plane crashed on takeoff attempt after emergency landing

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Gary Drescher" wrote in

You'd better read yours carefully. AFAIK, standard auto policies don't
cover losses incurred during the commission of a serious crime.

Same with aviation policies, and the crime doesn't have to be serious. My
AOPA/AIG policy, for instance, doesn't cover any damage that arises while
the plane is used with my knowledge and consent for any unlawful purpose.

Yeah. I just wanted to make some distinction there. I don't know exactly
what level of crime loses your claim. You meant, of course, that your
"knowledge and consent" was given only for the lawful use of the plane.
You're still SOL if there's a loss while the person who had your consent
uses it in the commission of a crime.

Actually, the wording seems ambiguous in that regard. It says there's no
coverage when the plane is "operated with your knowledge and consent for...
an unlawful purpose". I think that's most naturally read to mean that the
unlawful purpose has to be with my knowledge and consent. But it could be
argued that it just means that the plane is operated with my knowledge and
consent, and that the plane was operated for an unlawful purpose.

--Gary

kontiki wrote:

Toks Desalu wrote:


Comments?


A safe pilot would have walked down the takeoff route carefully
measuring the distance and the side to side clearances. Both the
emergency landing and the collision on takeoff were preventable.

My comment is only to seriously question the judgement of the pilot.


Right. He broke the Basic Rule of Flying: Don't Hit Anything.

"kontiki" wrote in message
...
Jay Honeck wrote:

I feel sorry for the guy, but, man, there's really no excuse for what
he did.

True enough. At the very least he should have sought the opinion of
an experienced pilot familiar with the 210 as to the feasability
and safety of such a take off.

As a relatively low time pilot he probably should have paid an experienced
commercial pilot to fly it out to the nearest airport instead of
risking his families safety like that.

What indication is there that he's a low time pilot? It's possible, but
according to the FAA database he's had an instrument rating for at least ten
years.

--Gary

"Matt Whiting" wrote in message
...
kontiki wrote:
My point was that he was obviously incapable of making a proper judgement
about that so perhaps someone more experienced would have unsisted on
clearing out all the vehicles before attempting the take off, I certainly
would have.

My point is that asking a more experienced pilot for advice wasn't
required as the advice he needed had nothing to do with flying and had
more to do with simply having a brain. My guess most of the bystanders
could have told him that he should have the vehicles moved.

In fact, they say they did try to tell him--they waved for him to wait when
they saw him start the engine.

--Gary

Toks Desalu wrote:

http://www.wafb.com/Global/story.asp?S=4038264

I found this link in alt.binaries.multimedia.aviation. I thought you guys
should see this. After seeing this clip, I wonder why the pilot would begin
a takeoff rollout with all the vehicles on the side of road. The risk factor
would cut down enormously if you ask those vehicles to move away.

I saw something like this at a recent AOPA seminar. A pilot made a successful
off airport landing due to excessive air in the fuel tanks. They obtained fuel
from a nearby private field, put some in their C-150 and the two of them took
off. Because their off airport landing had attracted some attention, there was
video shot of the take off. The plane took off, but the roadway was far too
short for a C-150 on a summer day and two people aboard to clear the tree
obstacles at the end of the "runway." Neither was badly hurt but the airplane
was destroyed.

"Gary Drescher" wrote in
Yeah. I just wanted to make some distinction there. I don't know
exactly what level of crime loses your claim. You meant, of course, that
your "knowledge and consent" was given only for the lawful use of the
plane. You're still SOL if there's a loss while the person who had your
consent uses it in the commission of a crime.

Actually, the wording seems ambiguous in that regard. It says there's no
coverage when the plane is "operated with your knowledge and consent
for... an unlawful purpose". I think that's most naturally read to mean
that the unlawful purpose has to be with my knowledge and consent. But it
could be argued that it just means that the plane is operated with my
knowledge and consent, and that the plane was operated for an unlawful
purpose.

In fact, the latter is true for motor vehicles, maybe bicycles too. So it
probably applies to planes, boats, ATVs, etc. If you loan your vehicle to
someone and, with or without your knowledge, it's involved in certain types
of crime, your insurer won't willingly pay. And, I suspect, the test of the
definition of "crime" becomes looser with the enormity of the claim. I know
of one case where a body shop owner wasn't paid for loss of property when a
loaner vehicle was involved in an accident that resulted in criminal
negligence charges against the driver. I don't know if there was any
liability claim paid out by his insurer or if they subsequently sued him for
it. Insurers, obviously, have plenty of motivation to aggressively deny any
claim that their policy gives them a chance to litigate. And, in my
experience, they do.

A few years ago, I was walking down a quiet residential street in downtown
Toronto when I saw an SUV with major damage to the front pull up at an
intersection next to me. It had obviously just been involved in a major
shunt and was barely drivable. The fender was pressing so hard against the
tire that it could barely maneuver and smoke from the friction billowed from
the front when it moved. I phoned the police and gave a description of the
vehicle and driver (a young Asian male). The investigating officer called
me a week later and told me that they were pretty sure that they knew who
the driver was (and there was an accident and injury involved) but the kid's
mother said she was driving. Why? Who knows? But, if I testified, I
couldn't positively identify the driver (it was dark) but if I was sure that
it was a young man, and not an old lady, which I was, then the prosecutor
wouldn't proceed with charges. And that was the end of it. No charges,
insurance pays. Another cop told me that it's remarkably easy to get away
with a hit and run if nobody can positively ID the driver and the owner
claims that he loaned the vehicle to someone but doesn't know where they
live and hasn't seen them since.

Anyway, back to the idiot who's the topic of the thread, he's double ****ed.
I can't imagine explaining this one to the wife. How long was it after the
landing that he attempted to take off? Traumatic experiences, like an
emergency landing, tend to screw up people's ability to think for a period
afterward. I once saw a new pilot park on a restricted air ambulance ramp
next to the flight school hangar. I'd just landed myself and the conditions
were really challenging. I told him he should move it and he said that he'd
just had a really bad landing and was a bit pumped up and parked in the
wrong place by mistake. I laughed and told him I'd almost done exactly the
same thing when I was a student; and helped him push the plane next door.
I'm not making any excuses for this moron, but I suspect that his, already
questionable, judgment abilities were further diminished by the preceding
screw-up.

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
How long was it after the landing that he attempted to take off?
Traumatic experiences, like an emergency landing, tend to screw up
people's ability to think for a period afterward.

The emergency landing was on Wednesday, and the attempted takeoff was
Thursday afternoon.

--Gary

kontiki wrote:

I feel sorry for the guy, but, man, there's really no excuse for what
he did.

I don't feel sorry. That was gross incompetence, poor judgement and
downright stupidity. The idiot likely contributed to raising our
insurance premiums.

Ron Lee

kontiki wrote:

My point was that he was obviously incapable of making a proper judgement
about that so perhaps someone more experienced would have unsisted on
clearing out all the vehicles before attempting the take off, I certainly
would have.

How many brain cells are needed to ensure that your take-off path is
clear of obstructions?

Ron Lee

"Ron Lee" wrote

How many brain cells are needed to ensure that your take-off path is
clear of obstructions?

One more than you need to keep from running out of gas. Does that answer
you question?

The person in this incident obviously had a couple fewer g
--
Jim in NC