St. Catherines Flying Club - lawsuit re October 16, 2016 fatal crash

[pelmet]

As for St. Catherines Flying Club being responsible(or partially responsible) for their accident...no idea at this point. As for the FAA, and the manufacturer of the vacuum pumps in the PA-28 accident in the US who appear in my eyes to be victims of a frivolous lawsuit(based on my interpretation of the final report by the NTSB), perhaps they will countersue. I would if I were named and not responsible.

However, once again....if you have any evidence to the contrary, please post it....and I will potentially change my opinion.

Photofly and I have presented evidence proving it was an instructional flight,which requires proper supervision of the class 4 PIC. Student was in the left seat.

It's open and shut in a courtroom, unless the club could prove it was a personal trip by the instructor, paying all the bills, carrying 2 students of his, and coincident with 4 other aircraft, something you have argued without a shred of evidence.

And if it was, it was an illegal flight as the pilot was out of night currency. Cars violation. Any waiver the passengers signed would be voided. It's willful misconduct and there isn't immunity.

You want to present that argument to a judge, and then countersue the parents? You'd get slaughtered in court, and probably get a vicious tongue lashing from the judge, too.

You can't countersue someone blindly for damages because you don't like what they are doing. You had better have a good legal reason. No lawyer would be stupid enough to take that case.

This is different and one of those times. Book should be thrown at those responsible, and that isn't the 2 teenage students.

Once again, you are going on about the St. Catherines Flying Club. I have already said that I am not defending(or accusing) when it comes to their actions. So your evidence is what it is and that is fine.

You keep saying that the book should be thrown at those responsible. Tell me why the FAA and the vacuum pump manufacturer are being sued. And do you still feel that the owners(ie members of the flying club) should be put into bankruptcy. I don't mind getting a vicious tongue-lashing from a judge if I was able to piss off a greedy family trying to sue me for something I was not responsible for.

[rookiepilot]

Why did AC sue Airbus in the YHZ accident?

What component on the Airbus was shown to fail? How is Airbus responsible?

I have expressed no view on the pump mfg or the FAA.

[pelmet]

Why did AC sue Airbus in the YHZ accident?

What component on the Airbus was shown to fail? How is Airbus responsible?

I have expressed no view on the pump mfg or the FAA.

Once again, you are trying to put a separate subject in as some sort of justification of an argument. But seeing as you keep bringing it up.....The AC lawsuit was almost certainly frivolous.

Now maybe you can answer on the one filed by the family against the FAA and the vacuum manufacturer. How is the FAA or the vacuum pump manufacturer responsible?

What about bankrupting the members of that flying club that are owners? Do you still support that or is it just greed after deeper pockets with more money?

[rookiepilot]

https://www.thestar.com.my/news/nation/ ... ons-death/

Here's an example on point.

A grieving Mom that is a prime candidate to be sued!

[photofly]

Now maybe you can answer on the one filed by the family against the FAA and the vacuum manufacturer. How is the FAA or the vacuum pump manufacturer responsible?

According to the plaintiffs the vaccum pump manufacturer made a defective product which contributed to the accident. And the FAA was negligent because their air traffic controllers didn't warn the accident aircraft appropriately about the weather up ahead. Are you absolutely certain that neither of those things could possibly be true?

These suits are filed on a no-win no-fee basis, so if you want to blame anyone for greed, blame the lawyers. They'll get 40% of any payment.

[rookiepilot]

Greed? Let me tell you what's greedy.

The greed comes from flight schools that can stuff 2 students and an instructor in a plane for a trip to Florida and charge dual for a trip not on any PPL Syllabus.

There is ZERO purpose in Pre PPL students going on such a trip. Zero. Inexcusable.

CPL, 2 or 3 taking off for some cross border experience? No problem. I did. But then no instructor is involved. School can't milk the same amount of money.

There is also ZERO reason for an instructor to ever go beyond an oral brief for a cross border flight. It's not that complicated once paperwork is done.

Did those students pay for the instructors food and hotel too?

Good deal. Until everyone was killed.

TC should crack down on that kind of greed. Stick strictly to the syllabus for PPL anyway -- or lose your OC.

Students are vulnerable. They don't know anything. TC should protect them -- first.

Zero tolerance.

You who disagree --- think this kind of accident is GOOD for the GA image? GA is mortibound. Give your heads a shake.

My opinion on this incident hasn't changed, nor will it.

[RatherBeFlying]

The greed comes from flight schools that can stuff 2 students and an instructor in a plane for a trip to Florida and charge dual for a trip not on any PPL Syllabus.

If the students were being charged for dual, I strongly suspect that the court will accept that it was an instructional flight and the FTU will be responsible for the instructor's conduct of the flight.

Night currency only requires 5 takeoffs and landings at night in the last six months. The FTU's lawyers will be assiduously combing through their flight logs to dig up any flights done by the instructor that happened 30 minutes past local sunset. They might possibly be there.

But just performing the 5 takeoffs and landings does not guarantee competence when the horizon is indistinct as it easily can be at night.

If you let a wing drop at night, the increasing speed and noise may hopefully clue you in. Rain will obliterate the noise clue. It's an extra challenge to monitor a single AH on the left side from the right seat. While more easily done with a student under the hood in day VFR where the safety pilot/instructor can just look out the window, the AH can be more needed at night.

[pelmet]

Greed? Let me tell you what's greedy.

My opinion on this incident hasn't changed, nor will it.

And your opinion on whether innocent members of a club who had nothing to do with the accident being bankrupted hasn't changed either. It is obvious every time you refuse to answer this question....

Now maybe you can answer on the one filed by the family against the FAA and the vacuum manufacturer. How is the FAA or the vacuum pump manufacturer responsible?

What about bankrupting the members of that flying club that are owners? Do you still support that or is it just greed after deeper pockets with more money?

Being a victim of greed does not justify victimizing innocent people(which I conclude is what you advocate). Disgusting.

Being a victim does not justify suing other entities to profit off of your tragedy. The FAA was not found at fault by the NTSB and there was no evidence produced by the NTSB(an unbiased investigator) against the manfacturer of the vacuum pumps.

Depending on the circumstances, the flying club itself could be liable but their pockets don't have much money. As we saw with the Carnahan example I linked to above, families frequently use lawsuits for their greedy opportunity to make lots of money off innocents who did nothing wrong.

Government should crack down on that type of greed as well.

[rookiepilot]

I have no knowledge re any role either the vacuum pump or the FAA, via ATC's actions, that might apply to the accident. I'm sure the justice system will sort it out, as it's designed to do, including dismissing if that's appropriate against them.

The flying club's are apparently easier to see from what we know.

As for an incorporated flying club, as I understand it, its owners elect the directors, who hire the employees.

Any liability and how far it goes in this regard would have to be decided by a court of law, that is why courts exist is to settle such matters. If there are specific rules for non profit clubs owned by members, I'm not aware of any of that, nor particularly care for this conversation.

You're seeming to advocate government action that would prevent anyone who experienced significant loss from suing, that is a ridiculous position that undermines the concept of a justice system. We aren't taking about emotional pet squirrels on board as a companion.

It is not your place to decide summarily who is innocent. That is what the legal system is for, and these families deserve their day in court, in my view. The flying club likewise is entitled to defend themselves.

You insult the parents of those innocent teenagers by alluding their suit is motivated by greed, and they should be countersued and made to pay just because they seek justice. Offensive.

There are corporations that try such tactics, I've read. Courts take a dim view of such an approach. I doubt many lawyers would take such a case suing a grieving family. Maybe you would take pleasure in that.

-----

If this was a shady 703 (or 4,5, whatever) operation up north and it was an illegal flight that fatally crashed, everyone here would be screaming for their heads on a pole. And we have heard that.

Flying schools should be held to at least the same standard, and member owners should treat it that way. Seriously.

[pelmet]

As for the flying club, its owners elect the directors, who hire the employees.

You're seeming to advocate government action that would prevent anyone who experienced significant loss from suing, that is a ridiculous position that undermines the concept of a justice system.

Flying schools should be held to at least the same standard, and member owners should treat it that way. Seriously.

So you still support bankrupting the innocent members...offensive.

Yes, I do support laws to stop greedy families suing innocents as shown in my example in the US. Those blatently doing so should be fined the amount they sue for.

You insult the parents of those innocent teenagers by alluding their suit is motivated by greed, and they should be countersued and made to pay just because they seek justice. Offensive.

There are corporations that try such tactics, I've read. Courts take a dim view of such an approach. I doubt many lawyers would take such a case suing a grieving family. Maybe you would take pleasure in that.

While I won't comment for the ongoing case, we can see the greed of the family in the US that sued innocents with the deep financial pockets. I hope the corporation countersued. If I was innocent and was sued(for example, fuelling an aircraft where someone did something totally unrelated to my fuelling), I would do whatever I could legally do to harm them, financially and emotionally. If my action had caused the accident...different story.

Being an innocent victim doesn't give you the right to victimize other innocents.

[Aviatard]

Being a victim does not justify suing other entities to profit off of your tragedy. The FAA was not found at fault by the NTSB and there was no evidence produced by the NTSB(an unbiased investigator) against the manfacturer of the vacuum pumps.

Nor would there ever be a finding of blame by the NTSB. Their mandate is to determine a probable cause of the accident, not to assign fault or liability.

[pelmet]

Being a victim does not justify suing other entities to profit off of your tragedy. The FAA was not found at fault by the NTSB and there was no evidence produced by the NTSB(an unbiased investigator) against the manfacturer of the vacuum pumps.

Nor would there ever be a finding of blame by the NTSB. Their mandate is to determine a probable cause of the accident, not to assign fault or liability.

Thanks,

I have seen this sort of statement before and I appreciate you mentioning this.

But using the vacuum pump(s) as an example, the reality is....if the vacuum pump had failed, it would have been mentioned and the Probable Cause would reflect that.

It is kind of like saying for an accident....the probable cause was pilot error. Well, who is to blame then...the vacuum pump manufacturer whose pumps were working just fine. Bit of a stretch, but not to some greedy families in the past. But of course, they are not greedy. Maybe they want the money to donate to some charity.

[photofly]

So you still support bankrupting the innocent members...offensive.

Yes, I do support laws to stop greedy families suing innocents as shown in my example in the US. Those blatently doing so should be fined the amount they sue for.
...

Being an innocent victim doesn't give you the right to victimize other innocents.

Firstly, no member is going to be bankrupted. The members have no personal liability here.

Secondly: how are you going to decide who is an "innocent" person who can't be sued? Who is going to make that decision?

[rookiepilot]

Yes, I do support laws to stop greedy families suing innocents as shown in my example in the US. Those blatently doing so should be fined the amount they sue for.

Who decides this, who should be fined, and upend the justice system completely?

I've got a better idea. Let's fine the "guilty parties" heavily, who waste the courts time with a frivolous defence. You employ a defence when obviously guilty? Fined 300% of the lawsuit amount.

[pelmet]

So you still support bankrupting the innocent members...offensive.

Yes, I do support laws to stop greedy families suing innocents as shown in my example in the US. Those blatently doing so should be fined the amount they sue for.
...

Being an innocent victim doesn't give you the right to victimize other innocents.

Firstly, no member is going to be bankrupted. The members have no personal liability here.

Secondly: how are you going to decide who is an "innocent" person who can't be sued? Who is going to make that decision?

RookiePilot has already said the owners should be bankrupted. Everybody here should remember this disgusting statement as this could apply to anyone of us. He has not changed his mind. I do realize that we have legal protection from completely irresponsible individuals like this and for good reason.

The courts could decide for my counter lawsuit as well. And I would make sure any family who sued me in such circumstances was profiting off of their family members death. And all their friends could be advised of this. And if the pilot was at fault, this would be prominently mentioned. Come after me for no reason(whether as a business owner whose systems worked as designed[my definition of innocent] or as an individual), I will come back twice as hard with the goal to hurt.

[rookiepilot]

As for the flying club, its owners elect the directors, who hire the employees.

Any liability and how far it goes in this regard would have to be decided by a court of law, that is why courts exist is to settle such matters.

This is my stance. Nothing more. Nothing less. It's up to the courts to decide, as in any business that might be found liable for misconduct.

I never said anywhere: "A non profit's member's should be sued into bankruptcy".

Here is the reference that liability certainly can extend beyond an organization:

https://www.cga.ct.gov/PS98/rpt%5Colr%5 ... R-1373.htm

[RatherBeFlying]

As for pursuit of individual members for damages is concerned, I am doubtful:

1. Most likely the club is incorporated.

2. Members generally have to sign a liability waiver on joining or renewing membership. This waiver generally holds unless gross negligence can be proved - somewhat difficult when such trips have been safely completed for decades.

3. The club's insurers have access to experienced aviation lawyers.

4. To collect in Canada on a US judgement, application will have to be made to a Canadian court which has the power and duty to apply Canadian jurisprudence - including determination of quantum.

Of course survivors could possibly claim against any assets (aircraft) in the US for any shortfall in what could be obtained through Canadian courts. That option might be more productive for any US person or entity suffering damages from this accident. But how much could be realised from the seizure of a heavily used single engine trainer from a foreign country without maintenance records after paying the lawyer?

[photofly]

Of course it's incorporated. This "members should be bankrupted" is just too silly for words. Even by AvCanada's standards of silliness. Ontario Corporations Act, section 122:

122 A member shall not, as such, be held answerable or responsible for any act, default, obligation or liability of the corporation or for any engagement, claim, payment, loss, injury, transaction, matter or thing relating to or connected with the corporation. R.S.O. 1990, c. C.38, s. 122.

The members are not liable, end of story.

[rookiepilot]

Of course it's incorporated. This "members should be bankrupted" is just too silly for words. Even by AvCanada's standards of silliness. Ontario Corporations Act, section 122:

Where did I write specifically, if you're referring to me, any non profits members be bankrupted?

There is an enormous, and obvious, legal difference between active, knowledgeable corporate ownership and passive non profit membership.

[photofly]

There is an enormous legal difference between active corporate ownership and passive non profit membership.

No, not really. By virtue only of their shareholdings, shareholders of profit-making corporations are only personally liable to the extent the face value of their shareholdings has not been paid up. Since all shares in existence since history began are all "fully paid up", shareholders aren't liable either. It wouldn't make any difference whether the flight school was a for-profit or not-for-profit. Members or shareholders are not financially on the hook for this.

However, that's not the same as saying that because they're only members (or shareholders) that their organization (club, company, whatever) shouldn't be held responsible because they don't want their club or company to suffer.

I can't really be bothered to look and see if you want to "bankrupt" (my how Dickensian we've become) any members, but I do recall you finding quotes to suggest that they were personally liable. I'm sorry - but they're not.