Jury Declares that Plane Mfr Should Have Provided Training...

[Andara Bledin]

... but the decision is overturned on appeal and then that decision upheld by the MN Supreme Court.

Article at Manufacturing.net

In short, a man who had been a licensed pilot for 2 years bought a new plane, then crashed a month later, killing both him and his passenger. The families sued the plane manufacturer and the jury awarded for the plaintiffs. The decision was then overturned on appeal and that overturn was upheld at the state SC level.

It seems to me that if you plan to operate a device upon which your life will depend, it would be in your own best interests to pursue your own training and not blindly trust that there will be nothing sufficiently different that might endanger you and anyone else you happen to take with you. I am in complete agreement with the current decision.

The manufacturer of the plane made all of the relevant information available to the pilot and even included 2-days of training time as part of the purchase, although it's not stated whether the pilot made use of that time or not. At that point, it should be up the consumer to ensure his own safety; we don't need every manufacturer to have to worry that some idiot is going to do something stupid and bankrupt them.

^-.-^

[Greenday]

If the plane crash was the result of some mechanical issue due to the manufacturing of the plane, they'd be liable. But if someone crashes because they suck at flying, that's in no way the plane company's fault.

[Andara Bledin]

From what I gathered based on the article (which is slim on details), apparently there is a maneuver that could have been taken that is described in the plane's manual that could have potentially prevented the crash.

That assumption is mistaken, however.

Article at Flyingmag.com

So, it appears that the pilot took off in "marginal VFR [Visual Flight Rules] conditions," which was a foolish choice for someone only certified for VFR flight. The crash occurred after he entered instrument conditions, at which point he really should have turned back since he hadn't taken the time and effort necessary to be able to fly safely like that.

I still agree with the higher court's decision that it is not up to the manufacturer to ensure that the pilots actually have the certifications required to operate their planes; it's up to the pilots to see to their own safety.

His and his passenger's families, however, seem to think it's appropriate to punish the manufacturer because they did not specifically show him how to activate the autopilot and instead relied on the owners of their aircraft to show initiative in their own safety by, say,familiarizing themselves with their aircraft and being aware of their own limitations.

^-.-^

[TheHuckster]

As an aircraft buff, I know of the Cirrus SR22. It's one of the most modern and sophisticated GA aircraft, but even barring that, any aircraft that you're not familiar with requires training. It's not just a matter of knowing where the buttons are and how sensitive the controls are. Every aircraft performs differently and it's up to the pilot to understand how to maneuver it under extreme conditions, and that understanding only starts with the manual.

To say it's the manufacturer's responsibility is like declaring a car manufacturer is responsible for a car accident because the driver lost control after navigating a turn too fast. Saying, "Well, my Corvette would have made my turn so why couldn't my Ford Explorer?" doesn't cut it.

The performance attributes were written in the manual, just as rollover warnings are written in Ford Explorer manuals. Have we gotten to the point in litigation where now even written warnings won't suffice and we need to get a representative of the manufacturer to come and show the user how to use it correctly?!

EDIT: Sorry, this reply came after I posted the last thing...

So, it appears that the pilot took off in "marginal VFR [Visual Flight Rules] conditions," which was a foolish choice for someone only certified for VFR flight. The crash occurred after he entered instrument conditions, at which point he really should have turned back since he hadn't taken the time and effort necessary to be able to fly safely like that.

In that case, the pilot was not only negligent, he was a criminal. If you're flying IFR when you only have VFR training, you're flying illegally and not only risking your own life, but the lives of people on the ground and in the air. To use my car analogy again, this is now more like blaming Peterbuilt for an accident by a driver without an 18-wheeler license who took a turn too fast.

[Andara Bledin]

To say it's the manufacturer's responsibility is like declaring a car manufacturer is responsible for a car accident because the driver lost control after navigating a turn too fast.

Before I found the second article and rewrote the second half of my post, I used that exact same analogy. If it had been about a maneuver, it would be precisely like blaming an SUV manufacturer because you took a turn too fast because you're driving experience has only been in sports cars.

It's also worth noting that the pilot had 19 hours logged in that model plane. I'm curious if there are any pilots who could chime in with at what point they deem it advisable to familiarize themselves with the activation and use of the autopilot?

[EDIT TO ADD]

So, another article (should have read it earlier...) notes that the pilot actively crashed, nosing down into level ground. That tells me that he was way out of his depth and I'm honestly surprised that the lawsuit by the families even got off the ground. Technically, the passenger's family should be suing the pilot's family for the pilot's criminal action resulting in the passenger's death.

Article at DuluthNewsTribune.com

Based on that, I'm honestly baffled that there were any dissenting opinions. This really has nothing to do with consumer safety at all and everything to do with people being stupid and reckless.

^-.-^

[TheHuckster]

Autopilots are merely a feature of the aircraft, but are never intended to replace a pilot's ability to control the plane. If you're ever using the autopilot because you're unable to perform the maneuvers yourself, you are an unfit pilot. Autopilots might make for a smoother ride, and are useful when you are in level flight and simply going from point A to point B the same way cruise control in a car is useful to keep your vehicle in a constant speed, but you should never rely on it.

In fact, many skilled pilots prefer to handle the ups and downs of turbulent flight themselves without an autopilot. When you're being tossed like a feather miles above the ground, relying on an autopilot further gives you a terrible sense that you're not in control, and turning off the autopilot and grabbing the yoke gains you that sense of control.

[BlaqueKatt]

Autopilots are merely a feature of the aircraft, but are never intended to replace a pilot's ability to control the plane. If you're ever using the autopilot because you're unable to perform the maneuvers yourself, you are an unfit pilot.

unless you happen to be a commercial pilot, when autopilot is REQUIRED.

Airlines and regulators discourage or even prohibit pilots from turning off the autopilot and flying planes themselves, according to the FAA committee.

The situation is even worse on commuter flights, where pilots only manually operate the plane for 80 seconds out of a typical two-hour flight.