Another GA lawsuite

http://www.ntsb.gov/NTSB/brief.asp?e...15X45423&key=1

NTSB Identification: NYC01FA040 . The docket is stored in the (offline)
NTSB Imaging System.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Sunday, November 26, 2000 in RIXFORD, PA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 11/14/01
Aircraft: Mooney M20K, registration: N252MW
Injuries: 3 Fatal.

The pilots family is suing the FAA for wrongful death. This report
clearly indicates the pilot was at fault. Inexperienced in IMC and flew
it into the ground. What am I missing here?

Kevin wrote in newsr2yb.253469$275.925372@attbi_s53:

NTSB Identification: NYC01FA040 . The docket is stored in the (offline)

The pilots family is suing the FAA for wrongful death. This report
clearly indicates the pilot was at fault. Inexperienced in IMC and flew
it into the ground. What am I missing here?

Probably the fact that the NTSB conclusions can not be admitted to court
for the lawsuit. So it's just a matter of what an attorney can convince
the jury of that *might* have happened. Doesn't have to prove that his
scenario DID happen, just that it might have.

-----------------------------------------------
James M. Knox
TriSoft ph 512-385-0316
1109-A Shady Lane fax 512-366-4331
Austin, Tx 78721
-----------------------------------------------

James M. Knox wrote:
....

Probably the fact that the NTSB conclusions can not be admitted to court
for the lawsuit. ...

Does this mean, that to produce a complete defense, the FAA would have
to, in effect, re-create the NTSB investigation for the court???
Calling in the mechanical inspectors, controllers, ground witnesses,
etc., all over again???

Icebound wrote:

Does this mean, that to produce a complete defense, the FAA would have
to, in effect, re-create the NTSB investigation for the court???
Calling in the mechanical inspectors, controllers, ground witnesses,
etc., all over again???

Yep. And the judge might rule some of that testimony inadmissible.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

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


Icebound wrote:

Does this mean, that to produce a complete defense, the FAA would have
to, in effect, re-create the NTSB investigation for the court???
Calling in the mechanical inspectors, controllers, ground witnesses,
etc., all over again???

Yep. And the judge might rule some of that testimony inadmissible.

How so, and what testimony do you foresee as inadmissible?


George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they
really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy
lifting".

Larry Smith wrote:

How so, and what testimony do you foresee as inadmissible?

For example, there was a fairly famous suit against Piper. IFRC, Wouk was the
plaintiff's attorney. The pilot lost it somehow during an instrument approach.
The plane caught fire and the occupants who survived the crash (if any) burned
to death. Wouk argued that there was some sort of fuel problem that caused an
engine fire that caused the crash. The evidence used by the NTSB to determine
that the fire occurred *after* the crash was deemed inadmissible because it
was produced by Lycoming investigators who were "prejudiced".

The same judge ruled that a fictional videotape of all the people frying before
the crash was rule admissible, however. You can guess where *I* think the
prejudice lay in that case.

George Patterson
Some people think they hear a call to the priesthood when what they really
hear is a tiny voice whispering "It's indoor work with no heavy lifting".

"Icebound" wrote in message
le.rogers.com...
James M. Knox wrote:
...

Probably the fact that the NTSB conclusions can not be admitted to court
for the lawsuit. ...

Does this mean, that to produce a complete defense, the FAA would have
to, in effect, re-create the NTSB investigation for the court???
Calling in the mechanical inspectors, controllers, ground witnesses,
etc., all over again???

A highway patrolman's motor vehicle accident report is not admissible in
court. Except insofar as he is a witness, his report is mostly a document
containing hearsay. Are you suggesting that hearsay be admitted in court?

"Larry Smith" wrote in message
...
A highway patrolman's motor vehicle accident report is not admissible in
court. Except insofar as he is a witness, his report is mostly a
document
containing hearsay. Are you suggesting that hearsay be admitted in
court?


A rigorous NTSB investigation is very different from a highway patrolman's
report.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

"Larry Smith" wrote in message
...
A highway patrolman's motor vehicle accident report is not admissible in
court. Except insofar as he is a witness, his report is mostly a
document
containing hearsay. Are you suggesting that hearsay be admitted in
court?


A rigorous NTSB investigation is very different from a highway patrolman's
report.

Still not admissible because it is almost all hearsay.

"Peter Gottlieb" wrote in message
et...

"Larry Smith" wrote in message
...
A highway patrolman's motor vehicle accident report is not
admissible in
court. Except insofar as he is a witness, his report is mostly a
document
containing hearsay. Are you suggesting that hearsay be admitted
in
court?

A rigorous NTSB investigation is very different from a highway
patrolman's
report.

I can't agree they're rigorous at all, where it involves GA crashes
and occupants who are not famous or important. I've observed the
on-scene work in two fatal cases, and in one case I had dinner at a
Holiday Inn with the investigators -- I was a not-too-useful witness,
and we we all from out of town. They need only probable cause and can
call it they see it from the basic facts with a few hours work at the
site and in talking to various people, pending only toxicology
results. Here, two investigators arriving at 1:00PM, talked to a
dozen people, examined wreckage, and tentative conclusion by dinner
time. Also, they weren't NTSB people, but FAA FSDO working under
delegation.

They seemed very good at what they do, but I don't think you'd want
them as defense witnesses. Better to hire experts and investigators to
spend the time to do a thorough job, arriving at a conclusion from
other than first impression.

Fred F.