Glad to learn I'm not the only one uneasy with the outcome. It's natural for us glider pilots to object to a court decision that makes the glider operation solely liable. The court system doesn't always function logically, in particular in complex areas such as aviation. It's particularly frustrating when the NTSB appears to put the majority of the blame on the Baron pilot..

We don't have all the facts. But it seems the CAP also shares a substantial portion of the blame, whether because the airport authority required a spotter that they didn't use, or because landing aircraft always have the right of way (even over towing aircraft, AFAIK), or because one of the wing runner's big jobs is to look for approaching traffic before allowing the launch to begin. Nothing was said in the reports but could this have been a case where the towing operation thought they could get out before the Baron landed? I also don't recall seeing anything in the judgement or the NTSB report about the towing operation hearing the Baron's landing call. Did they not hear it or just ignore it. And did they miss seeing the Baron on final?

The Baron pilot appears to have overreacted, although I've seen very competent pilots be taken by surprise in similar situations. Still, the CAP created the situation the Baron pilot had to avoid.

Airports are no different than any other operation where the powers that be want to control everything despite common sense and the law. And it certainly sounds like there was no love lost between the authority and the glider operations. Yet I've launched from numerous airports with special rules we had to follow. Some benefited us (e.g., allowing operations from a taxiway) while others constrained us (as here). In every case, we've tried very hard to comply.

Where clubs have been involved, it's been our responsibility to communicate any special operating rules to our members and ensure their compliance, including modifying our operating procedures where necessary. In this case the local rules didn't conflict with good practice; they just enhanced it, except to the extent that knowing of the spotter might have tended to create a false sense of security among local pilots...which the Baron pilots were not.

I suspect the estates of the two other people killed in the crash did consider action against the pilot. Maybe there are other lawsuits winding their way through the system as we speak. I also assume the CAP (i.e., U.S. government) could now pursue the estate of the safety pilot--the CFI in the right seat--whose responsibility was alluded to in the NTSB report.

That the findings of the court in a civil action are inconsistent with other judicial or regulatory decisions isn't unique; e.g., the successful $33 million civil suit against O.J. Simpson after he was acquitted of criminal actions.

As for suing Beech because the Baron wasn't stall/spin-proof, good luck on that one. Frankly, I'm pretty cool on holding glider manufacturers liable if their aircraft will stall and spin.

I am, however, left wondering (in the absence of a detailed transcript) if the CAP/government were not well represented by counsel. There seem to be enough reasons to question the court's ultimate decision to wonder if the defendants' legal team(s) did their job properly. Any thoughts from the local folks on this?

Chip Bearden