Airline sued for crash
Injured pilot sues troubled company for earlier crash
Larry Pynn, Vancouver Sun
Published: Thursday, March 30, 2006
PORT ALBERNI - A troubled airline company fighting Transport Canada to get its licence back after a fatal plane crash near Port Alberni in January is being sued in B.C. Supreme Court in connection with another crash involving one of its planes.
The crash at Boundary Bay Airport on July 1, 2002, left three passengers dead and pilot Rajbinder Dhiman, of Vancouver, seriously injured.
Dhiman is suing International Express Aircharter Ltd., which does business as Regency Express Flight Operations and Sonicblue Airways, for brain and spinal cord injuries suffered in the accident and for lost future earnings associated with a planned career in dentistry.
Dhiman had finished his flight training with Regency only three months before the noon crash of the single-engine Cessna 172N aircraft, a rental from Regency.
The aircraft climbed 30 to 45 metres before the right wing started to drop. Within seconds, the aircraft crashed to the runway nose down and right wing low.
A federal Transportation Safety Board report found the setting of the elevator trim tab would have resulted in a strong nose-up pitch at lift-off and a stall from which the pilot did not recover.
The report also found the checklist used by the pilot "contained no challenge" to verify the position of the trim tab before take-off, that the flaps were "set inappropriately" for the attempted take-off, that the stall warning mechanism on the aircraft was defective, and that the wrong flap selector plate for the Cessna model had been installed, thereby limiting flap extension.
The safety board also found the aircraft was overweight by 130 kilograms.
In his statement of claim, Dhiman refers, in part, to the stall warning mechanism, the excessive weight, and the selector plate, and the company's failure to provide him with a complete and appropriate procedures checklist.
The suit names Stephen Cran as the primary flight instructor who supervised the sign-out of the aircraft to Dhiman.
International Express in its statement of defence denies liability, blaming Dhiman for failing to follow proper pre-flight procedures and inspections, and for climbing too steeply on take-off.
The trial is scheduled for June 26 in B.C. Supreme Court in Vancouver.
Passengers Rupinder Gill, 25, and Preetmohinder Harry, 28, both of Surrey, died instantly in the crash, while Amandeep Dhaliwal, 25, of Surrey, succumbed to his injuries the next day. Dhiman was 26 at the time of the accident.
A Sonicblue Airways single-engine Cessna 208 Caravan aircraft crashed near Port Alberni on Jan. 21, killing the pilot and two passengers. A federal investigation is focusing on a broken engine turbine blade.
Transport Canada issued two suspensions on Jan. 22: the first to the company's operations manager, Nikolas Chapman; the second to the company because it no longer had a qualified operations manager.
International Express is appealing the suspensions. Company president Ranjit Gill of Surrey has refused comment pending conclusion of the hearing.
The appeal hearing has been tentatively adjourned to April 18.
New Regency Lawsuit
Moderators: lilfssister, North Shore, sky's the limit, sepia, Sulako, I WAS Birddog
-
safetywatch
- Rank 2
- Posts: 94
- Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 6:17 pm
Hmmm, last I checked being within weight and balance is a pre-requisite for the C of A being valid. I don't think being 286 lbs over gross qualifies. He shoule be happy he is alive and should name himself in the suit; then he would have a chance of winning.
"I have control!"
I think his brain injury may may have been a pre existing condition, all the above reasons to sue were his responsibility. Pretty weak case if you ask me. No challenge for the trim check...Who are you challenging in a 172? Time to make an IQ test part of getting a pilots licence!
On the other hand Im sure the lawyers for the other families will love to hear him incriminate himself...er um testifly.
On the other hand Im sure the lawyers for the other families will love to hear him incriminate himself...er um testifly.
This does not have to do with aviation but....
There is a case in the courts right now where a garbage truck driver hit his own car with the truck he was driving. can you see where this is going. Well he has since taken the city to court (cannot remember what angle they are using). Which is really himself. Somethings never cease to amaze me, so I would not be surprised if this guy somehow came up with a fancey way to sue himself...
There is a case in the courts right now where a garbage truck driver hit his own car with the truck he was driving. can you see where this is going. Well he has since taken the city to court (cannot remember what angle they are using). Which is really himself. Somethings never cease to amaze me, so I would not be surprised if this guy somehow came up with a fancey way to sue himself...
Regency just has to be found partially at fault for the accident to be liable.
An inoperatve Stall warning system, jimmy job flaps, and a checklist that wasnt even intelligent enough to include trim position before takeoff all lead me to believe that regencys standard incompetence played a role.
i am VERY sure a lawyer can convice people of that.
An inoperatve Stall warning system, jimmy job flaps, and a checklist that wasnt even intelligent enough to include trim position before takeoff all lead me to believe that regencys standard incompetence played a role.
i am VERY sure a lawyer can convice people of that.
-
Cat Driver
- Top Poster
- Posts: 18921
- Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2004 8:31 pm
I wonder what degree of fault will be found against the Ops manager, chief pilot and PRM?
And even more important are every one of these people in the rest of Canada having another look at their true exposure if their company ends up in the same position as S.B.?
And even more important are every one of these people in the rest of Canada having another look at their true exposure if their company ends up in the same position as S.B.?
The hardest thing about flying is knowing when to say no
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
After over a half a century of flying no one ever died because of my decision not to fly.
-
goldeneagle
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1322
- Joined: Mon Jan 02, 2006 3:28 pm
Look up over ZBB, you can see the vultures circling, they smell the blood of a down operator. This is just the beginning.
A suit like this disgusts me, it's going to accomplish a lot. There is a legal firm pressing ahead with the charges, and they are invoicing somebody to do that work. Regency doesn't have any resources to defend this one, but, there is an insurance company that carried thier liability policy during 2002 that's going to be on the hook if it goes undefended. They will retain a firm that's expert in aviation to defend this, and it will be tossed out of court. That firm will probably invoice the insurance company 50 grand to do this little task. Overall, a bunch of slimey lawyers are going to generate $100,000 woth of invoices by the time it's done.
In the end, this little fiasco wont hurt the insurance company financially, they tally that 50 grand into the cost of doing business carrying liability coverage for FTU operators. When renewals roll around for other FTUs, a corresponding increase will be reflected in the premiums, the insurance folks will have thier 50 grand back, with a markup, within 12 months.
The real problem with this kind of 'stupidity' lawsuit ('vicitm' sues somebody else because the victim was to stupid to look after self) is that once in a while one of them slips thru, and wins. It then becomes 'precedent' and the ramifications are overwhelming to an industry. The sorry state of aviation today can be traced back to a suit just like this in Alaska, many many years ago. Cessna lost a product liability action when the seat slid back on a C-185 on takeoff, it wasn't latched properly, and the seat rails were long past needing replacement, it was an old airplane that basically suffered from 'no maintanence'. Cessna and piper factories closed the doors in short order, a timeframe measured in hours, not days/weeks/months.
So, when all the 'young folks' in this industry read about yet another suit against Regency, think before you applaud. There's plenty of company specific issues on which to criticize them, dont fall into the trap of 'any excuse to bash them'. The reason you are flying around in airplanes older than you can be traced directly back to a frivoulous lawsuit just like this one. When we talk about the cost of attaining a license, we'll joke that mine cost 4 grand, while yours cost 40 grand. Increased liability insurance costs played a major role in that price increase.
This is a frivolous lawsuit, and unless the litigants are penalized severly for even launching it, the final result will end up being another dollar or two an hour increase in the rates at most FTU operations around the country. Ultimately, that dollar is doing the industry no good, it's being siphoned off to the legal profession. The legal profession is taking advantage of a bad situation to try generate some short term income by filing frivolous lawsuits. They will make a quick buck, and we will pay for that in perpetuity.
A suit like this disgusts me, it's going to accomplish a lot. There is a legal firm pressing ahead with the charges, and they are invoicing somebody to do that work. Regency doesn't have any resources to defend this one, but, there is an insurance company that carried thier liability policy during 2002 that's going to be on the hook if it goes undefended. They will retain a firm that's expert in aviation to defend this, and it will be tossed out of court. That firm will probably invoice the insurance company 50 grand to do this little task. Overall, a bunch of slimey lawyers are going to generate $100,000 woth of invoices by the time it's done.
In the end, this little fiasco wont hurt the insurance company financially, they tally that 50 grand into the cost of doing business carrying liability coverage for FTU operators. When renewals roll around for other FTUs, a corresponding increase will be reflected in the premiums, the insurance folks will have thier 50 grand back, with a markup, within 12 months.
The real problem with this kind of 'stupidity' lawsuit ('vicitm' sues somebody else because the victim was to stupid to look after self) is that once in a while one of them slips thru, and wins. It then becomes 'precedent' and the ramifications are overwhelming to an industry. The sorry state of aviation today can be traced back to a suit just like this in Alaska, many many years ago. Cessna lost a product liability action when the seat slid back on a C-185 on takeoff, it wasn't latched properly, and the seat rails were long past needing replacement, it was an old airplane that basically suffered from 'no maintanence'. Cessna and piper factories closed the doors in short order, a timeframe measured in hours, not days/weeks/months.
So, when all the 'young folks' in this industry read about yet another suit against Regency, think before you applaud. There's plenty of company specific issues on which to criticize them, dont fall into the trap of 'any excuse to bash them'. The reason you are flying around in airplanes older than you can be traced directly back to a frivoulous lawsuit just like this one. When we talk about the cost of attaining a license, we'll joke that mine cost 4 grand, while yours cost 40 grand. Increased liability insurance costs played a major role in that price increase.
This is a frivolous lawsuit, and unless the litigants are penalized severly for even launching it, the final result will end up being another dollar or two an hour increase in the rates at most FTU operations around the country. Ultimately, that dollar is doing the industry no good, it's being siphoned off to the legal profession. The legal profession is taking advantage of a bad situation to try generate some short term income by filing frivolous lawsuits. They will make a quick buck, and we will pay for that in perpetuity.
The fact that this gold-digger is a poor decision maker isn't anybodies problem but his own. Now he expects to be rewarded for that fact! That's unreal.
He choose not to set trim for dept. as part of pre-flight checks, or at least pre-TO. Maybe he should sue cessna too while he's at it.
He has no excuse for overgross. No excuse for not preventing the abnormal pitch-up which resulted due to his failure to reset trim and lack of compensating for too-aft C of G.
Agreed, he should be happy he's still alive and not wait four years to sue a fallen company.
He choose not to set trim for dept. as part of pre-flight checks, or at least pre-TO. Maybe he should sue cessna too while he's at it.
He has no excuse for overgross. No excuse for not preventing the abnormal pitch-up which resulted due to his failure to reset trim and lack of compensating for too-aft C of G.
Agreed, he should be happy he's still alive and not wait four years to sue a fallen company.
Haha, the best part about his lawsuit is for future earning in a "planned career in dentistry". Come on, if you want to be a dentist, why are you flying crap airplanes for $8/hr. I somehow think that this "planned career" was previously just an idle thought that suddenly looked much more attractive when suing for lost wages...
I think we are forgetting something....its a 172!...probably the worlds simplest airplane to fly...I mean it would only take a few hundred feet to realise it was trimmed wrong...and you would notice instantly on rotation.... although they kinda fly when they want...but the trim!! in a 172 your hand is always on that thing. He must have been really inexperienced to let that go into a stall on departure due to trim or else he was really really aft....perhaps the trim was incorrectly calibrated which may confuse things....and checklist challenge...again 172..I cant believe he is suing...
Last edited by CAL on Thu Mar 30, 2006 1:04 pm, edited 1 time in total.
-
bob sacamano
- Rank (9)
- Posts: 1680
- Joined: Wed Jan 05, 2005 6:26 am
- Location: I'm not in Kansas anymore
Lommer wrote:Haha, the best part about his lawsuit is for future earning in a "planned career in dentistry". Come on, if you want to be a dentist, why are you flying crap airplanes for $8/hr. I somehow think that this "planned career" was previously just an idle thought that suddenly looked much more attractive when suing for lost wages...
Was he not a rental pilot?
-
laticsdave
- Rank 4
- Posts: 255
- Joined: Thu Feb 23, 2006 1:52 pm
- Location: not YMO anymore!!!!!
Now while I despise Regency/SonicBlue for everything they stand/stood for - most of all for killing my friend (turbine blade failure was just the straw that broke the camels back) - and hope that Rancid Gill and his whole collective bunch of miscreants that ran that festering turd of a company rot in hell, I have to side with them on this one.
Another dumb ass, newby pilot who forgets all the training that his instructors gave him as soon as the ink is dry on the back of his SPP.
"Weight & balance - who needs one? After all, I'm a pilot now -I'm superman! Think I'll just stuff as much as I want into my aircraft, pretend it is suddenly a 182, not a 172, and try to fly the aircraft the same way as I did when it was 400lbs lighter".
I'm surprised that this dumb shit hasn't been sued by the families of the people he killed.
Where I work, this event is actually used as an illustration of what can happen to you if you flagrantly ignore the fact that an aircraft has weight & balance limitations for a reason, and the huge difference on aircraft preformance that simply sticking two adults in the back of a 172 can make compared to what most new pilots are used to.
Another dumb ass, newby pilot who forgets all the training that his instructors gave him as soon as the ink is dry on the back of his SPP.
"Weight & balance - who needs one? After all, I'm a pilot now -I'm superman! Think I'll just stuff as much as I want into my aircraft, pretend it is suddenly a 182, not a 172, and try to fly the aircraft the same way as I did when it was 400lbs lighter".
I'm surprised that this dumb shit hasn't been sued by the families of the people he killed.
Where I work, this event is actually used as an illustration of what can happen to you if you flagrantly ignore the fact that an aircraft has weight & balance limitations for a reason, and the huge difference on aircraft preformance that simply sticking two adults in the back of a 172 can make compared to what most new pilots are used to.
It's called Football, not soccer!
I was involved in a lawsuit and my lawyer told me the owner of the property in question has to be 10% culpable in order to carry the whole can.
The average pilot, despite the somewhat swaggering exterior, is very much capable of such feelings as love, affection, intimacy and caring.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
These feelings just don't involve anyone else.
Everyone here knows that 4 adults in a 172 doesn't work for weight and balance. I'd like to know what kind of operational control they had at the flight school. I recall years ago when I was at school we had to prove we were within weight and balance limits before we could be dispatched. Apparently this level of operational control didn't exist at regency on the flight school or 703 side. So without a doubt the pilot is to blame for being over weight, but who the hell in their right mind would sign out a student with that kind passenger load into a 172?
One word Endless.. Regency!
I watched countless atrocities happen very frequently when the airplanes of theirs (the 4 uber scary 172's the traumahawk and the 150) were actually "flyable"
However... It's still the PILOTS responsibility to make sure the aircraft meets the weight and balance requirements AND make all the right decisions pertaining to the safety of the flight. Plain and simple.. he fucked up!
I was there. I watched it happen... I've also watched a few other regency trained wonders taxi out with the tail almost scraping the ground
I hope the case gets thrown out.
I watched countless atrocities happen very frequently when the airplanes of theirs (the 4 uber scary 172's the traumahawk and the 150) were actually "flyable"
However... It's still the PILOTS responsibility to make sure the aircraft meets the weight and balance requirements AND make all the right decisions pertaining to the safety of the flight. Plain and simple.. he fucked up!
I was there. I watched it happen... I've also watched a few other regency trained wonders taxi out with the tail almost scraping the ground
I hope the case gets thrown out.
