Towplane-Baron accident

1. Why should the extraordinary effort to ensure no crossing runway traffic exists be the sole responsibility of just the glider aviation activity at KLGC?
2. Wouldn't the Baron pilot have overreacted similarly if the aborting traffic on Rwy 3 had been, say, a Cessna 172?
3. Why didn't the NTSB report discuss how locally mandated, non-standard airport procedures can be detrimental to safety of flight by counterintuitively conflicting with established, FAA mandated procedures, especially at uncontrolled airports where such standard procedures must be universally assumed and relied upon?
4. Why wasn't KLGC/Airport Authority/City of LaGrange/Troup County named as defendants due to its/their negligence for not ensuring all operators were 1) aware of "their" local airport rules and 2) that such local rules were were being adhered to?
5. Why wasn't Beechcraft Aircraft Corporation/Textron Aviation named as defendants due to its/their negligence for not building a foolproof airplane?5. Did the airport authority involve the CAP & glider club in the local rules making process?
6. Did the airport authority ever formally notify the CAP & glider club about the local rules pertaining to glider flying at KLGC?
7. Considering personnel/membership changeover, does the airport authority periodically remind the CAP & Glider club of the local rules pertaining to glider flight at KLGC?
8. Why wasn't the estate of the Baron's pilot in command not a named defendant due to his negligence by not maintaining situational awareness and aircraft control?
9. Why wasn't the estate of the CFI onboard the Baron not a named defendant due to his negligence by not ensuring situational awareness and safety of flight, not to mention performing his flight duty while having methadone in his system?
10. Why was is never mentioned that common side affects of the antihistamines found in the Baron pilot's system are dizziness, drowsiness, blurred vision?
11. Why did the court summarily dismiss the possibility [probability] the CAP operation made a takeoff radio call when witness testimony stated that CAP CTAF use was "constant"?
12. Why did the court summarily dismiss expert witness testimony that the Baron's "lift detector" (stall warning system?) was inoperative based on the [il]logic *because it always worked just fine before*?
13. How could a judge (or jury?) have read the NTSB report and still conclude the "cause" of the Baron crashing was strictly the towplane/glider abort?

Seems the burden of guilt continues to be squarely laid upon the CAP glider op, and that just ain't right in so many ways...

Ray Cornay

"Way to go," Mr. Cornay for having the gumption and taking the time to raise
(on RAS, anyway) some serious and germane issues related to this
serious/tragic loss of 'aviation related' life.

It's so 'normally human' to wish for pat and neat resolutions to tragedies
like this...both within the piloting community and within the legal community
and within the far larger community who honestly hope in general to see
'perpetrators held accountable.' I'm no lawyer, but definitely inhabit the
other two categories.

Focusing responsibility on CAP/'the glider operation at the field' seems to me
- from my geographically-distant perspective - simplistic in the extreme.
Life/reality is more complicated...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 11:27:56 AM UTC-6, wrote:
1. Why should the extraordinary effort to ensure no crossing runway traffic exists be the sole responsibility of just the glider aviation activity at KLGC?
2. Wouldn't the Baron pilot have overreacted similarly if the aborting traffic on Rwy 3 had been, say, a Cessna 172?
3. Why didn't the NTSB report discuss how locally mandated, non-standard airport procedures can be detrimental to safety of flight by counterintuitively conflicting with established, FAA mandated procedures, especially at uncontrolled airports where such standard procedures must be universally assumed and relied upon?
4. Why wasn't KLGC/Airport Authority/City of LaGrange/Troup County named as defendants due to its/their negligence for not ensuring all operators were 1) aware of "their" local airport rules and 2) that such local rules were were being adhered to?
5. Why wasn't Beechcraft Aircraft Corporation/Textron Aviation named as defendants due to its/their negligence for not building a foolproof airplane?5. Did the airport authority involve the CAP & glider club in the local rules making process?
6. Did the airport authority ever formally notify the CAP & glider club about the local rules pertaining to glider flying at KLGC?
7. Considering personnel/membership changeover, does the airport authority periodically remind the CAP & Glider club of the local rules pertaining to glider flight at KLGC?
8. Why wasn't the estate of the Baron's pilot in command not a named defendant due to his negligence by not maintaining situational awareness and aircraft control?
9. Why wasn't the estate of the CFI onboard the Baron not a named defendant due to his negligence by not ensuring situational awareness and safety of flight, not to mention performing his flight duty while having methadone in his system?
10. Why was is never mentioned that common side affects of the antihistamines found in the Baron pilot's system are dizziness, drowsiness, blurred vision?
11. Why did the court summarily dismiss the possibility [probability] the CAP operation made a takeoff radio call when witness testimony stated that CAP CTAF use was "constant"?
12. Why did the court summarily dismiss expert witness testimony that the Baron's "lift detector" (stall warning system?) was inoperative based on the [il]logic *because it always worked just fine before*?
13. How could a judge (or jury?) have read the NTSB report and still conclude the "cause" of the Baron crashing was strictly the towplane/glider abort?

Seems the burden of guilt continues to be squarely laid upon the CAP glider op, and that just ain't right in so many ways...

Ray Cornay

Ray,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Southern Eagles Soaring move from La Grange to Roosevelt Memorial Field precisely because of the airport's treatment of gliding operations and operational demands that prudent people could finally no longer tolerate?

Frank Whiteley

Dear Frank,

I was no longer a club member at the time it moved from the LaGrange airport to elsewhere.
One can presume the Baron accident/court finding against the CAP was a factor in that decision.

SES relocating away from all the hostility at KLGC is probably for the best.

Ray

Hi Frank,

I was no longer a club member at the time of its relocation.
I believe the relocation occurred after the Baron accident, and, if so, one can presume that was a catalyst.

SES getting away from all the hostility at KLGC is probably for the best.

I wonder if the CAP still operates from there?

Ray

On Tuesday, June 5, 2018 at 2:00:20 PM UTC-6, wrote:
Hi Frank,

I was no longer a club member at the time of its relocation.
I believe the relocation occurred after the Baron accident, and, if so, one can presume that was a catalyst.

SES getting away from all the hostility at KLGC is probably for the best.

I wonder if the CAP still operates from there?

Ray

I thought the move was before this accident. FWIW, CAP has also operated at Roosevelt in recent years.

Frank

Never even played a lawyer on TV, but wasn't the court decision about
assigning liability and not about operations?Â* I read the court decision
end to end and, though deep inside I agree that the pilot of the Baron
screwed the pooch, the logic in the court's finding seemed sound to me.

Too bad that it happened at all...

On 6/5/2018 11:53 AM, Bob Whelan wrote:
"Way to go," Mr. Cornay for having the gumption and taking the time to
raise (on RAS, anyway) some serious and germane issues related to this
serious/tragic loss of 'aviation related' life.

It's so 'normally human' to wish for pat and neat resolutions to
tragedies like this...both within the piloting community and within
the legal community and within the far larger community who honestly
hope in general to see 'perpetrators held accountable.' I'm no lawyer,
but definitely inhabit the other two categories.

Focusing responsibility on CAP/'the glider operation at the field'
seems to me - from my geographically-distant perspective - simplistic
in the extreme. Life/reality is more complicated...

Bob W.

---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
https://www.avg.com


--
Dan, 5J

I thought people would be happy that it is government which has to pay out in this case. I hope the court would have managed to see this differently if the glider tow had been from the civilian club and could have destroyed the club.

To me as a total outsider, the operation as described sounds unacceptably dangerous, with the tragic outcome therefore reasonably foreseeable.

I wonder if the CAP still operates from there?

Hi Ray,
SES and CAP were forced to move by the locals after the accident. Both now operate at Warm Springs.
One point I’ve not seen made - CAP (and SES) were required to operate from 03/21 by the Airport Authority. They were basically prohibited from operating on the main runway. This was spelled out in the Operating Agreement the club was required to sign shortly after they moved there if I recall correctly. I’ll never understand how the Authority did not get sued as a result (not a lawyer and didn’t play one on TV either).

Nice to hear from you. Hope all is well.
Chuck

On Saturday, February 22, 2014 at 7:50:49 PM UTC-7, Jp Stewart wrote:
Odd circumstance: http://www.lagrangenews.com/news/hom...llaway-Airport

JP

A question that has come to mind that I haven't seen discussed yet is one of visibility. How is a civilian airport even allowed to operate where two intersecting runways are in place where you can't see one from the other? I'm no expert here, but that just sounds like a disaster waiting to happen (which it did, in this case). Also (not a radio expert here) is the CTAF one that needs "line of sight" for the signal to be transmitted, or can the radio waves bend around land obstructions? Could it be that the land that obscures the view of the end of the other intersecting runway, could also obscure the transmission of radio waves, thus explaining why no one at the FBO or that both aircraft didn't hear each other's radio transmissions?