Bovine excretement

Geez, I don't see any negligence or intentional conduct for the American Airlines lawsuit. Seems like they have no cause of action!

My understanding is that you can't sue in Belize so it might be a moot point anyway.

Who ever said it, you are right! These people aught to be thanking the pilot for landing in shallow water and for no one drowning or any other serious injury. There was a great article in the San Pedro Sun shortly after the ACCIDENT by another pilot, who really gave some good evidence in the other pilots defence, in regards to the weather conditions and what was actually done to help out in this situation. Some people are just soooooo ungrateful and will try to take advantage of any situation that they can. Maybe they forgot to say alittle prayer asking for safe passage in HIS airways, I know I always do.
Of course when the Bird goes flying she needs all the help she can get. Tropic has never let me down and will not hesitate to fly with them at any time. Even flew out with them in their 3 seater during the onset of Hurricane Mitch.
Kat/aka:Tuki Tuki

This is a tough one. You can be on either side of this and make a good argument. You can argue from the practical side and say that the pilot did a good job and no one was hurt and people should be willing to accept that everything in life carries some risk.
The other side, and this is why the law suit, the pilot was operating illegally. There is no instrument approach to San Pedro. There fore, all flights in Belize other than into Belize International Airport (which has an instrument approach) must be operated under Visual Flight Rules (VFR). Those rules, some of which, state that their must be 3 miles visibility, 1000 foot ceiling (clouds above the ground) and the plane must remain a certain distance away, horizontally, from clouds.
Those rules are broken every day in Belize. If they were not, there would be a lot of unhappy tourists not reaching their destination and a lot more hotel rooms in Belize City.
So the question is, should the passengers accept the responsibility to know the laws and make the decision whether or not it is safe to fly, or is it the responsibility of the airline and pilot to make that decision?
When you look at the odds, that are how many passengers fly safely in Belize, there is a good argument that the law should be less restrictive. Tropic and Maya are working with the Belize Government about changing the law so it is different and less restrictive in Belize. The flip side of that is, does Belize want to be seen as a country that has less safe laws.
Another solution is to invest in the equipment to provide instrument landings at the airports. The flip side of that is will the customers be willing to pay the increase in ticket price and is the cost really worth the savings. Again, when you look at how many people have flown safely in Belize and British Honduras before that, as opposed to how many have been injured in plane crashes, it presents quite a dilemma.
Just my thoughts.

As we all know... ignorance of the law (no matter where the juristiction lies or lays) is not an excuse. Unfortunately, me included, we do not bother to read the laws here or anywhere else when it comes to traveling.

By purchasing a ticket and stepping onto the plane the laws assumes that the passenger has knowledge of the law.

The further answer lies in the statement above that Maya and Tropic are both working with the Belize government to change the law .

Not trying to be my usual argumentive self here, Denny. But my interpretation here is, if this goes to court, the question will be whether Tropic was following the law. It seems to me that is not a question of the passangers responsibility to know the law as a question of Tropics responsibility to follow it.
Just for the sake of this stimulating conversation, the passangers could have boarded the plane and the plane taken off in legal VFR conditions. But if the pilot flew I into illegal conditions, that would be out of the passangers control, unless they hijacked the plane.
Further, I doubt if it is a legal premise that it is the responsibility of consumers to know all the laws regulating licensed operations. The purpose of license is to be sure the license holder knows the laws and follows them.
The premise of “ignorance of law is no excuse” (in my opinion) applies when someone breaks the law, not when someone is injured or put in danger because someone else breaks the law.
How do you rule on this one, Judge?

I think before I comment again, it would be interesting to see the waiver of rights and responisbilities from Tropic.

I think after all of these years flying with Maya and Tropic, not once did I ever receive anything with a limit of responsibility.

I think, and I'll have to go dig out an old Continental ticket, it states "not responsible for pilot error" However, of course we do know that's just thrown in there and a good lawyer can easily get around it.

A bad lawyer could get around that argument. It is a principle in law that there are certain rights that an individual cannot waive, even if they want to. I would hate to be in Continental’s position to have to defend that pilot error was the cause and because the passenger bought a ticket that said Continental would not be responsible for pilot error and therefore they had no liability. Or in Tropic’s case that because the pilot did not kill anyone they have no responsibility for acting illegally.
Just some more thinking on a Saturday morning.

It's obvious neither of you have a hangover this morning.