plane crashed on takeoff attempt after emergency landing

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message

Why? If the guy has insurance, he's covered. Same as if you wreck your
(insured) car while driving drunk, without a license, doing the nasty with
under-age prostitutes, taking pot shots out the window with your illegal
machine gun, and transporting a trunk full of mary-jane..

You'd have a heck of a time getting the *next* policy underwritten, but
your current policy is in effect...

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

moo

"Happy Dog" wrote in message
...
"Kyle Boatright" wrote in message

Why? If the guy has insurance, he's covered. Same as if you wreck your
(insured) car while driving drunk, without a license, doing the nasty
with under-age prostitutes, taking pot shots out the window with your
illegal machine gun, and transporting a trunk full of mary-jane..

You'd have a heck of a time getting the *next* policy underwritten, but
your current policy is in effect...

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.

--Gary

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

A question that the FAA will likely ask.

We can only hope so.

I feel sorry for the guy, but, man, there's really no excuse for what
he did.
--
Jay Honeck
Iowa City, IA
Pathfinder N56993
www.AlexisParkInn.com
"Your Aviation Destination"

"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. It isn't uncommon for parents to have
a child charged with unlawful use of their automobile, or for friends to
have other friends charged, to receive compensation for damage resulting
from a DWI incident. And don't even think about asking Customs for your car
or plane back if someone rents or borrows it to transport something illegal
across the border and gets caught.

moo

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. I do feel sorry for the guy
to but not much.

KB
I'll bet you the policy mentions "...or operations not on an approved
runway..." etc, etc. I looked at the clip a few times and the guy
really screwed up from the time he failed to put enough fuel in his
airplane to start with. That is enough to take his policy into court
having already violated the FAR's by no fuel.
Nope, he is going to be nearly bankrupt behind this one and all the
damages.
Ol Shy & Bashful

kontiki wrote:

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.

How would that have helped him not hit a truck and ambulance? That was
just plain stupidity, nothing to do with the inherent danger of making a
takeoff from that road. Not asking to have the emergency vehicles
moved was simply stupid.


Matt

"Kyle Boatright" wrote in
:

Why? If the guy has insurance, he's covered. Same as if you wreck
your (insured) car while driving drunk, without a license, doing the
nasty with under-age prostitutes, taking pot shots out the window with
your illegal machine gun, and transporting a trunk full of mary-jane..

I can relate to all of your other examples. But I have a problem with one.
While I'm doing the nasty with under-age prostitutes, the car is in park. I
just don't see how one could total the car in such a scenario. Ruin the
apholstery, maybe. But not total it...

Matt Whiting wrote:
How would that have helped him not hit a truck and ambulance? That was
just plain stupidity, nothing to do with the inherent danger of making a
takeoff from that road. Not asking to have the emergency vehicles
moved was simply stupid.

I agree... but you are making my point. I never said that that taking off
from a road was inherently dangerous, although most roads (other than
interstate highways) typically can have obstacles (i.e. light poles, etc.)
to be concerned with that make steering the plane down the center especially
important.... less room for error than your typical runway.

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.

kontiki wrote:

Matt Whiting wrote:

How would that have helped him not hit a truck and ambulance? That
was just plain stupidity, nothing to do with the inherent danger of
making a takeoff from that road. Not asking to have the emergency
vehicles moved was simply stupid.


I agree... but you are making my point. I never said that that taking off
from a road was inherently dangerous, although most roads (other than
interstate highways) typically can have obstacles (i.e. light poles, etc.)
to be concerned with that make steering the plane down the center
especially
important.... less room for error than your typical runway.

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. This isn't
aviation, this is simply physics. The wings were too long for the space
apparently availabe. I say apparently because looking at the video it
wasn't obvious to me that he was as far to the left as he could have
been. Another two feet probably would have made the difference. This
guy obviously doesn't have the IQ to be flying.


Matt