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
Inversion to Launch Reentry Vehicle Demonstrator Aboard SpaceX Falcon 9 This fall, the aerospace startup Inversion is set to launch its Ray reentry demonstrator capsule aboard Spac>[...]
"We are excited to accelerate the adoption of electric aviation technology and further our journey towards a sustainable future. The agreement with magniX underscores our commitmen>[...]
"The journey to this achievement started nearly a decade ago when a freshly commissioned Gentry, driven by a fascination with new technologies and a desire to contribute significan>[...]
Aero Linx: OX5 Aviation Pioneers Each year a national reunion of OX5 Aviation Pioneers is hosted by one of the Wings in the organization. The reunions attract much attention as man>[...]
"Our driven and innovative team of military and civilian Airmen delivers combat power daily, ensuring our nation is ready today and tomorrow." Source: General Duke Richardson, AFMC>[...]