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

Monday

Tuesday

Wednesday

Thursday

Friday

Airborne On ANN

Airborne 01.16.17

Airborne 01.17.17

Airborne 01.18.17

Airborne 01.19.17

Airborne 01.20.17

Airborne Hi-Def On YouTube

Airborne 01.16.17

Airborne 01.17.17

Airborne 01.18.17

Airborne 01.19.17

Airborne 01.20.17

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

Advertisement

More News

Airborne 01.20.17: Astro-NIMBY!, Airbus Flying Car, JetSuiteX v KSMO

Also: Daher Delivers, Aviation Progress, Tecnam P2012, D.B. Cooper, MH370 Search, T-45C Accident, Piper We previously reported that studies indicate many complaints about airport n>[...]

Airborne 01.20.17: Astro-NIMBY!, Airbus Flying Car, JetSuiteX v KSMO

Also: Daher Delivers, Aviation Progress, Tecnam P2012, D.B. Cooper, MH370 Search, T-45C Accident, Piper We previously reported that studies indicate many complaints about airport n>[...]

Airborne 01.19.17: $200K Drone Fine, Sandia IVSI TSO, 'Can't Close' KSMO

Also: MH370 Search Suspended, Supporting AUVSI, Sikorsky S-92, Challenger Astronaut, Stressed Pilots, JBA Aviation, Embraer E2 A settlement agreement has been reached between the F>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (01.21.17)

The Lindbergh Foundation The concept of balance is an integral part of what the Lindbergh Foundation Board looks for in a project requesting a grant. Charles and Anne Morrow Lindbe>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (01.21.17): Jump Zone

The airspace directly associated with a Drop Zone. Vertical and horizontal limits may be locally defined.>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

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