Minnesota Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Cirrus In 2003 Accident | 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 On ANN

Airborne 11.30.15

Airborne 12.01.15

Airborne 11.25.15

Airborne 11.19.15

Airborne 11.20.15

Airborne Hi-Def On YouTube

Airborne 11.30.15

Airborne 12.01.15

Airborne 11.25.15

Airborne 11.19.15

Airborne 11.20.15

EAA/ANN AirVenture Innovation Preview

AIP-#1 Vimeo

AIP-#2 Vimeo

AIP-Part 1 YouTube

AIP-Part 2 YouTube

Fri, Jul 20, 2012

Minnesota Supreme Court Rules In Favor Of Cirrus In 2003 Accident

Says The Company Not Required To Teach Pilots To Fly Its Airplanes

The Minnesota Supreme Court has handed down a ruling favorable to Cirrus Aircraft stemming from a 2003 accident which fatally injured a pilot and his passenger, both from Grand Rapids, MI.

In the ruling, the state high court said that the company is not required by law to teach people who buy its airplanes how to fly them.

The accident fatally injured pilot Gary Prokop and his passenger James Kosak. The families of the two men had filed the suit, claiming that Cirrus did not provide adequate pilot training to Prokop. The FAA does not require manufacturers to offer flight training, however Cirrus does offer a two-to-three day program to assist pilots in the transition to their new aircraft. The training is conducted by the University of North Dakota Aerospace Foundation. Cirrus Vice President of Business Administration told the Duluth News Tribune that the company does offer the training, and strongly recommends it, but it is optional and can be waived by the buyer.

Witnesses said they saw Prokop's plane, an SR-22, flying fast and low before impacting level terrain in a heavily wooded area at a nose-down angle of about 15 degrees. The NTSB's probable cause report cited pilot error, saying Prokop likely became disoriented due to a lack of visual references and failure to maintain altitude while flying in marginal weather. NTSB reports are not admissible as evidence in court.

A lower court had originally found in favor of the families, and awarded them $16.4 million. An appeals court overturned that ruling in 2011, and the state supreme court has upheld the decision.

King said while the decision is "enormous" for Cirrus, it is nothing to celebrate. The people flying the airplane cannot be brought back. However, he did say the ruling sets a precedent for the industry concerning flight training for purchasers of new aircraft. "In that respect, it's a far-reaching lawsuit," he said.

FMI: www.mncourts.gov/?page=230


More News

Airborne 11.30.15: Rutan SkiGull, Old Rhinebeck Aerodrome, NASA-Virgin Galactic

Also: Tecnam P2012, Great Lakes Biplane, USAF X-56A, New IFR Training System, 'Lost In Space' Returns, Laser Strikes, ADS-B Seminar ANN Airborne Link: /index.cfm?do=video.playVideo>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (12.01.15)

Legal Ramifications Of The FAA's UAV Registration Program An analysis of the FAA's UAV Registration Task Force compiled by Jonathan Rupprecht of Rupprecht Law, P.A. Rupprecht write>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (12.01.15): Glideslope Intercept Altitude

The published minimum altitude to intercept the glideslope in the intermediate segment of an instrument approach.>[...]

Aero-News: Quote Of The Day (12.01.15)

“Economic and political events over the last year have impacted some of the fundamentals for growth. As a result, we expect some 400 million fewer people to be traveling in 2>[...]

ANN FAQ: What Does The API Mean To You

Engaging The Aviation World's Pivotal Organizations, Interests And Viewpoints The Airborne Partnership Initiative, we call it the API, is a plan developed by ANN CEO and Editor-In->[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus





© 2007 - 2015 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC