....very interesting.

Better watch out, Fish.

LOL,,only in AMERICA!!! You NEVER hear of these LAZY LAWSUITS as I like to call them in other parts of the world as much as you do here. Then again, this is why no other country has as much health issues as America. I MEAN REALLY..DOES EVERYONE PLAY THE VICTIM ROLE? OH POOR ME..BOO HOO...Screw that. Lets take it outside on the street if you got something to say..OKAY!!???? If not,,,ZIP IT! Lawsuits.........Get a job!!!

xoxo,
Michael

I have a job.............thanks to lawsuits!

Keep them coming!

No reason in being cocky about it........

quote:

Originally posted by Clamato:
....very interesting.

Better watch out, Fish.

You don't know beans!

Think that's bad....read this: (Fan, did you have any involvement?)


Merrill C. Meigs Field was a charming little airport next to downtown Chicago. A few years ago, the field was closed and turned into a park, much to the dismay of pilots nationwide, particularly those in the Chicago area. However, before it closed, Meigs Field was an unwitting participant in an aviation accident and subsequent lawsuit that should cause deep concern to every pilot and airplane owner.

On the slightly hazy afternoon on July 19, 1997, the owner-pilot of a small single-engine Bonanza was preparing to land at Meigs Field. An experienced controller employed by Midwest Air Traffic Control, Inc. (‚Midwest₤), a private contractor to the Federal Aviation Administration (‚FAA₤), was on duty. As the Bonanza was cleared for landing, the pilot noticed that his landing gear lights did not display the proper gear-down-and-locked indication.

At this moment, the controller advised the Bonanza to make a low fly-by over the runway so that the controller could make a visual inspection of the Bonanza’s landing gear. As the Bonanza passed by, the controller advised the Bonanza that the landing gear appeared to be up. The Bonanza pilot then asked to be routed over Lake Michigan so that he could attempt to hand-crank the Bonanza’s gear down.

The Bonanza pilot manually cranked down the landing gear, and told the controller that the gear appeared to be down. The controller then agreed to make a second visual inspection of the Bonanza. On this fly-by it appeared to the controller that the Bonanza’s gear was down. The Bonanza pilot successfully landed at Meigs Field. He parked the Bonanza, believing that the day had concluded without incident for him.

Meanwhile, a few miles away, while the Bonanza pilot had been dealing with his landing gear problems, the pilots and passengers of two other small planes were sightseeing along the Lake Michigan shoreline near Meigs Field. The pilots of both planes were commercially-rated and had hundreds of hours of flying experience. Conditions were such that visual flight rules (‚VFR₤) were in effect, al-though it was hazy on this mid-July day.

The FAA rule in visual conditions is ‚See and Avoid₤, which means that every pilot is primarily liable for looking out for traffic himself, and that the air traffic controllers will only give advisories regarding other aircraft nearby when workloads allow. Nonetheless, both of these small planes were on the same radio frequency, which was the Meigs Field frequency, and could hear the controller givinginstructions to the pilots of each of the two planes as well as to the pilot of the Bonanza with the gear problems.

Nonetheless, the pilots of the two planes (the only other planes in Meigs Field’s airspace) failed to look out for one another and collided, killing both the pilots and five other passengers. Mid-air collisions of small airplanes at small and loosely-controlled airports occur a few times a year, with hundreds of near-misses. Collisions are not ordinary
or routine, but they do happen when pilots fail to look out for one another.
This crash had all the hallmarks of a high-wing/low-wing accident, which occurs when the high-wing plane is climbing (with its blind spot above) and the low-wing plane is descending (with its blind below). The witness statements contained in the investigation by the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) bear this out.

There were many witnesses who observed the two airplanes collide. One witness, a military pilot, said he "...noticed [a] Cessna 172 at 300-feet less than a mile off [ the] beach." He said it "Looked straight and level... moving south bound." He said a Learjet type aircraft was at 800-feet above the lake's surface heading north. This air-plane was in ".. .full landing configuration..." in a 300 to 400-foot per minute de-scent toward the airport. He said it looked as though the Cessna 172's left wing hit the right side of the inbound airplane.

A second witness, a civilian pilot, said he "...observed a single-engine, low wing, air-craft that appeared to be heading north collide with what appeared to be a single engine high wing aircraft that appeared to be heading south." He continued by saying, "It did not appear to me that any of the two aircraft took any evasive action, although I only viewed the two aircraft shortly before the collision occurred. Both aircraft appeared to be flying normally, with no control problems. I would estimate the collision occurred at an altitude of between 500 and 1,000- feet AGL."

Whenever there is an air crash of any type, a lawsuit is al-most sure to follow. In this case, everyone in sight was sued, including the FAA, Midwest and the controller. Noneof this is surprising, and most of these parties settled with the estates of the victims to avoid a trial.
Remarkably, the estates of the victims also sued the pilot ofthe Bonanza – the plane with the landing gear problems, which was miles away from the collision – claiming that the Bonanza pilot’s gear-up incident distracted the controller such that she was not able to warn the other two small planes not to run into each other. The pilot of the Bonanza quite understandably refused to settle.

At trial, the controller testified that she was not unusually distracted by the Bonanza’s situation, that she did not feel that the Bonanza pilot was monopolizing her communications to the detriment of other pilots, and that she warned the two pilots who crashed to look out for each other.

The plaintiff’s attorney, however, put an alleged aviation ‚expert₤ on the stand who testified that, based on his re-view of the FAA’s transcript of the controller’s communications with all the airplanes, the controller was distracted by the Bonanza’s gear-up incident, whether she thought so or not. Because of this distraction, the expert claimed, the controller did not give the other two airplanes sufficient instructions so that they could avoid each other.
The jury apparently believed the aviation expert, and awarded damages against the pilot who had the landing gear incident in the amount of $2,195,416. Walker v. Segal, Cook Cty. Cir. Ct. No.2002-L-2 169.

At this time I just want to go one the record about how everyone on this board is wonderful, especally Fish.

You mean this case.

quote:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS
COUNTY DEPARTMENT, LAW DIVISION

DURENDA WALKER, Special Administrator of, )
the Estate of JEFFREY WALKER, )
)
Plaintiff, )
)
v. ) No.: 98 L 00404
)
MIDWEST AIR TRAFFIC CONTROL )
SERVICES, INC., a corporation; RENEE A. TOONE; )
THE CITY OF CHICAGO, a Municipal corporation; )
AVIATION MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, d/b/a )
AMCOR, d/b/a SKYLINE AVIATION, a corporation; )
JOHN J. CANTY, Personal Representative of the )
Estate of COLLEEN M. CANTY; and DIANA L. )
ALINSKY, Personal Representative of the Estate of )
PAUL J. ALINSKY, )
)
Defendants. )

Ahhhhhhhh........no?

The Wolk Law Firm has a slightly different account of the situation.

$2,100,000 (Walker vs. Segal) 2004
This verdict resulted from a mid-air collision near Meigs Field, Chicago, Ill., when a Beech Bonanza collided with a Cessna 172, killing the pilot of the Bonanza. The lawsuit was filed against the pilot of another Bonanza who was circling nearby and distracting the air traffic controller with his frequent communications. As a result, the controller failed to alert two airplanes that they were on a collision course with one another and, instead, told the pilots to look for the airplane that was circling. They followed his instructions and collided with each other.

http://www.airlaw.com/verdicts.htm

"Our goal is to protect our clients and help them, if possible, achieve what they state as their goals. In so many cases, we have heard that our clients ultimately want to uncover any defects and mechanical failures in an effort to prevent other families from suffering a similar loss of a loved one. As a result, we take pride in our record of exposing product defects, failure of warnings and, at times, willful deception in aircrash cases. And we are glad that our hard fought battles have encouraged the industry to fix what were disastrous problems."

How did the Wolk Law Firm feel the situation should have been handled?

SOME FACTS

* There were some 163 communications between Segal and the sole air traffic controller on duty at Meigs, both before and after the mid-air collision.
* Just prior to the accident, Mr. Walker communicated to the air traffic controller that he was looking for Segal but did not see him.
* Segal dominated the airspace and the air traffic frequency for a thirty-six minute period leading up to the happening of the accident.
* The controller confused call signs, confused aircraft, and missed several radio transmissions.
* The procedure of manually cranking down the gear takes approximately two minutes to complete.

quote:

Originally posted by GE Fan:
SOME FACTS

* There were some 163 communications between Segal and the sole air traffic controller on duty at Meigs, both before and after the mid-air collision.
* Just prior to the accident, Mr. Walker communicated to the air traffic controller that he was looking for Segal but did not see him.
* Segal dominated the airspace and the air traffic frequency for a thirty-six minute period leading up to the happening of the accident.
* The controller confused call signs, confused aircraft, and missed several radio transmissions.
* The procedure of manually cranking down the gear takes approximately two minutes to complete.

OK...so when Lynn's husband comes to my house to put out a fire thereby neglecting your fire, you can sue me for my overutilizing the GE fire dept? To quote from Clara......Where's the DUTY?

Here's his duty.

quote:

Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) § 91.13 “Careless or Reckless Operation” provides that “no person may operate an aircraft in a careless of reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another.” (FAR 91.13).

People who fly planes are held to a different standard as those who start fires in their own home....you arsonist.

That one doesn't pass the laugh test.

It's a feast for my eyes when you two fight it out. Warms my heart...keep it up, please.

quote:

Originally posted by Fish:
That one doesn't pass the laugh test.

Tell that to a jury of 12.....errr, wait, they already did.

quote:

Originally posted by GE Fan:

quote:

Originally posted by Fish:
That one doesn't pass the laugh test.

Tell that to a jury of 12.....errr, wait, they already did.

two letters.....OJ

quote:

Originally posted by Fish:

quote:

Originally posted by GE Fan:

quote:

Originally posted by Fish:
That one doesn't pass the laugh test.

Tell that to a jury of 12.....errr, wait, they already did.

two letters.....OJ

Outstanding Justice?

Funny!