![Wink :wink:](./images/smilies/icon_wink.gif)
![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Moderator: drseti
I once flew at the airline with a Captain who had recovered from cardiac by-pass surgery successfully enough to meet the quite rigorous standards to regain his First Class medical.CTLSi wrote:United flight 1603 from Houston to Seattle diverted to Boise for the medical emergency. The pilot suffered a heart attack in flight and later died in a Boise hospital the same day.
http://goo.gl/oznngy
What about the pilots with medicals who KNOW they have grounding medical conditions, but refuse to see a doctor to avoid a grounding diagnosis?CTLSi wrote:The real answer is simple. As long as pilots are allowed to 'self assess' SOME will fly even if they know they are presenting a danger to themselves and others because humans rationalize and minimize in order to get what they want...
I apologize. I honestly thought his question included how the 'judgement' aspect worked. I know my opinion on the issue is controversial. I removed it. I don't want to diverge from the topic.drseti wrote:CTLSi, though I respect your opinion, that was really off-topic. The question had to do with liability issues, not FAA policy (which neither you nor I are likely to influence).
That's a good point. It would be a matter of courts, and how the facts line up there. The assumption in a court case is simple: if everyone did exactly as they were supposed to according to the rules and regulations, there would not be an accident. If there is an incident, someone should have deviated, and that person is liable to compensate the plaintiffs. It could be the pilot, the mechanic, the airport staff, the ATC, the municipality administration, the aircraft manufacturer, etc. I doubt a court would ever rule that an incident was no-one's fault and there was no way to stop the accident. I guess I would personally agree with that statement. Chances are the FAA regulations are so conservative and tight that if there is an incident, possibly someone deviated, at least from a judgement call by the PIC who should have not flown if he/she felt there could be something not quite right.drseti wrote:One's medical status only becomes an issue in the event of an accident or incident. At that point, the concern is not with the FAA, but rather the courts. Lawsuits go to juries, who could care less about the facts of the FARs.
Looking at the number of NTSB accidents that were attributed to pilot error, the whole system (NTSB, courts and even the general aviation community) prefers to blame an incident on the pilot. This is probably the lowest hanging fruit, and much easier to win against in a court compared to, say, the aircraft manufacturer, an airport or a city municipality with their deep pockets and lawyers. It seems the aviation community prefers it this way as well. My guess is that the cost of not finding the pilot responsible, and instead someone or something else is more costly for the whole aviation community, and thus the community prefers to blame most of the accidents on the pilot.drseti wrote: You're a pilot, you're liable - period.
I guess strict adherence to FAA rules and regulations might give you a fighting chance in the courts? But here is where the position for sport pilots without medicals is based on pretty shaky grounds. If you have successfully passed a third class medical, and you are in an accident, and they don't find any medication in your blood, they cannot blame you for that: according to a written statement by an approved aviation doctor you were healthy, and there was nothing in your blood indicating a problem. Let's move on to the next possible cause (which might be another person other than the pilot). But the way the sport pilot rules is written, the whole medical issue is left to the judgement of the pilot, and hence the easiest and weakest link open to attacks. In the case of a sport pilot who knows he or she is likely to be denied a 3rd class medical and chooses to operate on a driver's license, this could be very indefensible (example: yes, the engine stopped and the passenger was injured during an emergency landing, but since the pilot had ADD and on medication and knew about it but otherwise decided to use his drivers license and felt satisfied with his health, the pilot is "obviously" at fault for making a wrong judgement call. it's so much easier to blame the pilot's judgement instead of a doctor, an A&P mechanic or the engine manufacturer).drseti wrote: And, the jury doesn't even have to know what med you're on, or what diagnosis you have, to reason like this.
Based on this reasoning, it's probably even harder for sport pilots who already know they had a medical condition.drseti wrote: Example: a pilot takes passengers on a routine VFR flight that goes badly. Counsel for the plaintiffs states "and the reckless pilot hadn't even filed a flight plan!" How do you think the jury will find?
That is a good practical advice (plenty of liability insurance), but the typical insurance quote doesn't provide much liability coverage ($100K per person per incident, and that number is very low). If you want to make that number higher, the insurance premium will skyrocket.drseti wrote: Best policy is just to follow physician's advice and guidance, make prudent decisions, self-assess, and carry plenty of liability insurance.
Depends upon how you define liable. If you mean "could a co-owner be sued?" The answer is an emphatic "yes." I cite,for example, a fuel exhaustion accident involving a pilot known to many on this board. He ended up suing the aircraft manufacturer, distributor, importer, the FBO who sold him the plane, the mechanic who maintained it, even the instructor who trained him! Lawsuits are like shotguns, so of course a co-ownwr can get pummelled.rezaf_2000 wrote: Still, the major unanswered question for me is: would co-owners be liable?
Hmm, scary! what was the results?drseti wrote:Depends upon how you define liable. If you mean "could a co-owner be sued?" The answer is an emphatic "yes." I cite,for example, a fuel exhaustion accident involving a pilot known to many on this board. He ended up suing the aircraft manufacturer, distributor, importer, the FBO who sold him the plane, the mechanic who maintained it, even the instructor who trained him! Lawsuits are like shotguns, so of course a co-ownwr can get pummelled.rezaf_2000 wrote: Still, the major unanswered question for me is: would co-owners be liable?