Judge Tosses Arkansas Plane Crash Lawsuit On A Technicality | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Airborne On ANN

Airborne 04.25.16

Airborne 04.26.16

AEA2016 LIVE!!! 0830-1230ET

AEA2016 LIVE!!! 1400-1700ET

AEA2016 LIVE!!! 1100-1400ET

Airborne Hi-Def On YouTube

Airborne 04.25.16

Airborne 04.26.16

AEA2016 LIVE!!! 0830-1230ET

AEA2016 LIVE!!! 1400-1700ET

AEA2016 LIVE!!! 1100-1400ET

AEA2016 LIVE Aero-TV: 04/27-0830ET, 04/28-1400ET, 04/29-1100ET

Sun 'n Fun 2016 Innovation Preview on Vimeo!

Sun 'n Fun 2016 Innovation Preview on YouTube!

Thu, Sep 20, 2012

Judge Tosses Arkansas Plane Crash Lawsuit On A Technicality

Plaintiff's Attorney Did Not Present Compelling Evidence At Trial

A judge in Washington County, AR, has thrown out a lawsuit stemming from an aviation accident because the plaintiff did not present sufficient evidence about the accident's cause.

The Associated Press reports that according to the Northwest Arkansas Times, Judge Joanna Taylor dismissed the case because the attorney for plaintiff Barry Giblow did not offer sufficient evidence for the trial to continue.

According to the NTSB's probable cause report, while on final approach to the destination airport, the airplane experienced a loss of engine power. The airplane impacted terrain in a nose low attitude and came to rest adjacent to a fence, several hundred yards short of the runway, resulting in substantial damage. During the recovery of the airplane a total of 1.75 gallons of fuel was recovered from both wing fuel tanks. The fuel tanks had not been compromised and had an unusable fuel total of 3 gallons. The commercial pilot reported to law enforcement personnel that they had not refueled prior to the return flight.

The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause of the accident to be the pilot’s improper fuel management, which resulted in a loss of engine power due to fuel exhaustion.

The NTSB report is not admissible as evidence in a court of law.

While the NTSB said fuel management was the issue, each person on board the airplane told the agency that the other was acting as PIC of the Cessna 150 when it went down. Giblow had sued Jimmy Crawford, the other person on board, for $250,000. Both are certified pilots.

Giblow's attorney asked the judge to allow him to re-open the case at a later date, but she said state law does not allow her to take that action.

FMI: www.co.washington.ar.us

Advertisement

More News

Airborne 04.26.16: Drone v Airplane-NOT!, eFusion Electric Plane, ANN@AEA-LIVE!!

Also: MU-2 AOA, AMA Responds To Senate FAA Reauthorization, ANN@AEA Live 04/27-0830ET, ANN@AEA Live 04/28-1400ET, ANN@AEA Live 04/29-1100ET A report of a drone possibly colliding w>[...]

FAA Approves 5,000 Section 333 Exemption Petition Grants

Gowdy Brothers Aerospace Looks To The Future Of Non-Recreational UAS Use FAA Airman and Airspace Rules Division announces 5,076 approved Section 333 petition grants. The FAA furthe>[...]

Aero-News: Quote Of The Day (05.01.16)

"Working together, we have accomplished a truly incredible amount in the last couple of years. But we’re still really at the beginning of the process. We need to start thinki>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.01.16)

Aero Linx: Alaskan Aviation Safety Foundation The foundation was created to improve aviation safety in Alaska thorough education, advocacy and research. We are a non-profit members>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.01.16): Common Point

Common Point A significant point over which two or more aircraft will report passing or have reported passing before proceeding on the same or diverging tracks. To establish/mainta>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2016 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC