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."

FMI: www.mncourts.gov/opinions/coa/current/opa101242-0419.pdf