mcmanigle
Line Up and Wait
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2013
- Messages
- 521
- Display Name
Display name:
John McManigle
For those who like thinking about this kind of thing, interesting Supreme Court case coming up on Monday (9 Dec). Coverage available here from SCOTUSblog, but the short(er) story is:
Air Wisconsin pilot Hoeper was trying to certify on a new aircraft. He fails the sim tests (alleging that the airline was out to get him and made them impossible to pass) in Virginia and was fired. The airline drove him to the airport for his flight home. He was pretty irate after failing, and was cursing on his way out the door.
After Hoeper is out the door, but before his flight home, the sim test admin people think "Hoeper is a ****ed off federal flight deck officer [allowed to carry a gun on the plane]" and alert the TSA. By the time it works through the system, the plane has left the gate. It gets recalled by the TSA before takeoff, and they remove Hoeper, etc.
While the facts are understandably up for interpretation, it seems that the initial report to the TSA was quite exaggerated, but the "hard facts" were correct -- ie Hoeper is indeed an FFDO, was terminated that day, was about to get on an airline, and was ****ed off when he left the sim center, but multiple witnesses said he didn't seem mentally unstable or any kind of a risk.
Hoeper sues Air Wisconsin for exaggerating the report and causing a TSA incident that is going to make it next to impossible for him to get another airline job. He is awarded $1.4 million.
Air Wisconsin is appealing based on the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which immunizes airlines reporting suspicions to TSA from defamation lawsuits unless the reports are “made with actual knowledge that the disclosure was false, inaccurate, or misleading” or with “reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of that disclosure.”
The article goes into more detail about how it wound its way through lower courts, and what arguments are likely, but in short, judging what is or isn't "misleading" is hard.
Air Wisconsin pilot Hoeper was trying to certify on a new aircraft. He fails the sim tests (alleging that the airline was out to get him and made them impossible to pass) in Virginia and was fired. The airline drove him to the airport for his flight home. He was pretty irate after failing, and was cursing on his way out the door.
After Hoeper is out the door, but before his flight home, the sim test admin people think "Hoeper is a ****ed off federal flight deck officer [allowed to carry a gun on the plane]" and alert the TSA. By the time it works through the system, the plane has left the gate. It gets recalled by the TSA before takeoff, and they remove Hoeper, etc.
While the facts are understandably up for interpretation, it seems that the initial report to the TSA was quite exaggerated, but the "hard facts" were correct -- ie Hoeper is indeed an FFDO, was terminated that day, was about to get on an airline, and was ****ed off when he left the sim center, but multiple witnesses said he didn't seem mentally unstable or any kind of a risk.
Hoeper sues Air Wisconsin for exaggerating the report and causing a TSA incident that is going to make it next to impossible for him to get another airline job. He is awarded $1.4 million.
Air Wisconsin is appealing based on the Aviation and Transportation Security Act, which immunizes airlines reporting suspicions to TSA from defamation lawsuits unless the reports are “made with actual knowledge that the disclosure was false, inaccurate, or misleading” or with “reckless disregard as to the truth or falsity of that disclosure.”
The article goes into more detail about how it wound its way through lower courts, and what arguments are likely, but in short, judging what is or isn't "misleading" is hard.