Excel-Jet Sues FAA

t0r0nad0

t0r0nad0

Pattern Altitude
Joined
Apr 11, 2007
Messages
2,078
Location
Houston, TX
Display Name
Display name:
PJ Gustafson
http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/980-full.html#196404
When the Sport-Jet prototype crashed during a test flight in 2006, it wasn't due to any flaw with the aircraft or a mistake by the crew, says Excel-Jet in a suit filed against the FAA. It was because air traffic controllers cleared the jet to take off behind a large commercial aircraft (a deHavilland Dash 8) in violation of mandatory separation requirements.
Click to expand...
Is it just me, or isn't it the right and responsibility of the Pilot In Command to decline a takeoff clearance if he or she feels it is unsafe? Also, I would think that a Dash 8 wouldn't produce enough wake turbulence to overturn an aircraft unless it was a model airplane. What do you guys think?
 
That's true, the PIC can, and should, always turn down a t/o clearance if it's too soon or if he's uncomfortable. And I do find it a little hard to believe that the Dash 8 produces that much wake turbulence. Their props stir up quite a bit of air, but they're (definitely) a non-heavy, so almost everyone can wave the in-trail restrictions behind them...I've taken off immediately behind a Dash many times, and the only problem was that we out-ran them; wake turbulence was never an issue. Even Cape Air in their 402s will take off right up the Dash's jet-pipe...how lite was this prototype plane?!? This sounds like they're reaching for an excuse, to me...
 
I agree with the above. All they are doing is giving the marketing department some basis for credible denial.

"Yes, unfortunately our prototype crashed. ATC instructed us to take off too close to the preceding airliner. We're suing them about this error...."

This works until the suit is thrown out of court, because most people won't know better.

-Skip
 
t0r0nad0 said:
Is it just me, or isn't it the right and responsibility of the Pilot In Command to decline a takeoff clearance if he or she feels it is unsafe? Also, I would think that a Dash 8 wouldn't produce enough wake turbulence to overturn an aircraft unless it was a model airplane. What do you guys think?
Click to expand...
Yes, it is the pilot's right to turn down a clearance. It is also the plaintiff's right to sue.

SHOULD they have brought the suit? Well that's another question entirely. I talked to the accident pilot a few weeks after the accident and he was quite convinced there was a significant wake turbulence encounter. He also said he did not know the Dash 8 had taken off before him because he wasn't on frequency, but given the wake turbulence study that should not be an issue. He says he did not receive a wake turbulence advisory, but not having the tapes we can't know that for sure. The full NTSB narrative does not contain a transcript, but does state a wake advisory was given. Did the accident pilot not hear it because he was doing flight test duties?

Having seen a lot of NTSB studies, I will say that the quality of the work is all over the place. It may be the opinion of the plaintiffs that the original wake turbulence analysis was flawed in some way -- and going to court is really the only way to challenge that once the full Board has issued a cause determination.
 
Last edited:
Teller1900 said:
Even Cape Air in their 402s will take off right up the Dash's jet-pipe...how lite was this prototype plane?!?
Click to expand...
Takeoff weight at the time was reported as 3850 pounds, which would have worked out to wing loading of just over 25 pounds per sq ft.
 
vontresc said:
The NTSB pretty much debunked the Wake Turbulence in their report.

http://ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?ev_id=20060626X00812&key=1

I guess it is investors trying to get some cash out of the crash. I hope the FAA fights this and doesn't settle.

Pete
Click to expand...
But the NTSB has also, over the years, thrown some pretty stinky crap into their reports from time to time. I would have to see the full docket to see WHO was involved in the investigation before I blindly accepted the web version of the narrative.
 
Ken Ibold said:
He also said he did not know the Dash 8 had taken off before him because he wasn't on frequency,
Click to expand...


Ok, how the hell do you not see a Dash 8 take off. If you are that close behind him that there's wake turbulence, what the hell were you doing that you couldn't see it depart. WTF!?!?!?!
 
When in doubt, decline the clearance. ATC will never force you to depart.
 
Some facts:

The Dash 8 is classified as a "Large" aircraft. This means it's maximum certificated takeoff weight is more than 41,000 pounds and less than 255,000 pounds. When a "Small" aircraft departs the same runway behind a "Large" aircraft ATC is required to issue a wake turbulence advisory. The separation minima is 6000' and airborne. This means that the preceding aircraft must be at least 6000' down the runway and airborne before the succeeding aircraft begins it's take off roll.

According to AvWeb the Excel-Jet Company issued a statement, which claims, "It was because air traffic controllers cleared the jet to take off behind a large commercial aircraft (a deHavilland Dash 8) in violation of mandatory separation requirements".

Among other things, the NTSB investigation found the data showed that at 0952:58 N350SJ was at the same position that the DH-8 was at 0950:47, two minutes and 11 seconds earlier.

You don't need an e6b to see that mandatory separation requirements were not only met but also greatly exceeded. In fact separation requirements behind a "Heavy" aircraft are only two minutes.

Unfortunately the facts are irrelevant. The statement is out there and AvWeb could care less what the facts are as long as they sell some soap. Besides, any attorney worth his salt will point out to the jury that the FAA has deep pockets and they'll punish the whoever can afford to pay the most regardless of who is at fault. Ever wonder why a new C172 costs $200,000+.

There is a commercial that runs on the local TV stations with a picture of a shinny new Saratoga in the background. The "personal injury" Attorney says, "We'll fly to you wherever you are". Only an attorney can afford a ride like that!

Just my two cents worth . . . .

If you are interested, the ATC Manual (Order 7110.65) is available online at:

http://www.faa.gov/regulations_policies/orders_notices/air_traffic_orders/media/7110.65R.pdf
 
This one's tried and tested in the courts -- if the controller violates wake turbulence minimums in FAA directives, the controller (i.e., the Federal Government, per the Federal Tort Claims Act) is liable for any resulting damages. Legally, the pilot is thus permitted to assume that when cleared for takeoff by ATC, the wake turbulence separation criteria have been met. If it can be shown that a) the controller issued a takeoff clearance in violation of those criteria, and b) the resulting wake turbulence encounter was the proximate cause of the ensuing crash, then the FAA is liable for the damages. Note that both points must be proved by "a preponderance of the evidence" (it doesn't have to be "beyond a reasonable doubt" in this civil case) for the case to succeed.
 
rick-thanks for the insight, and good to see you around! coming up to ames on the 27th??
 
The separation for a light plane behind a Dash-8 is three, not two, minutes. We do that all the time at SBY when Piedmont's launching.
 
Ron Levy said:
The separation for a light plane behind a Dash-8 is three, not two, minutes. We do that all the time at SBY when Piedmont's launching.
Click to expand...

The minimum seperation for a light plane behind a Dash-8 (small behind a large) is 6000' and airborne. The three minute rule applies to intersection departures. Did the Excel Jet depart from an intersection?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top