Doctors and Lawyers

ndb · Post by **ndb** » Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:20 am

FAMILY BLAMES FAA FOR CRASH IN FOG
The family of a Texas doctor is suing the FAA for $25 million, saying
controllers gave Dr. George Swanson "bad information" just before his
Swearingen turboprop crashed in dense fog in Florida last November. The
suit alleges that Swanson, an experienced pilot, was flying much lower
than he should have been when the plane hit a wooded area short of the
runway at Craig Airport, near Jacksonville, Fla., last Thanksgiving. But
according to the NTSB preliminary report of the crash, controllers had
advised Swanson that the weather was below minimums at Craig Airport (a
quarter mile and 100 feet) and gave him alternates. Swanson tried the
approach, anyway. Members of Swanson's family apparently believe the FAA
failed to adequately warn the pilot that he was headed for disaster.
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/a ... tml#186766

N2 · Post by N2 » Mon Feb 23, 2004 6:38 am

That's what’s killing aviation along with many other businesses, these damn sue happy lawyers and families. I personally think the courts shouldn't even allow this to be filed in the first place. The controllers warned him that it was below minimums and obviously if he hit the trees he was well below MDA. How can you control someone from making their own decision to fly below the published chart altitudes? Tragic yes but FAA's fault, I think not!

I’m getting tired of seeing my aircraft premiums going through the roof to cover these frivolous claims that somehow the courts keep awarding.

PS:I know I’m in Canada and this lawsuit is in the states but we all know where most of the insurance companies are based

Leaky Float · Post by **Leaky Float** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 3:46 am

N2- I whole heartedly agree with you. There are way too many people that want others to support them for their own stupidity. I wouldn't necessaraly agree that all attorneys are bad (as implied) as in the future I will be one, but yes there certainly are common traits (many of which are bad) among attorneys as well as the "sue happy" public.

What we need is a legal system featuring redneck law or the second surfacing of old west justice.

Leaky

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Wed Feb 25, 2004 5:36 am

It's not attourney's that are bad, but the people that use them!

N2 · Post by N2 » Wed Feb 25, 2004 7:04 am

Very true regarding the lawyer statement. My neice is a lawyer and if she saw the way I just slagged her profession I just might be in line for a good old fashioned a$$ whooping.

Leaky Float · Post by **Leaky Float** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 1:57 am

Yeah, not all lawyers are bad but environmentalists on the other hand...kinda like loose and sloppy, or skank and snoopy or whatever that doofus' name is.

oldtimer · Post by **oldtimer** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 7:14 pm

Many years ago, a wise old pilot told me that the bigest risk to a pilots career comes from lawers and accountants. I have to agree.
Here in Canada, if you sue someone and loose, you have to pay the court costs. My understanding is that in the US, if you sue and loose you don't loose, except for the legal fees charged by the lawyer, who takes the case on a contingency. I am in the process of sueing and if I loose, it could cost me big time. The whole reason is to prevent frivolous lawsuits. Also remember that what the newspapers print is just some reporters impression of what has happening and he/she probably does't even know where the pointy end of an airplane is. Read where a reporter was describing how an airplane (hundreds of knots) was struck by a large bird (just a few knots), damaging one wing, but the airplane was able to land safely utilizing the other wing. Betcha didn't know the other one was just a spare. If you ever get a chance to read a newspaper account of an accident, save it and compare that to the actual accident report.

Right Seat Captain · Post by **Right Seat Captain** » Fri Feb 27, 2004 7:19 pm

On that note its also interesting to know that in the states, expert witnesses are paid on contigency. For example, if they got some 'expert' pilot to testify that after studying the situation so and so is in the wrong becuse of this and that. Well if what he testified helped win the case, he gets a cut of the winnings. In Canada they must be paid a set amount, regardless of winning or loosing. This tends to cause the expert to tell the truth, and not twist the truth to profit form it.