On Thursday, August 10, 2017 at 11:24:12 PM UTC-4, Ernst wrote:
Frivolous.

http://www.dailyreportonline.com/id=...20170710230651

Let's go fishing.

Ernst

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!
Uli
'AS'

_______________
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."