posted 02-22-2011 06:35 AM               

Ex-astronaut Robert "Hoot" Gibson is slated to appear as an expert witness for aircraft manufacturer Cirrus Design, which Melanie Lidle has charged with negligence in the design of her late husband's Cirrus SR20 G2.

The plane slammed into an apartment building while making a turn over the Hudson River.

Court papers say Gibson's spaceman credentials are "simply irrelevant" to the 2006 crash that killed Lidle and his pal/flight instructor Tyler Stanger.

"Flying an airplane and commanding a space shuttle are two very different things," the Manhattan federal court filing says.

"The space shuttle is fully automated with an autopilot, in sharp contrast to a single-engine airplane that a pilot flies manually from airport to airport."

"Thus, it is unclear how expertise gleaned from space travel can apply to the instant matter, which was entirely terrestrial."

posted 02-22-2011 08:40 AM               

The space shuttle is fully automated with an autopilot

posted 02-22-2011 08:45 AM               

To avoid having to make the 180 degree turn, the 88-hour private pilot and his instructor could have contacted LaGuardia Approach control and received permission to transit the Class B airspace (instrument-flight-rules controlled airspace requiring specific aircraft equipment and pilot training to enter) to the north. They never made the request -- perhaps by the time they realized it they knew they would never get approval in time before entering the Class B airspace since LaGuardia approach is a pretty busy frequency.

The jury will need to know what qualifies Gibson as an expert witness -- being a navy pilot, former test pilot, former airline pilot... all of these things will be more than sufficient even if his NASA affiliation is disallowed. This case should be cut-and-dried, barring heroic efforts on the part of the plaintiff's lawyers and gross errors on the part of the defendant's attorneys, in my opinion.

posted 02-22-2011 01:58 PM               

Even if you toss out his years at NASA, Hoot Gibson has flown so many different aircraft, of different capabilities, in so many different capacities and environments -- everything from routine airline flights to air races.

posted 02-22-2011 03:47 PM               

Regardless of an experts pedigree for one side, the other side will have (if they can afford it), an equal expert who will refute what the other expert says. It's like the old addage, "if you can't dazzle them with brilliance, baffle them with BS." I've seen it worked to perfection in many cases, where the jury is so confused by half truths, outright lies, exaggerations, with smoke and mirrors thrown in for good measure, sometimes it's impossible to know who's right or wrong.

However, when you have someone with the credentials of Hoot Gibson, his expertise and testimony is so damaging to the opposition's case, as to cause panic in the opposing attorney. Who is more of an expert in aviation than Hoot Gibson? The answer is... not many and anyone whose expertise is equal or better than Hoot's, won't be testifying to something false.

posted 02-22-2011 03:59 PM               

The lawyers are obviously trying to limit the credibility of an expert witness with a wide range of relevent experience, including time in the Cirrus.

As much as I hate the term "pilot error", a low-time pilot who can afford a very high-performance aircraft, even with a CFI onboard, is an invitation for an accident. Add the complexity of the airspace to the situation, and it is easy for both to get overloaded and make a mistake.

The worst part is, the tight turn and resultant loss of control was not a maneuver to avoid a solid object like a mountain, but rather an imaginary border of restricted airspace. I would prefer to have a violation or warning for entering that airspace than the outcome these pilots had.

Cirrus is no doubt being accused of building an unsafe aircraft with poor flight characteristics at low speeds. The aircraft is equipped with a BRS recovery parachute, which lowers the entire plane to the ground in an emergency. While this is a great safety device if there is sufficient altitude to use it, the lawyers are likely trying to spin this into a "crutch" that was added to compensate for a dangerous design.

posted 02-22-2011 08:29 PM               

I was at the astronaut signing in Florida several years ago, staying in the Holiday Inn, when I was introduced to Hoot one evening. My law practice is where he once lived, in Long Island, and he mentioned that. We talked about his being an expert witness, and he told me being an attorney was "interesting".

Talk about a kind comment, from a man with his resume, calling what I did interesting.

Me, my wife and some new friends drank beer with Hoot into the late evening, talking both law and space, mostly space, thank god.