I think the key passage in the article is this one:
The landscape below the plane was full of trees, Rutherford says, and then a barren, icy, snowcovered
space that in the “strange visibility,” looked like a body of frozen water.
“It looked like a big, white, featureless thing, which looked like a lake which was flat — as
opposed to the hill that it actually was.”
This looks like a classic “white out” phenomenon which is well known and tricky to the max. One may remember the catastrophic crash of a Air New Zealand DC10 on the slopes of Mount Erebus which was attribute to navigational error and subsequent white out. The slope of the mountain did look like the bay leading to Mc Murdo Station while in fact it was a rather steep up slope.
JasonC wrote:
I think it is highly likely Rutherford is sued over this.
By whom and for what?
Yes it is very unfortunate that they did not have the terrain database downloaded and that they chose to fly low level to avoid winds without it. But from what was said, the owner was the PIC and Rutherford was there simply as a 2nd pilot to help with the crossing. What to sue him for, criminal negligence? This would almost certainly happen in some countries but as he seems to be upfront and helping with the investigation and did his utmost to get both of them rescued, what would it help?
An interesting read for sure.
It will of course depend on who was PIC. If he wasn‘t, then he likely was merely a passenger. In that case, HE might sue the pilot‘s family…, although I think that would little chances of success…
boscomantico wrote:
In that case, HE might sue the pilot‘s family…, although I think that would little chances of success…
Given that he is doing business as a ferry pilot that would most probably be very contraproductive to him.
I think they were two pilots of equal qualification and privileges flying together. According to his statements, the deceased was PIC on that leg.
I wish people would stop suing each other and rather focus on what can be learnt from such horrible events. So far, Sam appers to do his best to communicate what happened openly to let other people learn from it. I can’t really fault him for that, seeing that by doing so he might in certain places open himself to all sorts of problems.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Yes it is very unfortunate that they did not have the terrain database downloade
Still don’t get how that can be the main thing. The G1000 TAWS Terrain database has worldwide coverage, I believe.
Peter wrote:
ELTs are less reliable than one may expect, largly because they get damaged by the impact. But often – not suggesting this is the case here – the batteries are flat.
I have read several reports about accidents where the ELT did activate but the antenna had broken off at impact so no useful signal was transmitted.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
But from what was said, the owner was the PIC and Rutherford was there simply as a 2nd pilot to help with the crossing
Said by whom?
This was a pilot paid to fly with the deceased pilot to help him make the crossing. It wasn’t two mates flying together. He will certainly be sued by the pilot’s estate. Is that fair? Depends. The decision to fly that low is impossible to rationalise in that aircraft. An experienced ferry pilot would know that.
Yes and no Jason. It all depends on who was PIC. If SR was paid to accompany the owner, than that doesn‘t mean he was PIC.
And as you know, in private, non-training SEP ops, there is no multi-crew flying. The one who isn‘t PIC (even if he has tons of licenses and ratings) is a passenger. Full stop.
At least that‘s the airlaw theory. In practice, I assume some judge might decide a bit otherwise. Especially if that other pilot is quoted in newspaper articles etc. from which it becomes very apparent how much „involved“ in everything he really was.
A very interesting case indeed.
In addition, that one year‘s worth of correspondence mentioned in the article might be interesting as well in this regard.
boscomantico wrote:
Yes and no Jason. It all depends on who was PIC. If SR was paid to accompany the owner, than that doesn‘t mean he was PIC.
Of course. We don’t know the facts but I highly suspect someone will try to establish them.
Does SD have a ‘profile view’ like ForeFlight ? Using FF you would definitely have a look at that if planning a low level flight. Genuine Q, I’m not familiar with SD.
Yes SD when planning the “vertical radar/terrain” should be by default, when flying you need to activate it Option, Navigation, Instrument, Virtual Radar should give you some terrain ahead along the route
I prefer terrain color scales on a 2D map and I like to show AGL hight on top, if you know the hight of the tallest earth building you should come up with a real time conservative MSA number…
