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

Airborne Unlimited-
Monday

Airborne-Unmanned w/AUVSI-
Tuesday

Airborne Unlimited-
Wednesday

AMA Drone Report-
Thursday

Airborne Unlimited-
Friday

Airborne On ANN

Airborne 12.11.17

Airborne-Unmanned 12.12.17

Airborne 12.13.17

AMA Drone Report 12.14.17

Airborne 12.08.17

Airborne-YouTube

Airborne 12.11.17

Airborne-Unmanned 12.12.17

Airborne 12.13.17

AMA Drone Report 12.14.17

Airborne 12.08.17

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 12.11.17: Pilatus PC-24 Cert, VerdeGo Aero, Canada Nixes Hornets

Also: Engine Coatings Facility, Wrong Runway At JFK, ATR 72-600 Flight Sim, Regional Airline Association Pilatus has obtained type certificates from the FAA and EASA for the first >[...]

Airborne 12.13.17: Flight Design Update, Bell 525, Space Policy Directive

Also: A380 Production Cut?, Canadian Arctic Aviation Tour, US Nationals, Muilenburg'ss Mars Prediction Flight Design may be under new ownership, but it plans to continue to be a le>[...]

Airborne 12.13.17: Flight Design Update, Bell 525, Space Policy Directive

Also: A380 Production Cut?, Canadian Arctic Aviation Tour, US Nationals, Muilenburg'ss Mars Prediction Flight Design may be under new ownership, but it plans to continue to be a le>[...]

Dassault Ends Falcon 5X Program

Cites Issues With Delivery Of Engines, Will Start Development Of A New Aircraft Dassault Aviation has initiated the termination process of the Silvercrest contract leading to the e>[...]

Aero-News: Quote of the Day (12.14.17)

“We appreciate the FAA making an effort to clarify the responsibilities and available options in preserving airport access, improving fee transparency, and ensuring public-us>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2017 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC