Survivors of Wellstone crash victims settle for $25 million

(Red) Star Tribune ^ | August 28, 2003 | Tony Kennedy and Paul McEnroe

[Sloth]

This should be a lesson never to do business -- any business -- with a leftist.

[blackdog]

The "pilot error" was caused by an incredible resistance to anyone telling any politician that they cannot do something which has been requested. The Wellstones and their handlers will not accept that a pilot has reached a "go-no-go" decision based on the weather and platform capabilities. I've seen it a hundred times and have been an unwilling participant on a few. Fortunately I was lucky.

Had the pilot refused to fly Wellstone due to the weather, that would be the end of that pilot's job. Unfortunately(or fortunately) that responsibility must be taken and comes with the turf.

If you need another example, remember Heinz making Sun Oil use their helicopter to inspect the landing gear underneath the light twin Heinz was flying in? The flaming debris of both aircraft rained down on a gradeschool and in the most heavily populated area in Pennsylvania. Again an act caused by the arrogance of political power and it's unwillingness to accept that there are some constants which cannot be resolved by barking at the help.

[flamefront]

Bingo - you said it.

Also recall Wellstone was in the throes of a campaign, no holds barred. Clearly he pressured the pilot to ignore the obvious and known icing conditions at the time.

This settlement is disgusting.

[toddst]

. . . NTSB aerospace engineers released a detailed report that stated the plane had slowed to 76 knots, or 87 miles per hour, seconds before the crash. The plane's flight manual calls for a minimum airspeed in icing conditions of 140 knots.

This tells me the plane had more ice than the pilots were aware of. Likely they didn't react quickly enough to the decline in airspeed which dropped them below minimum speed and altitude.

Planes with ice are hard to control, especially at low speed. This is not pilot error that justifies filing suit, IMO. After all, the pilots died as a result of what happened. They weren't going to knowingly put themselves at risk.

[TC Rider]

I can't believe they settled, especially after all the geniuses over at DU figured out it was the fault of the Bush Family Evil Empire.

/sarcasm

[Aeronaut]

I've seen it a hundred times and have been an unwilling participant on a few. Fortunately I was lucky.

We have a slogan that if we make a weather "no-go" decision we immediately drink a beer. That way no one can make us go. (It is tongue in cheek, of course)

[Hunble]

We have a slogan that if we make a weather "no-go" decision we immediately drink a beer.

Understood and I love the idea. At that point, nobody can force you to fly for a minimum of 8 hours.

Do you have the official NTSB accident report available online?

[Aeronaut]

Do you have the official NTSB accident report available online?

No, it won't be available for probably a couple more months yet. I'll let you know if we get sued. (I work for MnDOT Aeronautics)

[Hunble]

That is what I thought and why I wondered about this lawsuit.

I try to keep informed on aircraft accidents and their cause. As a pilot, I want to learn from the errors of others and hope to prevent myself from making the same stupid blunder out of ignorance.

Until the NTSB makes their final report, how can anyone declare that it was pilot error?

[5by5]

I'm thinking that the pilots were aware of their dangerous load of ice. They were "low and slow: because of the ice and couldn't do anything about it.

As the plane loads up, the pilots have to increase power to maintain altitude and airspeed. When all the power is in, they must start increasing the angle of attack and accept the decrease in airspeed. At some point they can no longer increase angle of attack without decreasing speed below the point of stalling and they must then accept an inevitable loss of altitude. That's the chain of events that put them low and slow on the approach and in the trees.

The mistake was taking off into marginal conditions. Given the uneven distribution of severe icing, they also had some bad luck. I see it as more of a decision making mistake than a single error in piloting skills. That's also what invites the lawyers in.

Since it seems that all the witnesses to the last conversation on the ground (if there even was one), are dead, so we can really only speculate about the dynamics between the flight crew and the passengers.

RIP

[Aeronaut]

Until the NTSB makes their final report, how can anyone declare that it was pilot error?

They always preface it with "probable cause" even in the final reports.

[toddst]

The mistake was taking off into marginal conditions. Given the uneven distribution of severe icing, they also had some bad luck. I see it as more of a decision making mistake than a single error in piloting skills.

I agree with your overall summary. A friend of mine crashed under similar conditions, was seriously injured and one of his passengers killed. His was an error in judgement, taking off into known icing conditions. I was a part-owner in the plane, lost a fair amount of money in the deal, based on his bad decision.

Unless the plane is equipped with de-icing gear stay on the ground until icing conditions clear.

[spokanite]

My brother, who was an accomplished pilot with well over 25,000 hours logged, was killed in a plane crash back in April. He reported engine problems and needed to shut it down or the engine would blow up. Well, the initial report from the NTSB is pilot error. I guess he shut the engine down a couple of seconds too soon. He missed the runway by a few hundred yards.

I think it's easy to place blame on the pilot.