WFFC 1 #126 September 25, 2002 At this time, the WFFC is unaware of any lawsuits filed against it regarding the incident in this discussion. Bluez~~~ Michael Webmaster Michael@Freefall.com----- ~~~Michael Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #127 September 25, 2002 QuoteAt this time, the WFFC is unaware of any lawsuits filed against it regarding the incident in this discussion. Bluez~~~ Michael Webmaster Michael@Freefall.com Well.....that kind of settles it doesn't it? Can we all let this go now? Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #128 September 25, 2002 QuoteQuestion: If it turns out that this mysterious video shows him asking for permission, and getting it, and standing there in plan view the entire time* - how many of you are still going to call him a dumb-ass darwin award nominee? Yes. Just because I've been given permission to stand in the path of a moving blender doesn't mean that I'm going to, or required to do it. - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #129 September 25, 2002 QuoteI disagree about the FAA action not being evidence. I don't think they have the protection (if you can call it that) like the NTSB does. I think that if they suspended Rod's pilot certificate or took his medical (much easier to do) then that can be entered into evidence. My comment about the FAA not taking action is a comment to all that may have doubts about what happened. The FAA certainly could have acted within their rights in a very high profile case (like they did with Bob Hoover and he didn't even kill anyone) but chose not to. Now the Bob Hoover case is all bogus I know. But it shows what powers they do have. Bob didn't get his medical back for a few years. The same could have been done to Rod. But was not. Chris How is the action (or inaction) of a FAA bureaucrat evidence of a civil liability in this accident? How would it be entered? Would the FAA inspector be called as an expert witness for the defense? (Can't see that happening). The Hoover case shows, in fact, that FAA administrative decisions can be arbitrary and incorrect, so why would a court be influenced by them. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #130 September 25, 2002 QuoteWould the FAA inspector be called as an expert witness for the defense? If what he says would bolster their case....Well yeah!!! BTW..If it came from Rec. you KNOW IT'S TRUE!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #131 September 25, 2002 QuoteQuoteWould the FAA inspector be called as an expert witness for the defense? If what he says would bolster their case....Well yeah!!! BTW..If it came from Rec. you KNOW IT'S TRUE!!!! Only two ways that would happen - either s/he was an eyewitness, or s/he was an accident investigator with credentials as such. Failing that, anything s/he said would be hearsay. Since FAA doesn't do accident investigations (NTSB does), it is highly unlikely that the FAA person would be an accident investigator. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kevin922 0 #132 September 25, 2002 Please correct me if i'm wrong on the following: 1) Fatalities at WFFC are nothing new, they seem to avg. at least 1 a year if not more - which by statistics wise (jumps/fatalaties) is a very good percentage considering the risk involved in the sport combined with the number of jumps made during the WFFC. 2) I noticed some comments to the effect of "if you sue a DZO you should be banned" -- I somewhat agree in the cases i've heard such far however I got to thinking that the purpose of sueing someone is usually to hold them responsible for something which got me thinking even more of an extreme case, say you have a DZO which is not maintaining a plane other than putting fuel in the thing, which in turn causes a catastrophic failure and kills a family member are you saying that if the brother to the skydiver who was killed in this failure (who is also a skydiver) were to sue the DZO he should be banned? If there was OBVIOUS neglegence by the DZO to maintain a safe aircraft? Just wondering what you guys think. Kevin Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #133 September 25, 2002 Quoteeither s/he was an eyewitness, or s/he was an accident investigator with credentials as such. So you're saying that an FAA official is probably some guy that was a fry cook at McDonalds but gave up all that glory because he liked to look at pretty airplanes? Hardly, I'm sure if they work for the FAA, in an aircraft safety role, they have some sort of credentials. Be it Pilot, A&P, or both plus a good deal of general aviation experience. I think you might be suprised at who gets called an "Expert Witness" in courts these days. I've seen FAR worse examples than this. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #134 September 25, 2002 You want to know the funny thing.. The head investigator for the FAA made a tandem the next day at the convention. Maybe even 2 tandems? I think 2. He was a very nice and reasonable individual. Rhino Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #135 September 25, 2002 QuoteQuoteQuoteWould the FAA inspector be called as an expert witness for the defense? If what he says would bolster their case....Well yeah!!! BTW..If it came from Rec. you KNOW IT'S TRUE!!!! Only two ways that would happen - either s/he was an eyewitness, or s/he was an accident investigator with credentials as such. Failing that, anything s/he said would be hearsay. Since FAA doesn't do accident investigations (NTSB does), it is highly unlikely that the FAA person would be an accident investigator. John, that is incorrect. FAA Inspectors CAN be accident Investigators. They are apart of all the major investigations and in some cases they are the only investigators assigned to a case at the direction of the NTSB. The NTSB still has to approve the final report but there are times that the FAA is the only one involved in an investigating capacity. To think that they would not have any part in this investigation would be incorrect. I'm sure that if they viewed the videos of the accident and talked to the people involved that they could easily be called to testify on what their observations were. Thinking back to my Aviation Law class I don't ever remember anything being said that the FAA could not testify when needed in a civil suit.Chris Schindler www.diverdriver.com ATP/D-19012 FB #4125 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #136 September 25, 2002 QuoteQuoteeither s/he was an eyewitness, or s/he was an accident investigator with credentials as such. So you're saying that an FAA official is probably some guy that was a fry cook at McDonalds but gave up all that glory because he liked to look at pretty airplanes? Hardly, I'm sure if they work for the FAA, in an aircraft safety role, they have some sort of credentials. Be it Pilot, A&P, or both plus a good deal of general aviation experience. I think you might be suprised at who gets called an "Expert Witness" in courts these days. I've seen FAR worse examples than this.` No - I didn't say that at all. In a nutshell, accident investigations are not the job of FAA inspectors. They make administrative decisions that, per se, are not evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #137 September 25, 2002 QuoteYes. Just because I've been given permission to stand in the path of a moving blender doesn't mean that I'm going to, or required to do it. - Jim If you are the operator of that blender and you plow through someone after giving them permission to stand there your ass is grass. ROOT CAUSE. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #138 September 25, 2002 QuoteQuoteQuoteQuoteWould the FAA inspector be called as an expert witness for the defense? If what he says would bolster their case....Well yeah!!! BTW..If it came from Rec. you KNOW IT'S TRUE!!!! Only two ways that would happen - either s/he was an eyewitness, or s/he was an accident investigator with credentials as such. Failing that, anything s/he said would be hearsay. Since FAA doesn't do accident investigations (NTSB does), it is highly unlikely that the FAA person would be an accident investigator. John, that is incorrect. FAA Inspectors CAN be accident Investigators. They are apart of all the major investigations and in some cases they are the only investigators assigned to a case at the direction of the NTSB. The NTSB still has to approve the final report but there are times that the FAA is the only one involved in an investigating capacity. To think that they would not have any part in this investigation would be incorrect. I'm sure that if they viewed the videos of the accident and talked to the people involved that they could easily be called to testify on what their observations were. Thinking back to my Aviation Law class I don't ever remember anything being said that the FAA could not testify when needed in a civil suit. They can certainly do that if they have credentials that the court would accept (just being an FAA guy does not guarantee that). However, your original statement was not about the FAA man's observations, but about the FAA's decision not to suspend Rod's license. That decision is not evidence. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
freeflir29 0 #139 September 25, 2002 QuoteThat decision is not evidence. Mmmmm...I guess we could beat this dead horse forever but I bet it would be used. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
diverdriver 7 #140 September 25, 2002 My original statement: QuoteIf it says anything....the FAA and NTSB are investigating and they did NOT take enforcement action against the pilot of the helicopter. Had they thought there was an obvious problem with what happened then they could have emergency suspended his certificate to keep him from operating. They chose not to. I think that speaks volumes. Where in there did I say they can use that in the trial? Hmmm....? I said that one investigating body after looking at the original information could have taken his license (or even medical). They chose not to. So, a person would think that the evidence would show that there was no fault on the part of the pilot. Thus reducing the chance that a law suit could be won. If there is less chance that it could be won then there is a lower chance that it would be filed. AND in fact....at this time.....WFFC does not know of any lawsuit filed against it for this accident as posted previously in this thread. SOOOOooooo......I say again.....let's all let this go. Chris Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #141 September 25, 2002 Quote 2) I noticed some comments to the effect of "if you sue a DZO you should be banned" -- I somewhat agree in the cases i've heard such far however I got to thinking that the purpose of sueing someone is usually to hold them responsible for something which got me thinking even more of an extreme case, say you have a DZO which is not maintaining a plane other than putting fuel in the thing, which in turn causes a catastrophic failure and kills a family member are you saying that if the brother to the skydiver who was killed in this failure (who is also a skydiver) were to sue the DZO he should be banned? If there was OBVIOUS neglegence by the DZO to maintain a safe aircraft? You mean like this one? www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20001211X15678&key=1 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,146 #142 September 25, 2002 QuoteMy original statement: QuoteIf it says anything....the FAA and NTSB are investigating and they did NOT take enforcement action against the pilot of the helicopter. Had they thought there was an obvious problem with what happened then they could have emergency suspended his certificate to keep him from operating. They chose not to. I think that speaks volumes. Where in there did I say they can use that in the trial? Hmmm....? I said that one investigating body after looking at the original information could have taken his license (or even medical). They chose not to. So, a person would think that the evidence would show that there was no fault on the part of the pilot. Thus reducing the chance that a law suit could be won. If there is less chance that it could be won then there is a lower chance that it would be filed. AND in fact....at this time.....WFFC does not know of any lawsuit filed against it for this accident as posted previously in this thread. SOOOOooooo......I say again.....let's all let this go. Chris Two things: If the defense can't make use of this information at trial, why would the plaintiffs take note and base their decision to sue on it? All they have to do is convince a jury of non-aviators that some poor innocent guy was wrongly killed by this big faceless corporation and its $multi million fancy helicopter. Second - just because WFFC hasn't been served by the court bailiff doesn't mean suit hasn't been filed. They can honestly claim not to know up until the summons is served. It's not their responsibility to hang around the court looking for the plaintiff's lawyer to arrive with a fistful of papers. Now I don't know whether suit has been filed or not, But this Dausch guy sure has been writing like a potential plaintiff. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
jfields 0 #143 September 25, 2002 Kallend, Yeah, that would be an instance where I think the families would be justified. We (skydivers) all accept the dangers that are inherent in the sport. Your example is good, in that it shows something so far beyond what is acceptible that the "Gentlemen's Agreement" not to sue would clearly not extend to the family. My family knows my wishes are not to litigate should I die due to an accident. But in a specific circumstance like the one you gave, I wouldn't blame them if they disregarded my general wishes out of sheer anger. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TequilaGirl 0 #144 September 25, 2002 I also ran a search - and found nothing on file. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,108 #145 September 25, 2002 >If there was OBVIOUS neglegence by the DZO to maintain a safe >aircraft . . . he should be banned? I would think so, given only that info. I believe people should stand by their words, and he signed a piece of paper that says "even if my injury or death is due to negligence neither I nor my estate will sue". That should mean something, whether the person injured is the signer or the signer's brother. It's not just a meaningless piece of paper you sign. If you jump with me, I could screw up and kill you. It might be an odd gear problem that's not really my fault (i.e. my AAD might fire on exit when I was beneath you) or it could be a stupid decision on my part (i.e. I organized the load and put a 100 jump wonder on a 60 way.) Someone else could screw up - the pilot could feather the wrong engine, the A+P could put forget a safety wire, the fueler could get water in the tanks. All of those people could kill you, and you've excused them all in advance by signing that waiver. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jimbo 0 #146 September 25, 2002 QuoteIf you are the operator of that blender and you plow through someone after giving them permission to stand there your ass is grass. ROOT CAUSE. You'll notice though that I didn't say anything about the operator, what I did say was that just because I'm givin permission to stand in a dangerous place doesn't mean that I'll do it. BTW: Are you suggesting that anyone from the helicopter crew gave Tim permission to be standing where he did? - Jim"Like" - The modern day comma Good bye, my friends. You are missed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rhino 0 #147 September 25, 2002 We were talking hypothetically about a blender remember. QuoteYes. Just because I've been given permission to stand in the path of a moving blender doesn't mean that I'm going to, or required to do it. - Jim Someone had to start the blender. The blender had an operator. If you as the operator of the blender says "yes" go ahead and stand there "I should be able to avert from hitting you" then you as the operator "whether the guy standing in the way follows directions or not" are partially laible for the situation in the first place.. Agreed? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Michele 1 #148 September 25, 2002 Hi, Kallend I'm somewhat confused (oh, so what else is new? LOL). Why would the decision taken by the FAA to not emergency-revoke the pilot's credentials not be considered evidence? I mean, I see it kinda like this: 1. No, the invesigators were not there to actually witness it. However, the cops responding to a traffic accident also are not there to witness it. They merely gather witnesses statements, make a judgement as to who's at fault, and put it into their report. The report is entered into evidence, and used by the jury to come to a conclusion. How is this situation different? And, unless I am greatly mistaken, the report writer is called to tesitfy as to the report's authenticity, inasmuch as yes, they wrote it, yes this is what they wrote. 2. Why do you consider FAA investigators not expert witnesses? If part of their job is to investigate accidents such as this, why does that exclude them from tesifying as to actions taken, etc? And if they are not accident investigators, what are they doing there in the first place, investigating the accident? 3. A fact which is important to the actual deliberation of the entirety of the situation is what comes after the investigation. If it is noted in their paperwork, and is a conclusion made by the investigators, how can that be considered hearsay? Just some curiousity in this whole thing on those points. As always, me is not a lawyer, and me is just wondering. Ceils and Pinks- Michele ~Do Angels keep the dreams we seek While our hearts lie bleeding?~ Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christoofar 0 #149 September 25, 2002 Yes it goes on & on my friend! Some people started singin' it forever just because, then they kept on singing it forever just because this is the thread that never ends, Yes it goes on & on my friend! Some people started singin' it forever just because, then they kept on singing it forever just because this is the thread that never ends, Yes it goes on & on my friend! Some people started singin' it forever just because, then they kept on singing it forever just because this is the thread that never ends, Yes it goes on & on my friend! Some people started singin' it forever just because, then they kept on singing it forever just because this is the thread that never ends, Yes it goes on & on my friend! Some people started singin' it forever just because, then they kept on singing it forever just because this is the thread that never ends... Ya get the picture. ____________________________________________________________ I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
christoofar 0 #150 September 25, 2002 I think that was one of Lampchop's songs . ____________________________________________________________ I'm RICK JAMES! Fo shizzle. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
