FAA being sued over crashes

[Mark S]

The FAA paid a $9.5 million settlement to families of four people who died in Florida when the pilot crashed due to spacial disorientation. The jury found the pilot only 35% responsible. he controlled was responsible because they "failed to provide current weather information to the pilot, contributing to the disorientation."

The next suit is:

...As More Suits Pending
Lawyers for the family of a 20-year-old pilot who died in a California accident in May 2004 also are preparing to file a wrongful-death suit against the FAA, according to CDAPress.com. Two pilots in a Piper Seminole were killed when they hit a mountain while flying IFR near Julian, Calif. The accident aircraft was the fourth of five Seminoles with similar call signs that were flying the same route together, and when a controller authorized one aircraft to descend, the wrong aircraft acknowledged the clearance. The NTSB said in December 2004 that the probable cause for the accident was that the controller issued the descent clearance using a partial call sign and failed to detect that the clearance was read back by the wrong pilot. The pilots also failed to question the clearance to an altitude below the published Minimum Enroute Altitude (MEA), the NTSB said. A contributing factor was that two controllers -- at the Center and the TRACON -- failed to properly respond to aural and visual minimum-altitude alerts from their equipment. "Aircraft are routinely descended below MEA by air traffic controllers without question by anyone," Timothy E. Miller, lawyer for the family, told CDAPress. "Pilots with approximately 200 hours of experience are taught to write down, read back and follow clearances exactly and to do so with minimum use of the radio."

Link: http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/365-full.html#189326

So, the wrong pilot read back the clearance and the controller failed to realize that's what happened. As a result, they crashed.

Just want to get this straight, if a pilot reads back the wrong clearance and ATC doesn't catch it, the NTSB will pull his ticket unless he dies then the FAA gets sued. Makes sense to me.

I wonder how many more of these we are going to get now?

Mark

 

[wsuffa]

May be one more reason that controllers want us out of the system as quickly as possible.

 

[Henning]

Lawyers for the family of a 20-year-old pilot who died in a California accident in May 2004 also are preparing to file a wrongful-death suit against the FAA, according to CDAPress.com. Two pilots in a Piper Seminole were killed when they hit a mountain while flying IFR near Julian, Calif. The accident aircraft was the fourth of five Seminoles with similar call signs that were flying the same route together, and when a controller authorized one aircraft to descend, the wrong aircraft acknowledged the clearance. The NTSB said in December 2004 that the probable cause for the accident was that the controller issued the descent clearance using a partial call sign and failed to detect that the clearance was read back by the wrong pilot. The pilots also failed to question the clearance to an altitude below the published Minimum Enroute Altitude (MEA), the NTSB said. A contributing factor was that two controllers -- at the Center and the TRACON -- failed to properly respond to aural and visual minimum-altitude alerts from their equipment. "Aircraft are routinely descended below MEA by air traffic controllers without question by anyone," Timothy E. Miller, lawyer for the family, told CDAPress. "Pilots with approximately 200 hours of experience are taught to write down, read back and follow clearances exactly and to do so with minimum use of the radio."

Link: http://www.avweb.com/eletter/archives/avflash/365-full.html#189326

So, the wrong pilot read back the clearance and the controller failed to realize that's what happened. As a result, they crashed.

Just want to get this straight, if a pilot reads back the wrong clearance and ATC doesn't catch it, the NTSB will pull his ticket unless he dies then the FAA gets sued. Makes sense to me.

I wonder how many more of these we are going to get now?

Mark

Actually, it makes sense to me. Wrong guy reads back, controller catches it, controller did his job ergo no liability, all liability on the pilot NTSB goes after pilot before someone gets killed. Wrong guy reads back, controller confirms, no liability yet, plane crashes and damages are realized, liability exists. If there were similar call signs in the area and the controller didn't require full call signs, negligence exists. Negligence + Damages = Civil Award. Now the question is one of proportionality. What percentage is whom responsible for. Controller found 65% Liable. Award*.65= Check Written. Pretty simple. While it may not be perfect and always make sense, would you prefer that they not be able to be held civily accountable? Got a better idea?

 

[EdFred]

Absolutely ridiculous. The ONLY time a pilot is not more than 50% responsible for a non mechanical crash is if it's IMC he's on on IFR flight plan and there's a midair with another plane on on IFR plan. Any other instance, put it on the pilot. Those suits should have been thrown out. "Didn't provide accurate weather?" What a retarded conclusion. He already made 2 missed approached, if you still don't know what the weather is after to missed approaches, you need a an emergency cerebrumectomy performed.

As far as the students in the crash out west: Where's your charts? Why didn't of them say "Hey, the MEA is X and the MOROCA is Y, and we're well below those altitudes. What gives?" Sectional for the area as well? I hate to sound cold, but perhaps better to weed them out now than when they are flying a CRJ and plant one into cumulogranite with 40 passengers. But still, throw that case out as well.

Coddling - I hate it!

 

[Dave Siciliano]

The Julian VOR incident gave me great pause.

I fly that way several times a year. Normally, I'm on the airway, but have been cleared direct from somewhere off the airway. If you read the full NTSB report, the flight was cleared direct from Julian to Polomar--this is off airway. So how would you determine the MEA, MVA? If you look just north to the airway, you will see the MEA steps down substantially as one crosses the mountains and nears the coast. This doesn't appear to be a published transition from the airway (please correct me if I'm wrong.)

This makes me a real believer in the Garmin 296. If Approach gave me that instruction, I could see how I would follow it not knowing better if IMC. Think I'll check prices on that 296 now.

Best,

Dave S.

 

[Mark S]

Actually, it makes sense to me. Wrong guy reads back, controller catches it, controller did his job ergo no liability, all liability on the pilot NTSB goes after pilot before someone gets killed. Wrong guy reads back, controller confirms, no liability yet, plane crashes and damages are realized, liability exists. If there were similar call signs in the area and the controller didn't require full call signs, negligence exists. Negligence + Damages = Civil Award. Now the question is one of proportionality. What percentage is whom responsible for. Controller found 65% Liable. Award*.65= Check Written. Pretty simple. While it may not be perfect and always make sense, would you prefer that they not be able to be held civily accountable? Got a better idea?

I believe there was a case recently discussed where an airline pilot misread a clearance and nearly caused a mid air. ATC did not catch the mistake. Pilot got the blame on this one.

I guess this is an area where civil liability over rules case law and the NTSB.

 

[Henning]

I believe there was a case recently discussed where an airline pilot misread a clearance and nearly caused a mid air. ATC did not catch the mistake. Pilot got the blame on this one.

I guess this is an area where civil liability over rules case law and the NTSB.

Well, they're 2 different subjects aren't they? One is civil law, the other administrative law. Since in administrative law damages aren't considered, you go after "the most wrong" party, although I doubt the controller got off scott free, but I'm not sure there.
Civil law takes in account proportionality. There can be more than one wrong party and each can be punished their share of the damages, however damages have to occur for civil law to kick in. No such requirement for administrative law, just need a violation.

 

[cherokeeflyboy]

I dont have any thing nice to say about lawyers and suits like this so I wont.

 

[Gary Sortor]

With more liability suits like these, we'll be seeing more quotes like the following from FAA: "I'm not at this point advocating user fees," said FAA Administrator Marion Blakey at the agency's Thirtieth Annual Forecast Conference in Washington, D.C. But she also said, "Our workload goes up, our revenue goes down.... We need a revenue stream based both on our costs and on our actual units of production." [Add cost of lawsuits and settlements]