The Carnahan crash was caused by the pilot's inability to manage
multiple failures if I remember correctly. Both vacuum pumps failed (one
was known before takeoff wasn't it?) and the pilot failed to recognize
that the vacuum gyros were bogus. Sure the jury found for the plaintiff,
but there was a lot of public emotion in that case and damn few facts.
If it had been a 135 ride it probably wouldn't have left the ground, but
since Carnahan's kid was flying it part 91 he was allowed to make stupid
decisions.

I'd be hesitant to cite the Carnahan case as anything except an example
of a runaway jury.


-----Original Message-----
From: Juan Jimenez ]
Posted At: Friday, July 21, 2006 17:41
Posted To: rec.aviation.owning
Conversation: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?
Subject: non TSO AI for co-pilot legal?


"Mark Hansen" wrote in message
...

The FAR's may not say anything but your insurance policy might have
something to say about it if you're in an accident and file a
claim.

Are you saying that the insurance company is going to make up their
own rules for determining whether or not an aircraft is airworthy?

Maybe not, but a jury might, if the TSO'd AI hacks up a hairball and
even
with the backup there's an accident. Remember the Carnahan crash?



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com