, which design had the best structure?
 
There was a case in the 70's where a pilot flying a Piper over the desert got lost and, running low on fuel, finally spotted a gas station. He landed on the road, pulled into the gas station, and asked if he could fuel up. The station attendant said "Sure." Now, you can see many opportunities for culpability there, landing on a road, fueling up with non-Avgas, but the lawsuit that occurred had nothing to do with those aspects.

A car was driving down the road and the driver looked over, saw the airplane, slowed up to rubberneck, and was hit from behind by a car that failed to slow down. The driver of the car that rear ended the rubbernecker had no insurance. So the lawyer's answer was to sue Piper, the builder of the airplane. The case eventually was thrown out of court but Piper still had to go to spend money defending against that absurdity.

In another famous case in that same time frame someone was towing a glider off an airport in Ohio using a Piper Super Cub and an employee of the airport decided he did not like that idea and parked a van on the runway to block the takeoff. The Super Cub pilot was unaware of the van on the runway, since he did not have a clear view ahead, hit the van. The jury found that rather than the airport, Piper was negligent for building an airplane where you could not see out of the front on takeoff. Piper had to explain that Ohio could not remove the aircraft's Federally issued airworthiness certification, regardless of the jury's opinion.

Both of these cases were about looking for Deep Pockets.
 
MIflyer said:
looking for Deep Pockets.
Click to expand...
Aren't they all!!!! One of my best friends was hit head-on by a drunk driver who had crossed 4 lanes and a divider strip to end up driving in the wrong direction. The drunk's lawyer SUED!! my friend saying he was 50% responsible for the accident. Rational - If my friend had not been driving on the road the accident would never have happened - How's that for convoluted logic?
 
I believe it was Progressive Insurance that made that same claim about one of THEIR customers. Someone was going 90 in a 45 zone and hit their customer. They claimed it was some percentage their customer's fault, because the speeder had no insurance and they would have to foot the whole bill. So she was 30% culpable just for being there.

Back in September 2019 an elderly lady strayed off the road and took out my concrete masonry mail box. A county employee stopped by and pointed out that the mailbox was on county property - it had to be because the county had put in a sidewalk and eliminated the ability to put the mailboxes back far enough off the road so to allow the mailman to pull over. And since the mailbox was on county property, it had to be of breakaway construction. He said a friend of his had his concrete mailbox taken down by an errant driver - who then sued him for the damage to his car, saying his mailbox was not of breakaway construction - and won the lawsuit.

And no one, neither my insurance or the driver's, paid me even a dime for the destruction of my custom concrete masonry mailbox.
 
MIflyer said:
In another famous case in that same time frame someone was towing a glider off an airport in Ohio using a Piper Super Cub and an employee of the airport decided he did not like that idea and parked a van on the runway to block the takeoff.
Click to expand...
And now for THE REST of the story.
I read a number of articles about that case. This stunt was part of an attempt to shoot video for a TV commercial and involved a Super Cub that had been illegally modified by an unauthorized individual to allow the pilot to video a glider under tow, while flying the plane facinging backward and looking through a mirror. They had been refused access by the airport owner who was aghast after one look at the cub. The video producer ordered his people to get it done by whatever means, so they sneaked in just before daybreak and set up to shoot their footage at sunrise. As they were getting ready, they were confronted by airport personnel and ordered off the property, and refused, threatening violence. So the van was parked blocking the runway to prevent takeoff and the cub and glider crashed into it.
Somehow an unscrupulous lawyer managed to convince an ignorant jury that Piper Aircraft was at fault because the cub was a tail dragger, and that tail draggers are by definition unairworthy, as they don't conform to the latest standards of air safety. This created a precedent and a cascade of copycats, and nearly put Piper and Cessna (C180, C185, & Agwagon) out of business. And Ohio discovering it couldn't revoke an airworthiness certificate.
Ralph Nader on steroids! I actually met that lawyer once, but didn't know at the time who he was. Good thing, as I'd probably be behind bars now if I had.
Cheers,
Wes
 
Last edited:
Well, it was still the idiot who parked the van on the runway that cause the mishap.

But since they were directed not to be there, so they were trespassing and therefore were committing a criminal act, and while that does not eliminate the possibility of a civil lawsuit it does make it harder. More than one person has shot a burglar and then lost their home when the burglar sued them.
 
MIflyer said:
Well, it was still the idiot who parked the van on the runway that cause the mishap.
Click to expand...
IMHO it was the plaintiff in the case, the video producer that directed the entire fiasco, and was owner/pilot/illegal modifier of the cub, and who wound up a quadriplegic, who was at fault. According to witnesses, the cub was barely controllable on tow, and was an accident in the making, van or no van. The pilot had no tail dragger experience, no glider tug experience, and had modified the cub himself, despite no training or experience in aircraft mechanic work, and little understanding of weight and balance. He hadn't even passed a private pilot checkride.
Egotis maximus disasterus.
Cheers,
Wes
 
MIflyer said:
More than one person has shot a burglar and then lost their home when the burglar sued them.
Click to expand...
Our Tort system allows anyone to sue for anything but most cases revolve on a tricky precept: Reasonable"
Homeowners must take reasonable measures to ensure the safety of those who come on their property. This includes ensuring sidewalks and driveways are free of ice during the winter and making sure trip hazards are addressed as needed.

This duty of care extends to those invited onto your property for a specific purpose. This can include a plumber who comes into your home to fix a leak, landscapers taking care of your yard, and contractors performing work in or around your home. This also includes guests you may invite to your home for dinner, neighbors invited to a backyard cookout, and friends your children invite home after school. The homeowner has a duty to exercise reasonable care to ensure that the above are adequately protected from known dangers.

Trespassers, however, do not have a right to be on the homeowner's property. In most cases, the homeowner has no obligation to protect the trespasser from dangers. There are some exceptions, however, in which the homeowner may be responsible for the safety of a trespasser. A homeowner cannot set up booby traps designed to injure trespassers. Any conduct designed to willfully injure trespassers is not excused, and the burglar may sue for personal injuries that result. Home Alone may succeed as a comedy, but the bandits would likely have grounds to sue for the injuries they sustained.

As to deadly force, homeowners do have the right to use deadly force to defend their lives in most states.
The deadly force test in many states can rest on whether you could have escaped from the confrontation and not used the force. Thus many states enacted the so called "stand-your-ground" laws which hold that one is not required to escape in all situations. That being said, you may never use deadly force just to protect personal property. Unless you have reasonable cause to believe your life is in danger (the kicker here is Judges/Juries can, after the fact, decide the "reasonableness" of your actions), any injuries or fatalities you cause a trespasser intentionally may then result in a successful suit against you for injuries suffered by the trespasser.
 

A good chart - better in many ways than the one from our induction process that I used for the ten plus years though ours included the sanctions which I felt needed to be included in the induction so that there was no excuse for not knowing the process and outcomes. We had a couple of cases where a pilot knowingly violated procedures in order to make up time or to try and get home before forecast weather. Those I treated as training errors and used one in particular as a training exercise. The pilot could easily have got away with it as it was on a charter at a remote airstrip but he was smart enough to realize that others may make the same error with worse consequences so reported himself. I had to give him a written warning to satisfy the regulator but fought that for nearly a year as it is essential to keep the reports coming in with the knowledge there is no penalty for an honest mistake and you are making things safer for everyone by admitting you are human. I used to add if you report it there will be far less consequences but if you fail to report it you will get punished twice, once for the error and secondly for failing to report.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

S
Prop ID Russian modern
Replies
0
Views
505
Skyboy
S
J
Request for assistance: How to interpret an RAF Accident Card (MFC77)?
2
Replies
24
Views
1K
AL90
A
S
Plane crashes, Italy, Lago di Bolsena
Replies
8
Views
1K
Snautzer01
crashes in Tasmania ?
Replies
9
Views
1K
Kiwiwreckdiver
I
Crashes and ammunition
Replies
6
Views
979
Maxrobot1
Menu
Log in
Register