Thursday, March 20, 2008
Deaf Pilot Sued over Accident
Jeffery Willoughby and his teenage daughter are suing a deaf pilot along with plane manufacturer Cessna for $1 million. Also named in the suit is Katama Airfield in Plymouth, Massachusetts. The Willoughbys were passengers on a plane being flown into the airport by Alec Naiman, a member of the Deaf Pilots Association when it crashed leaving all three with serious injuries. Willoughby is himself an association member and because he lives in O'Fallon, Missouri, the case was filed in St. Louis. Willoughby blames the crash on the lack of communication between the Airfield and Naiman. A plane already on the runway forced Naiman to pull up too quickly. The pilot of the plane on the ground had tried to reach Naiman on the radio.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Jeffrey Willoughby’s nothing but a money seeking ass!.. Sueing Cessna and airport and other pilots they had nothing to do with the accident. their being deaf had nothing to do with it either!
the pilot of the Cessna Alex Naiman is 100% at fault. He failed to ensure that his seat was latched & locked. The Cessna seat slides forward to allow rear seat passengers access to aircraft then it slides back to allow the pilot to enter. The pilot handbook and preflight checklist both say to check seat is locked and latched. He failed to do that. It was pilot error that cause this crash. The other airplanes taxing on airport had nothing to do with the crash. It happens all the time. a “go around” isn’t uncommon at uncontrolled fields / airports
I hope Mr. Willoughby’s loses his lawsuit. he’s JERK!
Willoughby'S claims to know a lot about flying and even has a “student pilot” certificate.. He should have checked that the check list was used and seat locked. It was his fault too...
• The pilot did the go around wrong. He pulled up too steeply. He failed to do the go around sooner when aircraft was on runway.. Electing to continue his landing approach.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows:
The pilot’s failure to maintain airspeed during a go-around, which resulted in an inadvertent stall and subsequent impact with terrain. A factor was the pilot’s hearing impairment.
Go-Arounds (Rejected Landings)
Whenever landing conditions are not satisfactory, a go-around is warranted. There are many factors that can contribute to unsatisfactory landing conditions. Situations such as air traffic control requirements, unexpected appearance of hazards on the runway, overtaking another airplane, wind shear, wake turbulence, mechanical failure and/or an unstabilized approach are all examples of reasons to discontinue a landing approach and make another approach under more favorable conditions…The go-around is not strictly an emergency procedure. It is a normal maneuver that may at times be used in an emergency situation. Like any other normal maneuver, the go-around must be practiced and perfected…
Although the need to discontinue a landing may arise at any point in the landing process, the most critical go-around will be one started when very close to the ground. Therefore, the earlier a condition that warrants a go-around is recognized, the safer the go-around/rejected landing will be. The go-around maneuver is not inherently dangerous in itself. It becomes dangerous only when delayed unduly or executed improperly…The improper execution of the go-around maneuver stems from a lack of familiarity with the three cardinal principles of the procedure: power, attitude, and configuration…
Attitude is always critical when close to the ground, and when power is added, a deliberate effort on the part of the pilot will be required to keep the nose from pitching up prematurely. The airplane executing a go-around must be maintained in an attitude that permits a buildup of airspeed well beyond the stall point before any effort is made to gain altitude, or to execute a turn. Raising the nose too early may produce a stall from which the airplane could not be recovered if the go-around is performed at a low altitude.
A concern for quickly regaining altitude during a go-around produces a natural tendency to pull the nose up. The pilot executing a go-around must accept the fact that an airplane will not climb until it can fly, and it will not fly below stall speed. In some circumstances, it may be desirable to lower the nose briefly to gain airspeed. As soon as the appropriate climb airspeed and pitch attitude are attained, the pilot should ‘rough trim’ the airplane to relieve any adverse control pressures. Later, more precise trim adjustments can be made when flight conditions have stabilized.”
there was no visual stall warning that stall was coming. the Cessna had a stall warning horn. I myself fly without visual stall warning. I can’t hear the stall warning horn either (I’m deaf too)
but you can tell stall coming by airspeed and controls start getting mushy, and aircraft will “buffet” (shake) just as stall happens to recover from a stall lower the nose (decrease angle of attack) I fly all the time and never call out on radio nor can I hear other pilots broadcast their intentions on the CTAF (Common Traffic Advosory Frency or “Unicom”) the lowest aircraft has the right away. the aircraft on the ground had the right of way.. the pilot should NOT have continued to try land.. He should have done a “go around” right away aborted the landing and came around to another landing attemp. their hearing had NOTHING to do with the accident the pilot failed to use good judgement on landing attmp, failed to insure his seat was “locked” thats part of the before take off check list. then on his go around he pitch the nose up too steeply and seat slid back forcing him into deep stall.. I the deaf pilot was 100% at fault for this accident. the other plane had nothing to do with it. the airport did not have taxiway runway is also used as taxi way
its not uncommon at smaller airports. The National transportation safety board says the deaf pilots were not using the radio.. nothing wrong with the its a no tower airport. the mistake was the deaf pilot contining to try to land with another aircraft on the runway he should have excuted a go around right away.. you can see other aircraft on runways from the pattern. as a deaf pilot I lay the blame for this accident on the other deaf pilot. It was 100% his fault!
If he was sueing only the pilot in command of the aircraft I wouldn't have a problem with that.. but Sueing Cessna, the bi-plane pilot, the airport operators, and everyone else is just WRONG
Post a Comment