Lawyers for the widow of Yankee pitcher Cory Lidle say any idiot can fly a space shuttle, but it takes a real pilot to control a tiny, single-engine plane.
The legal eagles want to keep a former space-shuttle commander from telling jurors about his NASA career when he testifies about Lidle’s fatal Upper East Side plane crash.
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 East 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.”
Lidle’s lawyers suggest that Gibson, a former Navy fighter pilot, was selected by Cirrus “purely because of his celebrity background.”
“His background alone may well induce the jury to assign more weight to his aviation testimony and opinions,” they wrote.
The lawyers also say Gibson’s experience investigating the space shuttle Challenger explosion should be off limits because the tragedy “remains a harrowing experience for most Americans.”
“The example of the Space Shuttle Challenger is exactly the kind of irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial testimony plaintiffs suspect the defendant will attempt to introduce,” court papers say.
Cirrus VP Bill King said it’s “inconceivable” that Gibson’s career would be kept under wraps.
“It is precisely because Mr. Gibson was a NASA astronaut that his testimony will be valuable to the jury’s deliberations and decision-making,” King said.
“His many NASA roles — including his selection by the agency as a key member of the Challenger accident-analysis team — uniquely qualifies him to understand and convey to the jury key issues relevant in this case.”