Different sort of aviation law

[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.

 

[ClimbnSink]

Watch the robed f*** rule anything goes for 'safety.' We can't have an airline scared to drop the dime on a whim.

 

[JeffDG]

Watch the robed f*** rule anything goes for 'safety.' We can't have an airline scared to drop the dime on a whim.

Congress granted them that immunity.

 

[ClimbnSink]

I see. Just a question of intentional malice vs precaution? I'm still betting we will be told intentional malice must sometimes be overlooked lest it interfere with the precaution needed to make work for the tsa.

 

[mcmanigle]

I see. Just a question of intentional malice vs precaution? I'm still betting we will be told intentional malice must sometimes be overlooked lest it interfere with the precaution needed to make work for the tsa.

"Malice" in this context doesn't mean the same thing as "malice" in non-lawyer talk. It has nothing to do with ill will or anger, just the known falsity (or reckless disregard for the truth) of a statement.

 

[Jeff K]

Air Wisconsin should be sued. Not only for the damage to this pilot... but for knowingly allowing their aircraft to leave the gate with a potentially dangerous passenger on board. Air Wisconsin gave him the sim test, failed him, booked the flight, drove him to the airport and then called TSA.

That's why we got 9/11.... security isn't just the purvey of government... commercial interests also have a role here.

 

[flyingron]

Understand that this case is not about the underlying issue as to whether a knowingly false and intentionally malicious statement was made (and subsequent attempts to cover up) by Doyle due to personal friction between the two over time and the fact that Hoepper threatened a union grievance.

The issue is because the reports to the TSA have immunity to them, was this such an egregious case that warranted piercing that immunity. Well, frankly, I suspect that the answer is yes. The issue however, is when the Colorado court rendered it's opinion it stated the reasons it believed the immunity should not apply. The problem, is that decision is defective with regard to other federal case law.

I suspect that even if the appellants win this, the case will be remanded back to the Colorado court with instructions to review the case under the broader list of requirements for piercing the immunity, which I believe it can still pass.


I.e., this is one of those "right decision for the wrong reason" type thing that will just result in the case going back down to have the reason for the decision brought into line with the law.

 

[hindsight2020]

hey they guy got a 1MM+ out of the deal. They way I see it that's a win. No way you were gonna walk out of an airline career with that pension. Time to put it to work for ya and go fly for fun while doing something else more lucrative for money. Best thing that ever happened to the dude AFAIC.

 

[poadeleted21]

hey they guy got a 1MM+ out of the deal. They way I see it that's a win. No way you were gonna walk out of an airline career with that pension. Time to put it to work for ya and go fly for fun while doing something else more lucrative for money. Best thing that ever happened to the dude AFAIC.

I believe he's been "awarded" but the check hasn't been signed yet... hence the appeal. IANAL, just what it seemed like to me.

 

[JoseCuervo]

I believe he's been "awarded" but the check hasn't been signed yet... hence the appeal. IANAL, just what it seemed like to me.

Yep, you are correct. He doesn't have his hands on the money, yet.

 

[poadeleted20]

Interesting case. However, the statute involved does not say just "false," it also says "inaccurate or misleading". It will take some work to figure out whether the jury said the statements were actually "false" or just "inaccurate/misleading", and that's not clear in the linked synopsis. I could even see this sent back down to clarify that question, but on its face, I think Air Wisconsin's argument that the statement wasn't false may not be sufficient for them to carry the day if the court concludes they intended to mislead TSA about the actual level of the threat without actually lying.

IOW, is a statement which is only partly true considered "false"? I think not, but in this case, the statement doesn't have to be "false" to smoke the immunity -- "inaccurate or misleading" is sufficient, and I think the jury may have decided as a matter of fact that it was the latter. We'll see.