Did any of you see the article in today's Houston Chronicle, City & State section page 22A? Seven "survivors" of the Tropic Air flight that crashed near Ambergris Caye in December 2002 are suing Tropic Air and Headrick Companies of Laurel, Ms., which sells Tropic Air tickets. Wondered how long that was going to take. The other 6 passengers are not included. No one was seriously injured, no broken bones and several stayed on and enjoyed their vacation from what I remember.

Yes but they are now scarred mentally for life about flying transfer planes, not to mention their sex lives in the toilets.

Tropic does not have toilets.

No matter what they feel or think, the main thing THEY are SO lucky.

They should be honoring that pilot for an incredible job of managing to land in shallow water without a single injury!!!!

You are so right, Jesse. Is Mother Nature named in the suit as well? Are they all from the states, the great land of opportunity and litigation? If there's a settlement, how much will ticket prices increase?

Poor babies. Here are some more.
--------------------------------------------------
From an airline message board:

May 14, 2004 (AIRLINE INDUSTRY INFORMATION via COMTEX) -- A couple from Cook County are suing American Airlines because they felt cramped during a flight to Paris, France.

In the lawsuit the couple say they were enticed to buy their tickets from American Airlines two years ago as it advertised generous legroom. However, they claim they were cramped during the nine-hour flight on board the Boeing 767 aircraft, and that they suffered back and leg pain. The couple complained about their seating, but were not permitted to move to roomier seats.

The couple are seeking more than USD100,000 in compensation and say the situation led to the man tripping at the entrance to the Basilica of St. Paul's in Rome, which resulted in him breaking his nose and teeth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Legal terrorism...

outrageous!

I know more than a few travelers who would like to help that guy with his nose & teeth

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.

Just like some have jumped to, what appears to them to be the obvious conclusions, the obvious is not always correct.

Well as usual with any law suit, the only one that wins is the lawyers when they collect their fees. For the rest of us we will all loose one way or another. This will eventually trickledown to each and everyone of us who travel to Belize at some point in the future. It is said that there is a silver linning to every cloud, I think the only silver hear will be in the form of money.

This was a very unfortunate circumstance and am personally sorry that anybody felt that they needed to take this to the courts,(as is their right)but we will surely all suffer from the incident.
Kat

Seems to be the American way...but what about the morality? Does it seem right to try to make $$ from an accident where no one was injured? This is not the way it's done in Belize!

bywarren/Denny, I used up the hangover so will add a little pepper to the chile pot. I don't know how many pilots Tropic or Maya have on staff but I would be willing to bet very few of them,if any, are IFR rated. If a ILS was installed in SP add about $1500/$2500 to train each pilot to become IFR rated. The ILS system plus training could very well effect ticket prices out of sight. JMHO

Not the obvious, Ernie. I know many of the pilots, most of the pilots. Most have IFR ratings. Most have gotten those ratings at their own expense. Many times they are flying (illegally) in IFR conditions. But, you are right on about the cost and whether most passangers would see the benifit.

As to the morality and need for a law suit, just another thought. Not to be argumentative. Could it not be looked at that if one accepts the premise that flights in Belize are being operated outside the law (that is not really a premise, it is a fact) that a law suit might change that and in the long run make flying in Belize more safe and therefore benifit Belize and all who go there?
Again, not everything might be as "obvious" as one thinks if one only thinks one way.

c'mon folks(meaning those suing). stuff happens. i highly doubt the pilot intentionally crashed the plane. i am an uneducated layperson, especially when it come to lawyering stuff, but heck, STUFF HAPPENS. i cant stand when i hear that people sue for rediculous and frivalous resons. sure, i bet they were scared %$#@less, but no need to sue. my personal opinion: unless someone really, badly, intentionally wrongs you, stuff happens. let it go.

for instance, one of my inner organs was punctured during a c-section 8 years ago. i function more or less normally, but not exactly normally. it was weeks and weeks of recovery. did i sue? OF COURSE NOT!! she didnt mean to cut me, stuff happens. sheesh. good thing by warren is here or i wouldnt understand any of it.

also, our first time to BZE in '93, the plane from houston had to make 3 passes over BZE due to misty fog & rains. you just plain couldnt see the runway until you were 15 ft over it. we SERIOUSLY thought we were going to die, honestly. we were clutching each other and our armrests. but the third time was a charm, and we landed safely to a rousing round of applause. and no, we didnt sue. it simply became a great story at parties.

lighten up, world!! unintentional stuff happens.

(as always, JMHO. hi warren, how ya doing?)

Thanks SweetJane, I am doing fine. Just trying to see if I have any brain cells left or if I have destroyed them all. Trying not to be my usual confrontational self and just engaging in conversation for the sake of mental exercise. Truly from a selfish motive. It helps me to try and see things from different views. Sometimes I think the word "obvious" has no use in our language and should be replaced with "appears".
This law suit we are discussing "appears" to have been filed for reasons that seem "obvious" depending on your perspective. I think one can jump to a potentially wrong conclusion if they focus on what they think is "obvious" as opposed to realizing that it "appears" one way. That leaves room that it might also appear another way to someone else. We need to realize we are not "obviously" right all the time. It just appears that way in my case. :p

I think I'll go work on what may appear to some, to be an obvious hangover.

Another example of your perceptiveness and not assuming the obvious. It appears to me that you might have the stomach flu and a sinus headache.

I QUIT !!!!!

Maybe it is time for a red beer or bloody mary. I have found that to be some of the best medicine for the flu and sinus headaches.

PS: I should have qualified that by saying "what appears to be" the flu and sinus headaches. That should have been obvious to me. There I go again, heading down a potentially wrong path by acting on what I perceive to be obvious. By acting on what appears to be the obvious, even I can come to potentially wrong conclusions.

GROOOOAAAANNN !

You just wait til tomorrow morning, a good night sleep will do wonders. I was booted off the debate team because......... later.

...does this ILS equipment effect TV reception?? If not, I'm obviously all for it!!

FLYING IN BELIZE,
What a treat, these pilots, Maya and Tropic are as good as they come, I have flown many hours on commuter planes in 3rd world countries, Eastern Europe, Russia, break a way republics, small island nations. ILS is not the answer for a small strip like SP, just continued use of good pilots like Tropic and Maya have now. Lots of former crop dusters and bush pilot typies. KGB.

I learned to fly at the ripe age of 14 in a converted Steerman PT 17, crop duster. Long before ILS come into being, commercial aircraft used light becons as a form of navigation. They were only as good as the weather. Bad weather no fly, no landings. Then along came GCA (ground control approach) approches, scared the living hell out of you in bad weather but better than the alternative. In some areas VOR approaches worked to a certain degree though not in weather below minimuns. I have made numerious RNAV approches that (obviously) worked for me. My question, do Tropic/Maya aircraft have RNAV systems on board? Unless weather is "really" below minimums, it could be used quite effectivily on approaches to SP. Again, JMHO.

To answer your question, Ernie: No they do not have Rnav. They carry GPS which is more accurate and better. Having said that, it is still illegal to fly, or in this case make an instrument approach, by use of any navigational instrument unless the the airport is equipped with the approved equipment. Period! This is not a question, refering to the law suit, of how good the pilots are. It is a legal question and they are breaking the law and that is the grounds for a law suit, rightly or wrongly. If it were me that was involved in the crash, I would not sue understanding the conditions. That does not present the "obvious" that these other people do not have a right to sue. This, in my opinion, does not fall under the definition of a frivilous law suit. It appears the law was broken. Those people were put at risk to their lives. Just because they were not killed or injured does not mean they might not be entitled to something or that bring this suit might not prevent someone else from being injured. That is what courts are for when laws are broken.

bywarren
I like Ernie, although I am not obviously as old as he is, (due to his type of trainer) learned to fly from a crop duster pilot. No he did not have a commercial license and lot of the knowledge was seat of the paints. Flying in such places as into SP I would trust the judgement of a good old crop duster type much more than any ILS or IFR system. Go to Belize soon and enjoy. KGB

I understand the legalities of flying VFR into IFR conditions. I was not even reffering to the pending law suit, just the way we "USED" to do it before all the CAA/FAA folks told us we could not do that anymore. As you know, there are "Old' pilots and there are "foolish" pilots, but there are NO "Old Foolish" pilots". See ya next month.

Ernie

First of all, Hi Jane, good to see your words again. Next, every time I get on a plane I kiss my butt goodbye. A simple way of saying my fate for the duration of the flight is pretty much out of my hands, and in the hands of someone I do not know but assume is sober and competent. I feel very secure in the hands of a pilot who is making a number of trips to the same location every day. I would say they are familiar with the island and the landing strip. Did the pilot make an error in judgement regarding the conditions, or did he take a chance he shouldn't have? Was the crash on approach? I am somewhat amazed that the water landing in question resulted in no injuries. The fact that the people were able to even get out of that plane (which is an excercise in itself on dry ground) is cause for wonder. I was also amazed that people would cut their vacation short after the experience. If it was me, I would have extended it another week.
Regarding those folks on American. I shake my head. Regardless of anyones claims, those seats were made for short people. Did they expect a nine hour flight to be made in an easy chair?

Ernie,
Still got a license or did they pull your ticket (like me) for some health or other reason. If you are going down to the island next month maybe I will see you there. KGB :p

Good discussion (that is what this board is about) and good points made by all. The topic started with the impending law suit and some expressing views as to the merits of that. I am giving my reasons, based on my knowledge of flying and what I know about the incident, why I feel the parties have every right and possibly good reasons for bring a law suit. For me,this has no bearing on the qualifications of the pilots, assuming they meet the legal requirerments, or the type of flying done in Belize ie, IFR or VFR. It is a legal question ie, law suit. Was the law followed or broken? And if broken, what should the penalties be? Seems simple to me.

I love those great pilots, they are super.

Just a hypothetical question to ponder and not meant to refer to any pilots in particular. But if a pilot put your life endanger by breaking the law and flew the aircraft into conditions causing it to crash, would you still consider him to be great and super? :rolleyes:

After thinking about my answer to your question bywarren, the following popped into my vacant mind... I would need to know if I was still alive after the crash?

bywarren
All good points, the pilots are put in a bad position, if they don't bend/brake rules there would be lots of delays, turn arounds and lack of delivery. I assume in this situation the pilot made a judgement call based on his experience and got caught in some unexpected weather condition and crashed. I think that the point that everyone is bothered about in US at least is frivilous lawsuits. Everyone walked away, most damage they could have had was mental trama. Hard to judge. Awards depend on the quality of the lawyer. If no one was injured should they sue or consider it part of going to Belize. KGB

Answer is YES, because I knew the time of day I was boarding the plane, and it was my decision to fly then or not. And if I were in the last group of tourists flying to AC, I would climb aboard. But I am old, and don't worry much now.

Twilight could be a grey area of the law?

I will preface my remarks as I did earlier by saying that I would not sue if I were in that plane. But I will again say, that I cannot agree that this would fall under my definition of a frivilous law suit and I do not believe that the criteria to be met before someone files suit is they have to be killed or injured. There is a point of law called punative damages. Now I am not a lawyer and hesitate to comment on legal issues. I am just giving my opinion. But I am a pilot with a multi-engine, instrument rating and over 5000 hrs flying with 49 flights to Belize in my log book and I know what rules pilots are supposed to follow. And I know when pilots do not follow the rules, they open themselves up to suffering consequences.

Hi KBG, missed you at the partee this year! I still have my ticket and since I had the Lens Implants I could (perhaps) still pass the phys. It has been almost 20 years since I was at the stick. I'm sure after a couple hours with an instructor I could again (perhaps) make a simple takeoff and landing in good weather. In the past (before GPS) We all have taken off VFR and had to file IFR when our destination closed. I did that long before I even held an instrument rating. Was that illegal? You bet, but there was no incident and that made everything OK. Thanks bywarren for reminding me about the new stuff, GPS. I guess I dated myself with the Steerman comment, there were other training aircraft available but not to a poor boy. You took the ride where you found it. In my case, I had to refill the chem tanks, pull the tree limbs out of the controls surfaces and wash the nasty gook off in return for lessons. I flew inverted, did loops long before I could drive a car (we didn't have one). Now back to the original question, was the cause of the accident pilot error? From what I have read, yes. Do they have a right to sue? Yes. Will they win big? I doubt it. How long will you be there by?

I will miss you Ernie, unless you come to Arkansas (open invitation). I am gone from AC for the summer.

I would enjoy this thread if I could understand a word of it!!! I pressume that IFR is not an acronym for It's freekin raining, nor that ILS is I'm lost- shit.

PS. I do hope a little humour is tolerable in this serious subject as no one was hurt in this accident (well not yet anyway)

I guessed it was about time you went back to the hills ! Got too hot for ya. Don't be supprised if I give you a call one day, I love it up there. I will be on the island to finish arrainging the lunch program, just about there except for sourcing the food locally.

PS; casa Coracol, I like your definitions, they mean basically the same.

Bywarren has a good point: Now, I would bet they are suing for negligence per se. In California (and it is different in many states), there is a cause of action if the plaintiff(s) can show that the law was designed to protect them, the risk of the type of harm has in fact occurred as a result of violation of the statute or law and they suffered harm. All three must be present or no standing to sue. Harm (at least here in Calif) is not only emotional distress. There must be personal injuries which result in emotional distress.

This is scary that we might need Susangg back. An attorney from the past on this board for those of you new to the board. An interesting point of human nature, aren't some of you forming your positions based on liking the pilots or Belize as opposed to keeping an open mind and understanding that even though I might like someone, they are still responsible for their actions. I know enough about flying and the circumstance involved to believe that there is a cause for action here. I know there is enough in question that it needs to be examined by "authority" if nothing else than to prevent a future tragedy. It could very well be looked at that this could benefit pilots we like and make Belize better in the long run.

I would rather attempt a GCA at mid-night in zero-zero conditions than have Susangg back ! I still hurt from one of her blind side shots.

We could beat this question to death all day long and still not reach an equitable decision. However, it would be interesting to review the transcripts pertaining to the case... then and only then could we attempt to speak intelligently on the subject. Using heresay or going by a newspaper account (and of course the newspaper isn't bias) or the story on TV... doesn't count at all.

Anyone, just because they may be versed in US law doesn't make a hill of beans unless they are well versed in Belizean law. Does anyone know where the case is? U.S.? or Belize?

US But it is will be decided on the basis international aviation law partly governed by the Warsaw Convention. So that is the law the attorney needs to know.

ah hah... then we need a lawyer who is extremely well versed in IAL.... not a regular run of the mill attorney. I can see and smell the money being spread all around... laugh

Your right, it will cost a lot of money which we all end up paying for in the long run. That is the system. You can curse it, criticize it, complain about it and postulate about it not being fare, but no one has come up with a better system as yet. I am much more content living in a society that has the rule of law and having to deal with all that comes with it, the Susanggs, law suits, etc. than not.

Ernie,
Yes in those by gone days I flew out of an uncontroled airport, flying in a tail dragger Champ that we had to prop off, later would fly in anyting some would let me in. Remember flying into a controled airport with no license and failing to obey the control tower for a go around and had to go to the tower and meet with the tower operator. With no ticket and I was flying alone in a older Cardinal RG retractible gear, variable pitch prop job. (way over my head in airplace) After chewing me out real good the operator told me to get that plane out of his airspace and don't ever come back. Today no telling what would happen. Wonder how pickey they are about letting you fly around in Belize without a current ticket if you stay out of Bze International??? Don't have a specific date for SP yet but hope to go about middle of June or later in mo.