View Single Post
  #4  
Old August 11th 17, 03:54 PM posted to rec.aviation.soaring
BobW
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 504
Default Judge Awards $11.9 Million in Suit Against Civil Air Patrol

One has to sign up to read the article cited in the link above. I found
this full text article about this accident. Be careful out there!


On Aug. 3, Batten awarded $11.9 million to Karen J.
Curtis, the widow of Peachtree City physician Jeffrey Van Curtis, and to
her late husband's estate.

In a 41-page order, Batten held members of the U.S. Civil Air Patrol
solely responsible for the crash that killed the Beechcraft Baron's
occupants, including Curtis—a pilot and a co-owner of the aircraft who
was sitting in the rear passenger seat when it crashed. Batten determined
that the Baron's pilot, Michael Rossetti, crashed while trying to abort a
landing to avoid a Civil Air Patrol aircraft taking off—with a glider in
tow—on an intersecting runway. Rossetti and another passenger, Willy
Lutz, were both killed instantly. Pulled from the burning wreckage,
Curtis died at the hospital several hours later.

The Civil Air Patrol is a U.S. Air Force auxiliary that conducts
search-and-rescue missions and other emergency support. It also offers
aerospace education and sponsors youth cadet programs. When the Baron
crashed, Civil Air Patrol members were performing glider flights for
youth cadets.

In his order, Batten said he laid responsibility for the crash squarely
on Air Patrol pilots who the judge said disregarded federal aviation
regulations assigning the right-of-way to aircraft approaching or
executing a landing. The judge also said Air Patrol pilots, all of them
experienced, ignored long-standing local rules governing glider
operations at the Lagrange-Callaway airport where the crash occurred.

"What makes this case so tragic is that it was such a needless accident.
It was really a case of clear negligence by the government pilots,"
Partin said. "Had they just followed the rules at the local airport this
accident would never have happened. Had they just had a spotter as
required by local airport rules to inform them of incoming air traffic,
there never would never have been an imminent collision.

"What was more frustrating was that the Civil Air Patrol pilots knew
about rules, discussed whether they should abide by rules, and decided
the rules didn't apply to them."

The government's lead counsel, DOJ attorney Eric Johnson, did not respond
to voice mail and email messages. A Justice Department spokesman in
Washington would not comment on the case or say whether the government
intends to appeal. Before the trial, government lawyers stipulated that
the Air Patrol pilots were aware of—but did not follow—the
Lagrange-Callaway airport's rules prohibiting glider takeoffs when an
aircraft is approaching to land and requiring them to employ a spotter to
warn of possible air traffic at the airport, which has no air traffic
control tower. They also failed to file a formal notice to other airmen
that they intended to conduct glider takeoffs and landings. But
government lawyers argued that the rules did not apply to Civil Air
Patrol flights, according to Batten's order.

The government also presented experts claiming that the Baron could have
landed and still avoided any collision, as the Air Patrol aircraft was
able to stop just short of the intersection of the two runways. But
Batten held that the Civil Air Patrol's imminent takeoff precipitated the
Baron's crash.

Witnesses testified that, as the Civil Air Patrol aircraft was
approaching, the intersection with the runway on which the Baron was
landing, the Baron could be heard accelerating to full power just seconds
before it would have touched down. "The most—if not the only—logical
conclusion is that Rossetti saw the [Civil Air Patrol] aircraft and made
an attempt to avoid a collision," the judge said. "This maneuver by
Rossetti, while the Baron was configured for landing, ultimately led the
Baron to pitch up sharply, stall, roll over, and then crash."

"Moreover," the judge said, "Rossetti did not have the luxuries of time
and detachment that the [government's] expert witnesses enjoyed when
estimating whether a collision would have occurred. Any attempt after the
fact to point a finger at Rossetti is unfounded."'

Batten also dismissed the government's contention that there was
insufficient evidence to show that Curtis had suffered any emotional
distress prior to the crash. Curtis was an experienced pilot, the judge
said. "Such a person would understand that something was terribly wrong
during the landing approach when the plane increased power and pulled up
sharply and to the left. Such a person would also understand what was
happening in the aircraft when it stalled and would understand the near
certainty of a crash at that time. Sadly, such a person would know that
he was about to be severely injured or killed. In those few seconds,
Curtis would have gone from hopeful that a collision had been avoided to
pure dread as the aircraft stalled and approached the ground."


I remember when this happened.

Geez...assuming the article is 100% factually accurate (BIG assumption), and
commenting upon *only* the apparent circumstances of the situation (and not on
any apparent second-guessing of piloting skills involved), I wondered then -
and now - if any of the ground-based participants had any little voices in
their heads whispering about Murphy prior to deciding to push out onto the
runway and launch...

"It's all good...what could *possibly* go wrong?"

Indeed...be careful out there!

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com