Forums

The Cirrus SR-20 began as an experimental aircraft, introduced at the National EAA convention many years ago. It is a composite airplane with wet wings, (fuel in the cavity of the wings) and holds 56 gallons. It has a side yoke on each side for flight controls, instead of the familiar center yoke. That requires ones hand on the yoke most of the time and your hand can get tired. It is not a docile airplane and in my opinion, should not be flown by an inexperienced pilot. The CFI, however, was with the pilot and we assume he was familiar with this type aircraft. The Cirrus gives little warning of an impending stall ,as there is no mushing feel to it, unlike Piper and Cessna. It is powered by a 200 hp Continental engine and that engine is very reliable. The Google GPS aircraft mapping system showed the Cirrus climbing out and was at 1,300 ASL when it suddenly took a right turn and a fast descent, then disappeared from the screen. If this were the Cirrus, it had some type of failure, either airframe, engine, or pilot error. It is not a good low and slow airplane and is considered a performance aircraft.

In answer to your question, hull liablity would cover the damages. Limits are determined by the experience level of pilot and the amounts the policyholder declares at the time of request. I am sure that the limits were probably in line with the owners annual income, as to protect assets of an estate if the pilot were killed. Coverage would extend to the building, occupants and ground injuries. As to whether there will be sufficient coverage for all damages is dependant on the policy limit. Of course the estate of the owner would be in jeopardy if adequate coverage is not in place. There is also seat liability per seat, which would come into play for the CFI.

This was an unfortunate accident and took several lives. The NTSB will be on this one for a while. From physical appearances of the building, the craft hit the building at an angle, wings ruptured the fuel into and on the side of the building at an angle, so the craft hit at an angle. It was not a dead, head on impact. The tanks were probably topped off to full, therefore having just departed, there was probably at least 50 to 52 gallons of usable fuel on board, a sufficient amount to create a significant explosion and fire ball. Unlike an aluminum encased tank, the wings would have shredded and dispersed fuel immediately upon impact, spewing fuel into the apartments, setting them ablaze. The composite material is structurally sound, until a hard impact when it shreds and ruptures.

The carrier may want to place the liability limits into a trust to be dispersed by the court system. That is one way of settleing and they may want to do it on an individual basis. I suspect the claim will be several millions of dollars. Hope this helps you with your question. This post is an opinion only.

Tiger, if you are referring to product liability, your right. If they find something failed on the airframe, (Cirrus) or engine, (Continental) or prop, (Hartzell , McCauley, or?), Fuel contamination, then indeed there will be multi- millions involved. The investigation by NTSB and/or aviation adjuster will determine that. The engine and prop were found in the apartment and the fuselage fell to the ground with the occupants. This is a sad accident and now all the proponents of commercial aviation are going to want to limit, even further, the ability for the general aviation pilot to fly the skys. Like smoking, flight is being restricted more and more everyday. I am glad I was able to put the thousands of hours I have in an aircraft during the time that I did. When I first learned to fly, you flew needle ball and compass. We did not have all the fancy instrumentation that is now available to owners, and I made it just fine. Like everything else, flying has become so technical, it is not the fun it used to be. Back in the good ol days I could take off, fly all over Arkansas, land and never use a radio. ADF was the primary instrument for location purposes.

General aviation flight is much safer than driving your car or truck to the grocery store. I have in excess of 6,000 hour PIC time and have had but one accident. That accident involved a mechanic not securing the axle nut with a cotter pin and upon practicing heavy cross wind landings, the axle nut turned just enough to lock up the tire on the right side, having made a one point touch down on the right gear. The plane spun round and round. I would suggest you take fixed wing flight training first. Rotocraft ratings are much more difficult, due to the complexity of controls. Rotocraft dual times and rental expense are considerably more than fixed, single engine wing. In a fixed wing, when you lose power, you have wings to glide with. With rotorcraft, you must learn autorotation recovery, which is difficult as best. There is nothing more exhilerating than flying a plane by yourself. I used to go out, get in the plane, climb to 10,000 ASL, pull flaps at 30 degrees, trim the plane, and just come down slowly, taking in all the beauty of mother earth. That always put me in a good and postive mood.

Most of the claims I have investigated involved human error, either pilot, or mechanic. Planes are safe, if well maintained. Flying is safe if the pilot keeps himself current and does not fly into something he is not qualified to fly into. It seems pilots who have between 100 to 300 hours are more likely to have an accident.