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
Runway Lead-in Light System Runway Lead-in Light System Consists of one or more series of flashing lights installed at or near ground level that provides positive visual guidance a>[...]
Aero Linx: Aviation Without Borders Aviation Without Borders uses its aviation expertise, contacts and partnerships to enable support for children and their families – at hom>[...]
Dave Juwel's Aviation Marketing Stories ITBOA BNITBOB ... what does that mean? It's not gibberish, it's a lengthy acronym for "In The Business Of Aviation ... But Not In The Busine>[...]
From 2010 (YouTube Version): Yeah.... This IS A Really Cool Job When ANN's Nathan Cremisino took over the lead of our Aero-TV teams, he knew he was in for some extra work and a lot>[...]
Also: Junkers A50 Heritage, Montaer Grows, Dynon-Advance Flight Systems, Vans' Latest Officially, the Carbon Cub UL and Rotax 916 iS is now in its 'market survey development phase'>[...]