• Please take a moment and update your account profile. If you have an updated account profile with basic information on why you are on Air Warriors it will help other people respond to your posts. How do you update your profile you ask?

    Go here:

    Edit Account Details and Profile

T-39 Crash, families sue

Status
Not open for further replies.

BigIron

Remotely piloted
pilot
Super Moderator
Contributor
Why shouldn't government contractors be sued?

Contractors are businesses who are required to carry very large liability policies already. Just like any business, if they cause damage and injury (even if accidentally) they could be found legally liable. I don't see the problem with this premise.

How are contractors/corporations going to be held accountable for their business practices otherwise?
 

milky-f18

loud-mouthed, know-it-all
How are contractors/corporations going to be held accountable for their business practices otherwise?

I don't disagree with that at all. My hope was that a jury would not find the fact that people died to equal negligence. Now, if they decide the company should know better than allowing 68 year olds fly high performance aircraft, that would at least be a reason. I don't know if I would agree with it, but better than death=big payday.
 

Pugs

Back from the range
None
Are there NFO's on here who don't feel the contract pilots were safe? Honest question.

Negative, now my time goes back a ways and I did T-47's instead of the T-39 but I thought the contract pilots at the time were an incredible resource and engaging them in conversation after the debrief often taught me more than the instructor did. Always felt they were fully in control.

Now I'll caveat that with if one had pitched over with vapor lock I DID have a yoke in front of me so I wasn't all powerless like you would be in the backseat of a Rhino or Prowler with only one way out.
 

Fmr1833

Shut the F#%k up, dummy!
None
Contributor
I love how there are pilots on here who never went through VT-86 or flew the T-39 with one of the contracters. Yes, for the most part they are awesome and a valuable resource...but some of them are old. L-3 only requires that they get an FAA physical which is basically a joke. They have no annual physical, no flight doc...they are required to self-report according to Federal Aviation Regulations (61.45 and 63.19). These regulations place the responsibility for determining physical fitness upon the pilot. They state that no person may act as a pilot when he has a known physical deficiency which would make him unable to meet the physical requirements for his medical certificate.

Now, I'm not going to disclose what may still be confidential or privileged info. But I will say that if you read between the lines from the above, you'll believe me when I say that this case has more than one leg to stand on.

The pilots on those low levels were supposed to be eyes out all the time while the stud worked the chart, radar, etc under the tutelage of the instructor who was almost always heads down unfucking the stud. Unfortunately, some of the pilots like to go heads down as well and it was a huge point of contention at VT-86 when I was there. So were they an active crew? Yes, but sometimes the pilots got too complacent.

One final thing, you're talking about the families of fellow officers. Not some off the street trash. Tammy Manse was 7 months pregnant when Catdog died. Takes a real man to tell her she wants a fucking lottery winning.

Sorry if I'm harsh, but attacking the families when you have no idea what happened is unprofessional.
 
Are there NFO's on here who don't feel the contract pilots were safe? Honest question.

Navy hurting this bad for pilots we have to resort to contract pilots? Don't think that is the case considering current staffing/manning situation in entire fleet. BUPERS proves that for us
 

Pugs

Back from the range
None
RetreadRand said:
It is not an issue of the navy not having enough pilots.
These T-39s and Navy T-1s have been contracted for about 10 years, maybe more.

More than 20 years.
 

jarhead

UAL CA; retired hinge
pilot
I don't know the full situation and haven't read the full mishap report but if it's as bad as you say, then why fly with them? Why didn't the IP's at VT-86 bring it up to the CO or higher or during safety standdowns if those "old" contractors were scaring you guys? I say fuck flying with some dipshit whether he's 25 or 65 ... I'm not signing my death warrent if I don't have any control of the situation.

As for my "money grab" comment, I know I'm talking about fellow Naval Officers and their spouses - you don't have to point it out to me - and I feel sorry for the IP, the studs, and their families. But I'm a skeptic to lawsuits like these - lets blame somebody else - typical of today's society, somebody else is always at fault, and the savvy lawyers get rich off of it. We all know the risks involved when we signed the contract. I have ORM'd out of several training flights in my career due to certain risks and IMO, if a pilot/NFO doesn't play that card on the appropriate occasions when risk outwieghs the return then they must be ready to accept the outcome of that choice.

S/F

I love how there are pilots on here who never went through VT-86 or flew the T-39 with one of the contracters. Yes, for the most part they are awesome and a valuable resource...but some of them are old. L-3 only requires that they get an FAA physical which is basically a joke. They have no annual physical, no flight doc...they are required to self-report according to Federal Aviation Regulations (61.45 and 63.19). These regulations place the responsibility for determining physical fitness upon the pilot. They state that no person may act as a pilot when he has a known physical deficiency which would make him unable to meet the physical requirements for his medical certificate.

Now, I'm not going to disclose what may still be confidential or privileged info. But I will say that if you read between the lines from the above, you'll believe me when I say that this case has more than one leg to stand on.

The pilots on those low levels were supposed to be eyes out all the time while the stud worked the chart, radar, etc under the tutelage of the instructor who was almost always heads down unfucking the stud. Unfortunately, some of the pilots like to go heads down as well and it was a huge point of contention at VT-86 when I was there. So were they an active crew? Yes, but sometimes the pilots got too complacent.

One final thing, you're talking about the families of fellow officers. Not some off the street trash. Tammy Manse was 7 months pregnant when Catdog died. Takes a real man to tell her she wants a fucking lottery winning.

Sorry if I'm harsh, but attacking the families when you have no idea what happened is unprofessional.
 

FLYTPAY

Pro-Rec Fighter Pilot
pilot
None
I love how there are pilots on here who never went through VT-86 or flew the T-39 with one of the contracters. Yes, for the most part they are awesome and a valuable resource...but some of them are old. L-3 only requires that they get an FAA physical which is basically a joke. They have no annual physical, no flight doc...they are required to self-report according to Federal Aviation Regulations (61.45 and 63.19). These regulations place the responsibility for determining physical fitness upon the pilot. They state that no person may act as a pilot when he has a known physical deficiency which would make him unable to meet the physical requirements for his medical certificate.

Now, I'm not going to disclose what may still be confidential or privileged info. But I will say that if you read between the lines from the above, you'll believe me when I say that this case has more than one leg to stand on.

The pilots on those low levels were supposed to be eyes out all the time while the stud worked the chart, radar, etc under the tutelage of the instructor who was almost always heads down unfucking the stud. Unfortunately, some of the pilots like to go heads down as well and it was a huge point of contention at VT-86 when I was there. So were they an active crew? Yes, but sometimes the pilots got too complacent.

One final thing, you're talking about the families of fellow officers. Not some off the street trash. Tammy Manse was 7 months pregnant when Catdog died. Takes a real man to tell her she wants a fucking lottery winning.

Sorry if I'm harsh, but attacking the families when you have no idea what happened is unprofessional.
+1 totally agree with everything you say. Sue away.
 

Single Seat

Average member
pilot
None

Agree with all, however I retracted my previous post for several reasons one being the fact that some shady lawyer could have very well approached the families asking to represent, seeing a potential payday for their own best interest.
 

Fmr1833

Shut the F#%k up, dummy!
None
Contributor
Here's our shady lawyer...a fellow Naval Aviator. He probably doesn't know anything about how we do our business...oh wait.

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1752792_1?noconfirm=0

Jarhead, not really picking a fight with you, but when you or I get into the jet with another military Pilot or NFO we have a reasonable expectation that the person has at least passed an aviation physical within the last 12 months. Not so with a contractor as no one oversees them on a yearly basis. Do we accept the risks in our business? Of course. One of my best friends punched out of a Prowler the other day...we all know they're old planes but we accept it and move on.

Lawsuits like this may not even be about a payday, but rather bringing to light something that is not quite right... be it the failure of the Navy to push L3 for annuals on these guys or the fact that TRAWING 6 has tabled upgraded safety equipment for the T-39's several times in the past decade in favor of new office chairs and smartboards.

One more thing, don't get mad at me for pointing out your comments about other Officers and their families. You put it out there so it's fair game for me to call you on it.
 

jarhead

UAL CA; retired hinge
pilot
Jarhead, not really picking a fight with you ...

... One more thing, don't get mad at me ...
no worries bud, not mad or trying to fight, it's a touchy subject in which we agree on some things and disagree on others.

S/F
 

HeyJoe

Fly Navy! ...or USMC
None
Super Moderator
Contributor
Here's our shady lawyer...a fellow Naval Aviator. He probably doesn't know anything about how we do our business...oh wait.

http://pview.findlaw.com/view/1752792_1?noconfirm=0

Lawsuits like this may not even be about a payday, but rather bringing to light something that is not quite right... be it the failure of the Navy to push L3 for annuals on these guys or the fact that TRAWING 6 has tabled upgraded safety equipment for the T-39's several times in the past decade in favor of new office chairs and smartboards.


I'd check to make sure that is true before passing it on as a fact. Funding for anything to do with aircraft comes from specific accounts that are handled above the wing level and, more importantly, cannot be used for office furniture of any type so that might be an urban legend.
 
RetreadRand said:
It is not an issue of the navy not having enough pilots.
These T-39s and Navy T-1s have been contracted for about 10 years, maybe more.

Navy should reconsider. God knows we have enough 1310/1315's to fill these positions. Just my opinion....and trying to get out of office billet :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top