Tue, Apr 19, 2011
Had Been Accused Of Inadequately Training New Pilots
An appeals court in Minnesota has overturned a ruling against
Cirrus Design which had held the company responsible in the deaths
of two people fatally injured in an accident involving an SR22.
2003 SR22 File Photo
Gary Prokop and James Kosak were fatally injured in January,
2003 when the SR22 Prokop was flying went down in instrument
conditions for which he was not rated. Court documents indicate
that, prior to purchasing the Cirrus, Prokop had accumulated some
225 hours of flight time, mostly in his personal Cessna 172. He was
in the process of obtaining an instrument rating. The NTSB found
that the probable cause of the accident was "Spatial disorientation
experienced by the pilot, due to a lack of visual references, and a
failure to maintain altitude. Contributing factors were the pilot's
improper decision to attempt flight into marginal VFR conditions,
his inadvertent flight into instrument meteorological conditions,
the low lighting condition (night) and the trees." The accident
occurred in the early morning hours in January. The lawsuit said
that Cirrus was negligent because Prokop had not been properly
trained in how to engage the autopilot, which could have helped him
fly out of the marginal conditions. The jury agreed, and had
awarded a total of $16.4 million to the families of the two
men.
Minnesota Public Radio reports that the appeals court found that
Cirrus had fulfilled its legal responsibility to warn owners about
the risks involved in flying, and that instructions in the POH
covering autopilot use were sufficient. In the ruling released
Tuesday, the court found that "although proficiency training
undoubtedly promoted the safe use of the SR22 (model of airplane),
we find no support in the law for (the) proposition that Cirrus's
duty to warn included an obligation to train Prokop to proficiently
pilot the SR22."
"Because an airplane manufacturer's duty to warn of dangers
associated with the use of its aircraft does not include a duty to
provide pilot training," the decision continues, "respondents'
negligence claims cannot be sustained under a product-liability
theory. Moreover, because the claims sound in educational
malpractice, they are barred as a matter of law."
MPR indicates that one justice disagreed with the majority,
saying that Cirrus had "voluntarily assumed a duty to provide the
promised training."
More News
Aero Linx: Model Aeronautical Association of Australia MAAA clubs are about fun flying, camaraderie and community. For over 75 years, the MAAA has been Australia’s largest fl>[...]
Touchdown Zone Lighting Two rows of transverse light bars located symmetrically about the runway centerline normally at 100 foot intervals. The basic system extends 3,000 feet alon>[...]
“Discovery and innovation are central to our mission at Virgin Galactic. We’re excited to build on our successful record of facilitating scientific experiments in subor>[...]
How To Get A Story On Aero-TV News/Feature Programming How do I submit a story idea or lead to Aero-TV? If you would like to submit a story idea or lead, please contact Jim Campbel>[...]
Student Pilot Reported That During Rotation, “All Of A Sudden The Back Of The Plane Kicked To The Right..." Analysis: The student pilot reported that during rotation, “>[...]