Sue the white man for introducing fire water to her people?

Well, actually it does.

I know the woman's hurting,but this makes little sense.

The pilot's family should be the ones suing.

Schram is seeking compensation for loss of support, loss of inheritance, loss of companionship and loss of household assistance.

Wait, what? Did the guy have something in his will that said "Oh and if I ever get killed in a plane crash, don't give my wife any money, eh?' I don't get that one.

OregonVet: Well, actually it does.

He's right. Illegal to allow someone who is intoxicated to fly in an aircraft. Someone else have the specific FAR? I can't pull it up here.

How jacked up are the Canadian courts? If they are as bad as ours, they might actually have a chance to win or therefore settle.

/I'll never make it on a jury
//I'd laugh em out of court.

basemetal: How jacked up are the Canadian courts? If they are as bad as ours, they might actually have a chance to win or therefore settle.

/I'll never make it on a jury
//I'd laugh em out of court.

This also involves the tribe so it puts an additional twist on things.

No, you sue the liquor companies because they have the deepest pockets and will likely settle out of court.

Your husband was killed in a plane crash on a private plane when a drunk passenger his drunk cousin assaulted the pilot, causing the plane to nosedive? It makes total sense to sue the estate of the dead pilot, don'tcha think?

Also left out of the headline: they were trying to smuggle alcohol into the reservation.

Yea, they usually sue the aircraft manufacturer.

So noone on the plane could keep the drunk from pinning the pilots seat forward?......was it some sort of suicide pact between the passengers?

In the lawsuit, Sam's widow, Melissa Schram, alleges York and the company he worked for were grossly negligent because the pilot's seat was so easily shoved forward when Mattersdorfer kicked it. Additionally, Schram's suit claims that because of improper training the pilot failed to maintain calm during an emergency situation.

Schram is seeking compensation a quick pay off for loss of support, loss of inheritance, loss of companionship and loss of household assistance.

/In other words..its all about the money. And i have news for you sister, if the girl pinned the pilot forward by kicking his seat forward and holding it there, he would be pressed into the yoke, and there wasn't shiat he could do but watch the water come up. I hope you get nothing you farking twat. I'm guessing you tried to sue the family of the girl who kicked the seat, and after finding no money there, you went after the pilot. Way to stay classy.

I thought Todd Palin died after reading that headline.

That's why pilots should all have a security droid flying co-pilot/navigator. Anyone gets a bit crazy and they get a Uranium PU-36 Illudium radioactive space modulator up the yahoo.

Giltric: So noone on the plane could keep the drunk from pinning the pilots seat forward?......was it some sort of suicide pact between the passengers?

The finding sounds like a load of conjectured bs.

nekom: Schram is seeking compensation for loss of support, loss of inheritance, loss of companionship and loss of household assistance.

Wait, what? Did the guy have something in his will that said "Oh and if I ever get killed in a plane crash, don't give my wife any money, eh?' I don't get that one.

The plane was probably worth 150k.

...violated Canadian aviation regulations by allowing the drunken passenger to board his flight...

Makes sense to me. Also, you sue where the money is. The kind of person who would attack the pilot of a plane in fight probably doesn't leave much behind. You're not going to get much money suing the estate of a drunken idiot.

In the lawsuit, Sam's widow, Melissa Schram, alleges York and the company he worked for were grossly negligent because the pilot's seat was so easily shoved forward when Mattersdorfer kicked it. Additionally, Schram's suit claims that because of improper training the pilot failed to maintain calm during an emergency situation.

/Um....kinda hard to maintain control of a emergency situation when some drunken coont is pinning you to the controls with her feet, and you are trying to free yourself before your plane slams into the water. This dumb biatch might as well sue god for having water there, makes about as much sense. The level of stupid this lady has is staggering. That is why all charters should have a wall between the pilot /passengers.

Allowing a drunk guy on the airplane you pilot is like bringing passengers in your car while you know the engine is about to catch on fire and explode. Just because the pilot did something suicidally stupid doesn't excuse him from fault.

OregonVet: Well, actually it does.

As the son of a responsible pilot, I agree.

nekom: Schram is seeking compensation for loss of support, loss of inheritance, loss of companionship and loss of household assistance.

Wait, what? Did the guy have something in his will that said "Oh and if I ever get killed in a plane crash, don't give my wife any money, eh?' I don't get that one.

Likewise, "loss of household assistance." Do Canadian husbands help with the dishes and stuff?

An autopsy found the passenger's ankles were broken on impact, suggesting she was kicking the pilot's seat forward, the board said.

Huh? So if you are in a plane crash, and you do not kick anyone's seat forward before the crash, your ankles will be fine?

The article also says that the pilot had a broken wrist, which of course means he was pinned by a woman who was kicking his seat forward. From which you can likewise conclude that if you are in a plane crash and you aren't pinned and trying to free yourself, your wrists will be fine?

So basically if you don't do anything before or during a plane crash, none of your bones will be broken and (presumably) you will survive the crash. Any crash victims who have broken bones or missing limbs were obviously up to shenanigans.

I'm sorry, I'm sure there are all kinds of details left out of this article. But from my position of complete ignorance it sounds like a real stretch to attribute any significance to which victims had which broken bones. They were in a plane crash. I would expect all manner of bones to be broken.

I think the idiots in this story are the investigators, presuming they wrote a report claiming they know what happened. I really don't see how they can look at a plane crash and come up with that conclusion, although maybe there was some conversation recorded or something. But the article implies that they are making conclusions based on the broken ankles and wrist, which seems strange. If a plane is crashing it is entirely reasonable that a person would instinctively put their feet up on the back of the seat.

If the investigators are making it sound like that is what happened, then it is in fact reasonable to sue both the drunk passenger and the pilot (assuming you are the sue-happy type of person).

Are the seats held down with zipties in those? How is it possible to push a seat forward like that?

Andulamb: An autopsy found the passenger's ankles were broken on impact, suggesting she was kicking the pilot's seat forward, the board said.

Huh? So if you are in a plane crash, and you do not kick anyone's seat forward before the crash, your ankles will be fine?

The article also says that the pilot had a broken wrist, which of course means he was pinned by a woman who was kicking his seat forward. From which you can likewise conclude that if you are in a plane crash and you aren't pinned and trying to free yourself, your wrists will be fine?

So basically if you don't do anything before or during a plane crash, none of your bones will be broken and (presumably) you will survive the crash. Any crash victims who have broken bones or missing limbs were obviously up to shenanigans.

I'm sorry, I'm sure there are all kinds of details left out of this article. But from my position of complete ignorance it sounds like a real stretch to attribute any significance to which victims had which broken bones. They were in a plane crash. I would expect all manner of bones to be broken.

Maybe if she hadn't been kicking the seat hard enough to break her ankles as well as the pilot's wrist they may not have died?

eltejon: OregonVet: Well, actually it does.

He's right. Illegal to allow someone who is intoxicated to fly in an aircraft. Someone else have the specific FAR? I can't pull it up here.

14 CFR 91.17 - Alcohol or drugs.

(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/ 14/91.17 (pops)

Basically, the pilot is responsible if the passenger even appears to be drunk or under the influence of drugs.

gweilo8888: eltejon: OregonVet: Well, actually it does.

He's right. Illegal to allow someone who is intoxicated to fly in an aircraft. Someone else have the specific FAR? I can't pull it up here.

14 CFR 91.17 - Alcohol or drugs.

(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/1 4/91.17 (pops)

Basically, the pilot is responsible if the passenger even appears to be drunk or under the influence of drugs.

Isn't that an American law?

That said, this occurred in Canada, so outside the FAA's jurisdiction. But I'm sure there's an equivalent CAR:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviatio n/regserv/cars/menu.htm (pops)

AbbeySomeone: Andulamb: An autopsy found the passenger's ankles were broken on impact, suggesting she was kicking the pilot's seat forward, the board said.

Huh? So if you are in a plane crash, and you do not kick anyone's seat forward before the crash, your ankles will be fine?

The article also says that the pilot had a broken wrist, which of course means he was pinned by a woman who was kicking his seat forward. From which you can likewise conclude that if you are in a plane crash and you aren't pinned and trying to free yourself, your wrists will be fine?

So basically if you don't do anything before or during a plane crash, none of your bones will be broken and (presumably) you will survive the crash. Any crash victims who have broken bones or missing limbs were obviously up to shenanigans.

I'm sorry, I'm sure there are all kinds of details left out of this article. But from my position of complete ignorance it sounds like a real stretch to attribute any significance to which victims had which broken bones. They were in a plane crash. I would expect all manner of bones to be broken.

Maybe if she hadn't been kicking the seat hard enough to break her ankles as well as the pilot's wrist they may not have died?

I remember the news stating something about audio recordings (black box style) from the cabin that supported the theory, never heard anything about broken wrists/ankles at the time, it was more along the lines of the pilot saying things like "WTF ARE YOU DOING YOU CRAZY biatch!!??"

WhippingBoy: Isn't that an American law?

Yes, I meant to state that myself, but missed doing so. Just posted saying that, but you beat me to it. ;-)

The person I responded to was asking for the FAR; I provided the FAR. You can guarantee there will be an equivalent CAR, but I can't be bothered finding it.

End of the day, the pilot bears some responsibility if they allow someone under the influence on their aircraft.

All I know is that from now on, there's gonna be a lot of natives with no way to get back to their reservation.

WhippingBoy: gweilo8888: eltejon: OregonVet: Well, actually it does.

He's right. Illegal to allow someone who is intoxicated to fly in an aircraft. Someone else have the specific FAR? I can't pull it up here.

14 CFR 91.17 - Alcohol or drugs.

(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/1 4/91.17 (pops)

Basically, the pilot is responsible if the passenger even appears to be drunk or under the influence of drugs.

Isn't that an American law?

You're right! This is under jurisdiction of martian law!

Bonus points if your husband was the only passenger.

Witnesses told investigators that prior to departing, all three were able to walk and were coherent enough to argue about the price of the charter, according to the safety board's accident report.

They got in the air and started drinking.

gweilo8888: eltejon: OregonVet: Well, actually it does.

He's right. Illegal to allow someone who is intoxicated to fly in an aircraft. Someone else have the specific FAR? I can't pull it up here.

14 CFR 91.17 - Alcohol or drugs.

(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/1 4/91.17 (pops)

Basically, the pilot is responsible if the passenger even appears to be drunk or under the influence of drugs.

I'm pretty sure that a U.S. law isn't applicable in Canada, nor would the FAA have any jurisdiction.

Bathia_Mapes: I'm pretty sure that a U.S. law isn't applicable in Canada, nor would the FAA have any jurisdiction.

I'm pretty sure that I never said it was applicable, that I was replying to somebody who specifically asked for a FAR, and that I flat-out said myself that there will be an equivalent CAR.

And I'm pretty sure that you should start reading *before* posting, because this was said almost half an hour before you snarked.

gweilo8888: eltejon: OregonVet: Well, actually it does.

He's right. Illegal to allow someone who is intoxicated to fly in an aircraft. Someone else have the specific FAR? I can't pull it up here.

14 CFR 91.17 - Alcohol or drugs.

(b) Except in an emergency, no pilot of a civil aircraft may allow a person who appears to be intoxicated or who demonstrates by manner or physical indications that the individual is under the influence of drugs (except a medical patient under proper care) to be carried in that aircraft.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/1 4/91.17 (pops)

Basically, the pilot is responsible if the passenger even appears to be drunk or under the influence of drugs.

So, since I only fly hammered and take xanax, I am putting the pilot at risk? Sweet!

wumpus: Witnesses told investigators that prior to departing, all three were able to walk and were coherent enough to argue about the price of the charter, according to the safety board's accident report.

They got in the air and started drinking.

That would still be the pilot's responsibility (or the certificate holder, on a fare-paying flight.)

thermo: So, since I only fly hammered and take xanax, I am putting the pilot at risk? Sweet!

I'm guessing commercial, in which case if you're really hammered and still allowed on board then yeah, the pilot and airline both could get in some deep shiat. But were you really hammered, they'd likely not let you on the flight, citing the regs. I doubt you're really hammered.

don'tcha think?

And as the plane crashed down, he thought "Well isn't this nice"...

Some people just plane shouldn't drink.

Bit'O'Gristle: I'm guessing you tried to sue the family of the girl who kicked the seat

FTA: Also named in the lawsuit are the company the pilot worked for, Atleo River Air Services, and the estate of Mattersdorfer.

In other words, she's suing several parties at once; this is the most direct route through the legal maze*. The journalist picked the plaintiff that would make for the most shock and outrage; the headline could have been "Woman sues dead drunken woman for allegedly causing plane crash."

* what you call corn

gweilo8888: wumpus:
They got in the air and started drinking.

That would still be the pilot's responsibility (or the certificate holder, on a fare-paying flight.)

Only, as I understand the regs, if the pilot allowed it. The CARs state, in effect, that the only legal way to drink in an aircraft is if "served" by the PIC or designate. It doesn't say we need to check, or are responsible for ensuring that they don't drink their own booze. If it could be proven that the pilot knew they were drinking and didn't stop them, that's a CARs violation. Civil liability? I don't know.

The idea that the lone crew member in the aircraft must monitor the passengers at all times is absurd, even if it's supported by the regs. The preventative action that comes from an accident like this can't be "pay better attention to what's going on behind you". That's useless.

shark72: * what you call corn

...maize?

gweilo8888: That said, this occurred in Canada, so outside the FAA's jurisdiction. But I'm sure there's an equivalent CAR:

http://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/civilaviation /regserv/cars/menu.htm (pops)

Yeah, I was right. If they brought the booze, the passengers were in violation of 602.04(2).

nekom: Schram is seeking compensation for loss of support, loss of inheritance, loss of companionship and loss of household assistance.

Wait, what? Did the guy have something in his will that said "Oh and if I ever get killed in a plane crash, don't give my wife any money, eh?' I don't get that one.

More likely he hadn't inherited it yet.

jabelar: I think the idiots in this story are the investigators, presuming they wrote a report claiming they know what happened. I really don't see how they can look at a plane crash and come up with that conclusion, although maybe there was some conversation recorded or something. But the article implies that they are making conclusions based on the broken ankles and wrist, which seems strange. If a plane is crashing it is entirely reasonable that a person would instinctively put their feet up on the back of the seat.

If the investigators are making it sound like that is what happened, then it is in fact reasonable to sue both the drunk passenger and the pilot (assuming you are the sue-happy type of person).

Injuries can tell the investigators a lot about what position people were in at the time of impact.

The drunken psycho in question.

eltejon: OregonVet: Well, actually it does.

He's right. Illegal to allow someone who is intoxicated to fly in an aircraft. Someone else have the specific FAR? I can't pull it up here.

THIS

wonder if this guy owned the plane.

/his last name is Schramm