John Galban wrote:

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message ...

I know of one case in which the company refused to pay out because the pilot
descended below minimums during an IFR approach. Their argument was that, if
he had followed the regs, he wouldn't have crashed. This case is sometimes
mentioned in Wings seminars sponsored by the Allentown FSDO. It was still under
litigation when I heard of it in the late 90s.


George,

Do you know the company's basis for denying the claim?

Yes. I stated it, but I will rephrase it. The pilot was attempting an instrument
approach. He went well below the MAP and impacted terrain. The company refused
to pay out, arguing that the accident would not have happened if the pilot had
performed a missed approach. The accident aircraft was a turbine, so the amount
of the claim was considerable.

Since the subject of the session was the "latest changes to the FARs", I believe
that was in 1997. The case was still in litigation then. Should be settled by
now.

Now you have me curious. I'll give the FSDO a call Monday and see if they know
what happened there.

George Patterson
A man who carries a cat by the tail learns something that cannot
be learned any other way. Samuel Clemens