Cirrus SR22 crash lawsuit Video

 

 

Last week, The Legal Broadcast Network released an 11-minute video interview with the attorneys for plaintiffs awarded $16.4 million in damages for a January 2003 fatal crash of a Cirrus SR22. Pilots and flight instructors, particularly those not in the legal profession, will find ...

the video instructive about the liability they may face when flying and instructing. Aero-news.net and others first reported the outcome of the trial on June 5, 2009. Cirrus VP of Marketing Todd Simmons said then that the company was considering an appeal. By the way, I help people around the world who are thinking of buying a Cirrus SR22 or Cirrus SF50 Vision Jet, so if you like my inputs, please contact me as early in your decision making process as possible, so that I can provide you the most assistance. You can phone me at 650-967-2500, or send me an email.

It’s noteworthy that the NTSB probable cause puts full blame on the pilot. It states the cause as: “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.” Nonetheless, the plaintiffs who successfully sued were the families of the pilot Gary Prokop and his passenger James Kosak. According to The Legal Broadcast Network, “Cirrus and University of North Dakota were each found 37.5 percent negligent and Prokop was found 25 percent negligent. The jury awarded $19.4 million. The Prokop family’s portion of the award was reduced by 25 percent for his negligence, which brings the total recovery for the plaintiffs to $16.4 million.”

Many pilots will be surprised to learn that the pilot’s family recovered $7.4 million against Cirrus and UND while the passenger’s family recovered $12 million. Flight instructors should note that much of the case hinged on UND instruction records that showed one syllabus item, “VFR into IMC autopilot assisted” was not checked off, though the instructor testified that he’d covered this during other parts of the training.

The facts of the case show that the low-time pilot had only six hours of solo time after he purchased the aircraft six weeks before. He then departed in dark conditions under marginal VFR conditions over an unpopulated part of Minnesota that has few lights or towns. In many ways, the case is reminiscent of the John Kennedy, Jr. accident. A low time Private pilot, flying in dark, marginal VFR conditions, failed to use his autopilot in conditions that, while legally VFR, more closely resembled IFR.

During the video, attorney Dan O’Fallon says “We had testimony from two other individuals, that one who said Mr. Prokop said he didn’t know how to even turn the autopilot on and the other who said that basically he was uncomfortable with the operation of the autopilot. So we believe that was further proof that the training which was supposed to include autopilot training was not done.”

Having gone through essentially the same training at UND that’s provided to new Cirrus owners, I don’t find it credible that “autopilot training was not done.” I think it’s far more likely that the pilot, most of whose hours were in a Cessna 172, was initially trained in an aircraft without an autopilot and/or possibly by an instructor who was unfamiliar with autopilots.

In an article I authored for the National Association of Flight Instructors MENTOR magazine in August 2006, I stated: “It’s not too surprising that many CFI’s have a love/hate relationship with autopilots. We’d love to find one that actually works when we’re doing the flying, but we hate to let our students use them when we’re teaching….Given the poor quality of older autopilots and the poor instruction in their use, it’s not surprising that many CFI’s have shied away from teaching the autopilot. If you are extremely competent in teaching its use, more than likely you’ve done a lot of self-education to unravel the mysteries of these wily beasts.”

I have no doubt that the pilot received training on the autopilot. However, I suspect that it didn’t sink in either because he was poorly prepared before his factory training, was tired during the training, or was simply overwhelmed by the number of new things that he was trying to digest during the factory training.

I’ve often said that I could teach a monkey to fly an airplane, but that it’s the judgment required in flying which is difficult to teach. In this case, the pilot exercised poor judgment in several areas. According to the NTSB report, when he called FSS, “He noted that current conditions at GPZ were about 2,800 feet overcast and that he was ‘hoping to slide underneath it and then climb out.’” The pilot took off in dark conditions with broken clouds above him in a situation that at times would have resembled IFR more than VFR. He also flew with an autopilot—the one thing that could have saved him in this situation—with which he was unfamiliar. But because of a missing checkmark on a training record, the pilot was assigned just 25% responsibility for the crash and his family was awarded over $7 million. Pilots and instructors should look closely at this case for the lessons they can learn. 

For readers who've gotten this far, I'll note that in the video, interviewer Scott Drake bears a passing resemblance to Timothy Stack, anchor of the Pumpcast News segment of The Tonight Show, but that’s the only amusing thing about this otherwise deadly serious video. 

Comments

[Matthew Stibbe]

It's this sort of thing that makes foreigners (like me) shake their head in disbelief at the US legal system.

Pilot makes bad decision. Manufacturer and instructor 75% liable. How does that work?

(And while we're at it, what's the deal with all the guns but no healthcare?)

[Russell Still]

Seems to me to be another case of lawyers and plaintiffs abusing the system in order to earn income. In my opinion, this type of behavior is one of the major reasons our healthcare costs so much. Just one more step down the road to killing general aviation.

[Mike Danko]

The NTSB has a built-in conflict of interest and almost always favors the industry over pilots. So no real surprise that the NTSB laid all the blame on the pilot in this case; that's par for the course.

[Sylvia]

That's ludicrous. The NTSB findings can't be dismissed - I disagree that it is par for the course for the pilot to receive full blame.

Regardless, I find it incredible that the court case could come to that conclusion without reference to the NTSB - if there is a problem with the accident investigation, then surely that must be dealt with, not simply ignored.

[S. Barton]

Mr. O'Fallon,

You need your head examined for even taking a case that represents complete stupidity exhibited by your client(s). If I didn't feel competent to fly the aircraft I would have requested more training before I decided to go out and fly in marginal VFR conditions. If I didn't understand the instruments I would have never flown the aircraft until I had a complete understanding. I certainly don't need an instructor to tell me when or if I need additional instruction, I think thats up to me the pilot to make that determination. What's wrong with putting the responsibility where it lies, on the pilot for being a complete idiot killing an innocent victum.

[LENNY]

This I believe is as stated above, is what is killing GA. Stupid decisions by over egotistico pilots. The pilot did not know how to operate the autopilot, and did not take the time to LEARN. 2oo hrs, and let me go buy an aircraft where outside of my ability..surprised he did not just get a citation..
duh????
I have seen that alot the past few years..low time pilots who can't even handle a c 172 profiecently buying a/c way too much for them to handle....again, people with more money then brains..
and along with that, lets kill someone else, not just myself...

vfr into imc is taught as a private pilot requirement..did everyone forget that..
the auto pilot is not to blame, nor is the und, or cirrus for stupidity!!!

This case is probably long gone by now, but neither should have received money from UND OR CIRRUS. the passenger who was probably a friend of the pilot assumed he knew what he was doing. If anyone should pay, then it would be the pilot's estate..which again I do not agree with..why should the family be put through all that because of a non thinking pilot...

I know of a pilot who finished training at my local airport with 60 hrs who went out and brought a Diamond..with 60 hrs..but he has money and wants the prestige of having a brand new airplane...one that is above his experience level..I have seen this action not less then 4 times in the past 2 yrs.

WAKE UP PILOTS.....FOR GOD SAKE..LEARN FIRST
LENNY

[Matt E.]

As a student pilot with only 30.7 hours, I can understand being overwhelmed by aircraft systems and new flight characteristics. What I object to in this situation is that the airplane manufacturer and their contracted training provider were found 75% liable. That doesn't work for me, because regardless of training unless the CFI and Cirrus were out there forcing him to takeoff, the pilot made the choice to ignore sound judgment and warnings by others.

On a more cynical note, I guess it is good to know that if I crash a plane and die, it is mostly my flight instructor's/school's fault and that given litigation on behalf of my family, my wife will enjoy flying in her new jet.

[Joe]

All of your comments are good observations, and I agree with most of them. As a GA pilot and 20+ year attorney with extensive trial experience, I want to throw in my thoughts. First, I made the transition from a C172 to a 300hp Cherokee Six (with autopilot) about three years ago with about 200 hours of flight time, just like the deceased pilot. It was very demanding moving to this high performance aircraft. I am not IFR trained at this time, but I now have more than 300 hours, over 100 hours in type. I recently made a night VFR flight of about two hour duration. I did this only because the weather was severe clear for the entire route of flight, and all systems in my plane are understood by me and were working perfectly. Also, my route of flight had many options for a set down in the event of equipment failure or if I became uncomfortable. Point is, night VFR can be done safely,as you all well know, so long as the pilot has committed his/her full attention to taking every precaution to avoid the potential unpleasantries that could be presented by the situation. I KNEW there would be no IMC, and if IMC had been even a remote possibility, I would have canceled. I cannot fathom making the decision to make this flight in a high performance a/c if I had the level of experience "in type" the deceased pilot had at the time of his last flight.

Second, you are all obviously correct - we know from our personal experience - that VFR flight into IMC is covered over and over by our instructors, but recall from the summary above and the video, the issue at trial was largely the Cirrus-specific training that was alleged to be the problem, not the general flight instruction given to obtain flying privileges. There was evidence presented -- that the jury apparently believed -- that a portion of the mfr's training, specifically the a/p assisted procedure to be used when IMC is encountered, was not covered as required in the training syllabus.

This case certainly appears to fall exclusively on the pilot as reported by the NTSB, but having read many NTSB reports, I don't recall many (any?) where the NTSB passed on the adequacy or inadequacy of training. Such commentary by the NTSB is rare, unless the accident involves a student pilot. They tend to focus on the actions of the pilot, the condition of the a/c and controller actions. Rarely does the NTSB delve into the more troublesome quesion of whether the pilot error was related to training.

Now on to the harder, less understood part of this matter - the civil justice system. It "usually" works. Far more often than not, the system reaches the correct result. But juries are not experts at either the law or in this caes flying and flight instruction, and the result appears to pilots as being - well - just wrong. I am always cautious to pass judgment on a jury verdict based on a superficial trial summary without more detailed knowledge of the trial evidence. I would like to think that Cirrus and UND will appeal, but one of the many problems with our civil justice system is the amount of weight that is given to the outcome of a trial by courts of appeal. The typical resolution of cases in this posture is for the parties to reach a settlement, as both parties have significant risk of proceeding to appeal.

Good flying!

[TJM]

I am a Commercial- Instrument rated pilot, I've got one phrase that sums up what happened-
Pilot-In-Command.

Was the dead guy quailified by the regulations to BE PIC?

If so....the only people to make out on this deal was the lawyers. The family of the deceased, well he's still gone. Money won't fix that.

[Ethan]

Let us not forget the basic instrument training we all receive while pursuing the PPL. Aside from VFR into IMC training, all private pilots should (some apparently don't), understand at the very least how to read and interpret an attitude indicator/artificial horizon. Not to mention the VSI, altimeter and TC all easily accessible on the PFD. Glass or gauge, experienced on the particular aircraft or not, any pilot should posses the very basic understanding of flight instruments, especially when flying VFR into IMC with very little time "in type." Although not the case for everyone, when I finished my private, I was competently shooting precision and most non-precision instrument approaches, as well as navigating quite proficiently via VOR, NDB, GPS, etc. Despite the pilot's unfamiliarity with the SR22, he should've been able to at least level the wings, and stabilize the aircraft even if utilizing only 1 of the 5+ instruments at his arsenal. All in all, the fault herein lies with the pilot, not with Cirrus instructor.

E.B
CFII

[Nora Nhok]

As a Student Pilot with only 25 hours in a C172 I often think about it and cannot understand how someone can lose it, with only a little training on the basic instruments you should be able to survive and bring it back to land safely, unless he was flying very low to begin with in a mountain-es area.

AK
NY