Bucklin Mooney Crash Widow sues ATC Controller

MSPAviator

Cleared for Takeoff
Joined
Oct 31, 2010
Messages
1,064
Location
Minneapolis, MN
Display Name

Display name:
MSPAviator
http://www.startribune.com/local/196067671.html?page=all&prepage=1&c=y#continue

Minnesota mom sues air traffic controller over crash that killed husband, sons


Article by: BEN NEARY , Associated Press Updated: March 7, 2013 - 9:14 PM

CHEYENNE, Wyo. - The mother of three Minnesota boys who died with their father in a 2010 plane wreck in western Wyoming is suing a company that provides air traffic control services at the Jackson Hole Airport.

Michelle Bucklin sued Virginia-based Serco Inc. in U.S. District Court in Cheyenne this week, claiming an air traffic controller's negligence caused the crash. She brought the suit as personal representative of the estates of her three sons who died in the crash.

Pilot Luke Bucklin, 41 of Minneapolis, 14-year-old twins Nate and Nick, and 12-year-old Noah all died when their small plane went down Oct. 25, 2010, in Wyoming's rugged Wind River Range.

Michelle Bucklin was living in Minnesota at the time of the crash, but her lawsuit says she now lives in Arizona.

Luke Bucklin was Michelle Bucklin's ex-husband and had subsequently remarried. He was president and co-founder of the Bloomington, Minn.-based Web development company Sierra Bravo Corp.

Bucklin had flown to Jackson in his single-engine, 1977 Mooney propeller plane to attend a family function. He had tried to book a commercial flight home when a snowstorm hit the area but decided to fly his own plane when the commercial flight was cancelled.

A voice recording of Bucklin's doomed flight shows he was struggling to gain elevation over the extremely rugged Wind River Range in bad weather immediately before the crash.

"Descending rapidly," Bucklin says on the recording. The Associated Press obtained the recording in 2011 through a Freedom of Information Act request to the Federal Aviation Administration.

"Reporting severe mountain waves," Bucklin said about a minute later, referring to wind currents over the peaks. "Probably going to (garble)."

Mountaineers found the wreckage of Bucklin's plane and the bodies of the four victims after a weeklong search.

Rock Springs lawyer Frederick J. Harrison represents Michelle Bucklin. He declined comment on Thursday.

The lawsuit states, "the airplane that Mr. Bucklin was piloting at too low an altitude, as allowed by Serco, was sucked from the sky and violently collided with a mountain."

Attempts to reach Serco officials for comment at the company headquarters in Reston, Va., were unsuccessful.

The National Transportation Safety Board adopted its report on the cause of Bucklin's accident last October. It states that Bucklin had phoned flight services at the Jackson Hole Airport twice to get weather briefings the day of his flight. Both reports warned of "mountain obscuration," turbulence and icing.

The NTSB concluded Bucklin's decision to fly his heavily loaded plane over mountains in snowy weather probably caused the accident.

However, the NTSB also noted that an air traffic controller had given Bucklin an improper flight clearance, spelling out a path that would take him over some of Wyoming's highest mountain peaks at too low an altitude. The agency said that the improper clearance, and Bucklin's acceptance of it, contributed to the accident.

"The assigned altitude was lower than and counter to FAA published requirements for the area in which the pilot was flying," the report states, "but neither the pilot nor the controller questioned the altitude assignment."

The NTSB said that Bucklin's plane was at or near its maximum certified weight at takeoff. "Although the information was available to him, the pilot was either unaware of or discounted the fact that the clearance route that he was issued and accepted required a minimum altitude near the performance limits of the airplane, and that altitude was significantly higher than the altitude he had requested," the report stated.

The report states that Bucklin appeared intent on returning home that day. "This self-imposed time pressure, coupled with his lack of recent (instrument flight rules) experience, likely resulted in his acceptance of the non-conforming clearance," the NTSB concluded.

A separate NTSB report released last August stated that Bucklin's private flight instructor, Walter Nindl, had warned Bucklin about the hazards of flying in mountainous northwestern Wyoming.

"The (instructor) reported that he specifically cautioned the pilot that since the airplane was not turbocharged or pressurized, and was not equipped for flight into known icing, there was a consequent need for the pilot to plan and operate any flights accordingly, in order to provide sufficient safety margins and escape options," the NTSB report stated.

The report states that Bucklin told the instructor that he had flown into Jackson several times and knew the risks. "The (instructor) reported that the pilot gave him the impression that the pilot would conduct the upcoming flight in compliance with the (instructor's) suggestions," it stated.

While the search was still ongoing for Bucklin's missing plane, Ray Bishop, director of the Jackson airport, said Bucklin had taken off while it was snowing heavily. Despite the weather, Bishop said in late October 2010 that the decision to fly was up to the pilot.

"The pilot in command is the pilot in command," Bishop said. He was not available for comment Thursday on the lawsuit, a receptionist at the airport said.
 
"Bucklin had flown to Jackson in his single-engine, 1977 Mooney propeller plane to attend a family function. He had tried to book a commercial flight home when a snowstorm hit the area but decided to fly his own plane when the commercial flight was cancelled."

"The report states that Bucklin appeared intent on returning home that day. "This self-imposed time pressure, coupled with his lack of recent (instrument flight rules) experience, likely resulted in his acceptance of the non-conforming clearance," the NTSB concluded."

Allow me to translate. Getthrereitis killed them.
 
This is an spin-off of a custody dispute between the ex-wife and the widow.

All very sad, I guess now it's the controllers fault that he took off into clouds in the mountains flying a normally aspirated underpowered plane in high winds and snow. A couple of weeks before, he inquired on beechtalk what it would take to get into a P-baron.....
 
12 and 14 year-olds have estates?
 
I guess I never knew that KJAC is a contract tower.

So the pilot received his clearance from the tower control, as assigned by ARTCC? Or is there a seperate approach control there?

The federal government was almost certain to be dismissed from any lawsuit on immunity grounds, thus the lawsuit targeting the contractor.
 
Unfortunately, it seems to me that many lawsuits are not filed based on the merits of the case, but based on whether or not the lawyer filing the case thinks he can make a profit. This is a perfectly good case of someone taking off in conditions that were a recipe for disaster, and now the family is blaming others for his poor decision. As for the ATC "error", I believe it was either in my first or second IF flight in training for my IFR that I was taught to look at what ATC clears me to do and make sure it makes sense. Furthermore, is it not the pilot who files the planned flight, and ATC just does the clearance? I did not believe it was ATC's responsibility to make sure my IF flight plan was safe, I thought it was my responsibility. So where did ATC make the mistake?

If I decide to take of in conditions not conducive to safe flying, that is my choice, and as far as I know, short of someone recommending I not do it, nothing can stop me from committing suicide/homicide by airplane.
 
So a company with a professional flown, all-weather aircraft cancels a flight due to weather, but this guy decides a fair-weather Mooney and his part-time piloting skills are up to the task? And now it's the controller's fault he killed himself and his kids?
 
The federal government was almost certain to be dismissed from any lawsuit on immunity grounds, thus the lawsuit targeting the contractor.

The FAA (and the federal goverment in general) is not immune to lawsuits, however the amounts that can be collected are at times limited under FTCA (e.g. no noneconomic damages). They do get sued and occasionally they have to settle, including cases of poor quality ATC services.
 
Furthermore, is it not the pilot who files the planned flight, and ATC just does the clearance? I did not believe it was ATC's responsibility to make sure my IF flight plan was safe, I thought it was my responsibility. So where did ATC make the mistake?

The pilot had initially received a clearance that included a dogleg with a VOR (I believe part of a ODP) which would have kept him out of the rocks. Somehow the controller 'did him a favor' and cleared him 'direct to' at an altitude that was below the MOCA for that route. Back when this happened, this was a fact noted right away by a couple of knowledgeable folks (one of them doc chien iirc).

Ultimately the responsibility lies with the pilot not to accept a clearance he can't accept due to the performance limitations of his aircraft. But yes, there was an operational error by the controller.
 
I thought legally everything that happens in a flight is ultimately the responsibility of the PIC so shouldn't this get thrown out pretty quick?
 
I thought legally everything that happens in a flight is ultimately the responsibility of the PIC so shouldn't this get thrown out pretty quick?

Well, if the lycoming lawsuit is a baseline for aviation suits.... no. And, she probably has a good shot at winning.

There's going to be a jury full of people who think that plane's cant land without ATC.
 
This is our future, from the lawsuit:
The lawsuit states, "the airplane that Mr. Bucklin was piloting at too low an altitude, as allowed by Serco, was sucked from the sky and violently collided with a mountain."

1. Case goes back and forth, gets to the SCOTUS.

2. SCOTUS rules that Serco allowed them to take off, and provided erroneous course and alt info.

3. FAA, based on the decision in Bucklin v Serco issues an NPRM; 'no pilot shall be allowed to operate an aircraft in the NAS without specific authorization from ATC.'

4. NPRM become regulation.

5. End of GA.
 
I thought legally everything that happens in a flight is ultimately the responsibility of the PIC so shouldn't this get thrown out pretty quick?

There have been lawsuits where ATC was held partially at fault and the U.S. had to pay damages; such as this one:

http://www.browardbulldog.org/2011/...raffic-controllers-negligence-in-fatal-crash/

I haven't had a chance to read it all, but this looks to be an informative article on the legal liability of air traffic controllers:

http://www.studentpulse.com/articles/613/the-legal-liability-of-air-traffic-controllers
 
wow - mountains, downdrafts, insufficient power, gross weight, rocks.

Which one is this Doc? 4 or 7?
 
So what altitude did the pilot file for? Did he not check that it not only complied with the MIA but avoided hazardous weather? Was this requested altitude lower than the MIA in the controller's airspace or was it 100 miles down the road? Do we expect the controller to know some MIA well outside his airspace?
 
Last edited:
Back
Top