http://www.avweb.com/avwebflash/news/Wi ... 370-1.html

Is anything my fault anymore? Not according to my attorney :-)

She got over the grief apparently.

I would guess that she is probably being sued by the other families, so she is trying to shift the blame.

Tim

I have read the entire case and this sickens me! I feel so sorry for the children that died possibly needlessly because of a pilot that didn't stick to what he was at one time taught!
I hope that a judge somewhere has the "stones" to throw this case out! And make the plaintiff pay for all cost incurred!

Bobby,

Amen... lay the blame to whose really at fault.

How about NOBODY being at fault? I am sick of our legal system. People got into a plane to go flying. The plane crashed and people died. The pilot did not intentionally kill them. There was not enough seating - so what? I have many times been in taxis, buses, and trains where I had to stand up or sit on the floor becuse there was no room.

Have we forgotten that we are all just human mortals and we will all die someday?

IMO, and I've only read the summary report (which, like all NTSB findings, is unfortunately not admissible, IIRC), the failure to add anti-ice is a significant causal factor in the crash. If that can be shown to be negligence, and surely if it can be shown to be intentional, on the part of the pilot, I don't agree that this is "NOBODY's fault".

Failure to notice and correct the fuel imbalance, or land short of the destination, while also certainly something that only the pilot could have addressed, I don't feel nearly as strongly that that was intentional negligence. We've certainly all been internally pressured, whether or not we realize it, to complete a mission as planned, especially when it seems within the capability of the airplane.

Montana is a comparative fault state. MCA § 27-1-702. The widow will have to show that her late husband, the pilot, was not more than 50% at fault for the crash if she is to recover anything. Russ Niles report is remarkably short on detail. The Billings Gazette has a little more detail. http://billingsgazette.com/news/state-and-regional/montana/pilot-s-wife-suing-airplane-company/article_fc0f8a3e-61f4-5445-9c29-43f3af761c93.html

In any case, the NTSB factual findings are available to use as evidence for the defense in either a summary judgment motion (difficult to win) or at trial. I will be interested to see who the widow's expert witnesses are and how they refute the NTSB's findings. Should be an interesting case.

Alan Bradley

I sat thru the NTSB briefing on the findings a couple weeks ago at the Montana Aviation Conference. He did not add the anti ice, the impression was for cost reasons. I disagree with your second part. He clearly knew about the fuel imbalance. We know from the onboard electronics that that is why he diverted. The fuel imbalance was so bad that what was really happening was he was running out of gas. He could only get gas from the right tank, all the excess gas was being returned to the left and none was feeding from that tank. We know that from the onboard electronics. We know that he knew of the requirement to land when the fuel imbalance reaches a certain point, 3 bars(maybe 4, I forget) and it cannot be rectified. At the time of the crash he had a 29 bar imbalance.(or what ever the most is) The plane had between 0 and 5 minutes of fuel remaining in the right tank and a full left tank. Pilatus had never flown the plane with more than half that much imbalance.
As someone who knows little of those types of fuel systems the first thing to hit me was why isn't the fuel filter heated? No idea, seems simple enough. However as the pilot you know the limitations and consequences. You must land when an unfixable imbalance hits a certain point. He flew past 4-5 suitable airports before he decided to divert. All planes have limitations, you get into each one knowing what they are. I could understand a lawsuit when a new defect is discovered. This case should never get past the lawyers office when she walks in. Sorry lady, your husband screwed up.

The suit was filed a couple of days before the 3 year statute of limitations expired under Montana law. Sometimes lawyers will file suit just to stop the statute of limitations from running while they continue to investigate. They can always voluntarily dismiss the case down the road if they think it's a loser.

+1. I find it hard to believe that there is not some other legal action pending. Maybe a similar claim has already been filed by some of the passengers (against pilot/owner/Pilatus/Maintenance shop). She may just have her own claim for loss of consortium and she is going to piggy back on the evidence from the other case. Don't know, maybe someone can enlighten us with some factual information out that way.

Don't know if Montana is a comparative fault state as it pertains to loss of consortium (if it is reduced by comparative fault of the deceased spouse). Up until fairly recently, in our state, consortium claims were not reduced by comparative fault.

I doubt this case will ever go to trial. I suspect the widow's attorneys are fishing for a quick settlement. There is a saying in the legal profession, "every dead body has a price".

Alan,

I was not aware that NTSB findings could be used in court. In fact, I thought they were specifically excluded from evidence.

The Probable Cause report is excluded, but the Factual is admissible.

Rumor has it that the passengers' survivors (or some of them) filed administrative claims against Solano County, CA, which runs the fuel service at Nut Tree Airport where the pilot failed to add Prist. Timely admin claims are required before a lawsuit can be filed against the County, but allegedly, these admin claims were not timely filed, so they may be out of luck.

All of this is third-hand info, and may or may not be reliable.

The Probable Cause report is excluded, but the Factual is admissible.