Wow, that's a fast 550. His 3/15 FlightAware track shows him going 251 knots in level flight.

He couldn't see out his windscreen, so I think that'll be up to a DA and a grand jury.

But I'd doubt it.

Even common people could see this as an "act of God" with its lack of statistical possibility.

I could see manslughter if he was flying with reckless disregard, e.g. low passes for thrills.

But that's not what happened. His plane broke and he couldn't see. He did what what any reasonably prudent pilot in a similar situation would have done.

This wasn't a crime. It was an accident.

Losing a prop changes your CG greatly, thus affecting your landing/handling qualities, ask airshow people like sean tucker and steve falon who have lost props. he was lucky just to get it down and you want to lock him up.
jim

There is no such thing as an "act of God" anymore........we're now subjected to an "occurrence of nature"......

In God we trust, others must sign.
--Sign Out Sheet, 2/6 Field Artillery Tool Crib, 1976

There is no such thing as an "act of God" anymore........we're now subjected to an "occurrence of nature"......

He could control his craft well enough to land on a beach. He made a decision to land where he knew there would be people, instead of in the ocean where he knew there wouldn't. The loss of the prop was an act of God, but the death of the man was caused by the pilot's decision to put his own safety ahead of people he certainly knew were on the ground.

His own words: "I've got a lot of issues going on right now," Smith said. "I've got a plane that's all torn up. And I've got a young man that I killed." In other words, his priorities in order of importance: me, my plane, my victim.

Rob, with all due respect, are your priorities any different in this discussion?

You thought about your law first. If you showed the empathic bandwidth to express concern for the deceased first and your law second then you might have persuaded me. But you didn't.

If I was a juror you would lose my vote in a criminal case.

Land in the water, kill the pax. Now what?

Land in the water, land on beach, land on whatever.

This pilot flew his plane as far into the crash as possible. I think he did the right thing.

If you want to play armchair pilot then that's your right. If you're trying to gain clients then that's you're right, too.

But if it's gaming for money that you're after then put your money where your mouth is. Post your law firm's PayPal account for the heirs to pay for your legal services.

throw a couple of quarts of oil on your windshield,with no power,and see if you could land without hitting anything....

His windshield was covered in oil but he could see well enough to land on a beach??? I guess he just couldn't see the people on the beach?

A reasonable man would know there are people on the beach. I would've ditched in the water. This poor bastard he hit had no choice. The pilot and passenger did have a choice.

I'm with Robert on this one. Pilot should've ditched in the ocean and taken his chances. Not saved his ass and sacrificed others.

On another note, has anyone ever though of carrying and airhorn onboard to blow out the window in case of a "no power" landing. That may have worked in this case.

A reasonably prudent pilot would also know that landing in water is near certain death. Especially in an airplane with a high stall speed.

How do you know that this pilot wasn't aiming for the water and missed by a tide's width?

If he was aiming for the water and did a bad job, then what's a new legal standard for a reasonably prudent pilot? He should ditch far enough from shore to guarantee that death, if any, occurs in the airplane?

Not so, Ed.

If one is "landing", and not the stall/spin crashing, about 90% of ditchings / landings in water are survivable. I would think that is especially true if near a shoreline / beach.