Not sure if anyone has seen this, kind of interesting.
Hes suing....

http://www.aero-news.net/index.cfm?C...8556a43174e&#d

Poor guy doesn't have a choice. He's just a pawn in the game of lawsuits. Of course he doesn't want to be in it. But the fact is he got sued by some families. I'm sure he must have lawyered up, and following his own lawyers advice, has now sued the rwy lighting company.

Don't blame the pilot. Blame the lawsuit system. He's just playing ball, trying to stay alive in the field.

Yeah its brutle any way you look at it....

Yep. Violation of federal law. It's under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11, the prohibition against frivolous, unsubstantiable, and bad-faith suits. It clearly states that lawsuits meant to harrass a defendant are illegal. Obviously, with a Comair FO making only about $45K, the suits serve no practical purpose except to personally harrass him, and the attornies are therefore in vilation.

The #1 problem is that the system was designed by lawyers, for lawyers, and that lawyers callously ignore laws and ethics rules in the pursuit of shoving cash in their pockets. Even Rule 11 gives little punishment to lawyers who pull this bull******.

For more information, google "Rule 11" and look for yourself. It's the most often ignored and under-enforced set of laws in the US.

Since it was labled pilot error doesn't that mean he doesn't stand a chance?

I have not read any article in which it stated the co-pilot had lawsuits filed against him personally. Where did you get this information. Everything I have read stated that lawsuits have been against Comair, the FAA, the Airport, and now the company that made the runway lights. Nothing has stated he has lawsuits against him.

NTSB probable cause is inadmissible in private litigation.

Further a frivilous lawsuit will get thrown out of court. Rarely (if ever) do frivilous lawsuits get through, what most commonly happens is that people and the media do not know the full story, and therefore claim a lawsuit is frivilous.

NTSB yes but the FAA does their own accident investigation as well and didn't they label this pilot error? The FAA investigations are usable in court. There was a big debate on it here where people kept telling me the FAA didn't do accident investigation. I can't find the thread. I'm not too good at the search function I guess.

FAA Office of Accident Investigation
http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/...s/offices/aai/

I'm pretty sure their findings stand in court. Not 100% on that you'd have to ask Vagabond.

The FAA is a party to the investigation, they help the NTSB to determine and gather facts. The FAA does not conduct their own accident invesigation, they are a mandatory participant in the investigation, however they DO NOT determine probable cause (unless it is an NTSB Accident).

If you read the website descriptions of what the FAA Office of Accident Investigation does, they do not claim to determine probable cause.

The FAA use to do their own independent investigations, however that stopped after the NTSB and FAA came to differring conclusions, resulting in an embarrassing moment for our government.

However, the FAA often does lead the actual investigation, at the request of the NTSB. The NTSB always retains authority over the FAA in the investigation, and the FAA must have a written agreement with the NTSB to conduct the investigation.

The FAA is a required (by law) party to any accident investigation. They are responsible for investigating: FAR violations, FAA performance issues, Airworthiness Issues, Airman Issues, FAR Issues, as well as Airport and Security Issues. The FAA can take action against an airmen if they determined through the course of the investigation that a FAR was violated.

With that being said, there is only one body that can declare probable cause, and that is the NTSB. What the NTSB determines as probable cause cannot be used in PRIVATE litigation. Further it is simply the PROBABLE cause, and not the actual cause, since an NTSB investigation is never officially closed, and can also be revisited as new technology comes into play.

The overall philosphy is to investigate the accident and its causes, and be able to learn from the accident, and put in place steps to prevent future similair accidents. This is unlike other countries philosphies in accident investigation.