Suit Filed Against Karen Trolan For Truckee Tahoe Plane Crash
We've filed suit against Los Gatos real estate broker Karen Trolan (pictured), her husband Steve Trolan, and their company, Trolan Enterprises, as a result of the September 2009 plane crash that left the Trolans' passenger, 14 year-old Marilyn Mitchell, seriously injured.
The Trolans were headed from Truckee Tahoe airport to San Jose. They needed very littl
e fuel for the short flight. But fuel was a few pennies per gallon cheaper in Truckee than in San Jose. The Trolans decided to fill the tanks of their single-engine Cessna 206 to the tops.
When departing a high altitude airport such as Truckee, that's a very dangerous thing to so. As discussed here, the combination of thin air and a heavy aircraft can dram
atically compromise the aircraft's ability to climb. After takeoff, the aircraft will ride briefly on the cushion of air that exists between the plane's wings and the runway, and then crash. And that's exactly what happened.
The NTSB's preliminary report confirmed that the Trolans' tanks were indeed full when they attempted to take off.
The crash was caused by pilot error, plain and simple. Yet, the Trolans have turned their back on Marilyn and her family, leaving them to fend for themselves. The Trolans have yet to pay any of Marilyn's medical bills, which continue to mount.
(General comment: great blog.)
Sad story, appears to be a warranted suit. I don't have the W&B for a P06 to hand but I'd guess that full tanks and two front seat (one adult) & two rear (one adult) pax plus 321 lbs of kit in the back plus the full fuel would need a careful W&B check at that density altitude. It reminds me of the sad crash a couple of years ago of the Lancair with 6 aboard (4 seats) that was over max gross while attempting to land hot and high at Kernville. It crashed going around. Don't ya just wish us sea level pilots would do the math, for both ends of the flight?
. . . or the Pilatus crash at Butte with 14 aboard (10 seats).
Not sure I follow the basis for the lawsuit. According to the NTSB report, the aircraft was within its weight and CG limitations.
The price of fuel may indeed have been cheaper at Truckee, but that by itself does not warrant a suit.
Aviator -
When a pilot departs a high altitude airport, the pilot needs to check the aircraft's performance charts. Those charts don't say "go" or "no go." Rather, it's up to the pilot to assess her own skill level and decide whether she can safely depart with the substantially reduced performance that will be available. On this day, the density altitude was 7600 feet. That meant the performance hit was going to be a big one.
Unfortunately, instead of preserving whatever modest performance margins she had available, this pilot chose to cut them even further by loading up with extra fuel. Maybe she thought she was just that good. But as it turned out, she couldn't handle the takeoff with the margins that she left for herself. And as a result, she crashed.
Was the plane over its gross weight limits? Probably not. Relatively few high density altitude accidents involve aircraft that are. But every one of them involves an aircraft that is overweight.
- Mike
Mike,
It's understood that the go/no go decision is always made by the pilot in command. Unfortunately I don't have the performance charts for a C206 so I have no way of knowing just how much of a performance hit 7600 DA presented.
What's interesting is that the NTSB devoted two paragraphs to the stall warning switch. While a (presumably) defective switch isn't enough to bring a plane down, it may have been a contributing factor.
I struggle with the fact that the crash of a plane 204 lbs. below max gross weight and within its CG limits is blamed solely on pilot error. If the performance charts indicated a safe takeoff could be made (at that weight and DA), then pilot blame should be reserved for his/her actions that directly contributed to the crash. Assuming the plane was within the performance envelope, this lawsuit essentially says that the pilot should not rely on said charts.
The performance charts are there for a reason. While it's easy to blame the pilot, is it possible that the charts were wrong (clearly something went very wrong with this particular takeoff) and that the pilot is also the victim?
Aviator -
Let's say the charts indicated that the aircraft would climb at 250 feet per minute. It's up to the pilot to determine whether that modest climb rate will allow for a safe departure. The pilot needs to consider terrain. And the likelihood of encountering downdrafts that will exceed 250 feet per minute. Perhaps most importantly, the pilot needs to consider whether she has the high density altitude experience necessary to be patient with the aircraft, and to fly airspeed rather than attitude. Pilots who are not experienced tend to become alarmed when the aircraft does not climb out of ground effect, and then pull back on the yoke to make it climb faster. Of course, that only makes matters worse.
Sure, if the stall warning was inoperative, that could have contributed to the pilot's problems. But if the pilot needs the stall warning system to keep her out of trouble on takeoff, she is doing something very wrong. Namely, demanding more performance from the aircraft than it is physically capable of delivering. For that pilot, the aircraft is too heavy to be flown safely.
Could the performance charts for the P206 have been wrong? It's possible. But given that the P206 has been around more than 40 years -- this was a '66 model -- you'd think that someone in the Cessna community would have noticed by now.
Mike
Hey Mike i suggest you get your facts straight you [***deleted by MSD***].
Was the plane over its gross weight limits? Probably not....But every one of them involves an aircraft that is overweight. your a lawyer??
Bill,
I agree with Mike that a plane departing from a high altitude airport can be under its certificated maximum gross weight and yet too heavy for the pilot to handle safely. I've seen it happen. Very scary to watch from the ground.
I for a fact know the pilot and her husband. No one mentioned the fact that the pilot herself was also seriously injured. The litigation happy people of this country infuriate me. Either the amount of weight carried on the plane was negligent or it was not. It makes me sad to see people so fixated over money when such a tragedy occurs. I am obviously not a lawyer.
Just remember everyone, Mr. Danko is just making allegations here. That's what happens in lawsuits. The Trolans and other defendants are free to make their own allegations regarding the cause of this mishap.
The plaintiff's allegations certainly have merit given the circumstances of the mishap. A pilot who loads a single engine piston airplane to within 204 lbs of max gross wt at a density altitude of 7600 ft is, in my opinion, taking foolish risks. Performance charts are designed to sell airplanes and are based upon ideal conditions with a new engine with a test pilot at the controls. Planning flights at the edges of those performance charts may be legal, but it is neither prudent nor safe.
NTSB's probable cause finding now out. No surprise; pilot error. => http://dms.ntsb.gov/aviation/AccidentReports/m3ncgz2jzcrxjhv0dbvyxerx1/Y04022012120000.pdf
Mike
Karen Trolan's biggest mistake in hindsight was taking a friend of the family along for the ride without apparently buying enough insurance to satisfy her demands now.
Life is full of risks. Some of the best things in life, like flying, can't be enjoyed without taking risk. Unfortunately, one of the risks that guests of private pilots take is that the pilot might make a mistake (negligent or less than negligent) or that an extraordinary event (such as mechanical failure or bizarre weather) will cause a crash and injuries.
Our civil justice system is based on the premises that all risks in life can and should be managed perfectly, that life is fair, that money damages can make up the difference when bad things happen, and that juries can accurately figure out when someone really crossed over the line from normal competence into negligence. Too bad that none of that is true.
But because we're stuck with this system, the only prudent options a pilot has are to buy extra liability insurance at steep premiums (100k per seat is standard and wholly inadequate to pay the freight in a case like this) or, more likely, not take anyone other than immediate family flying. I choose the latter. No wonder general aviation is dying.
My wish for everyone who was in that airplane is that this litigation will end as quickly as possible and that they can get back to making the most of the precious life they have left.