Judge finds FAA guility of letting famous pilot have VFR Mid-air

mikea

mikea

Touchdown! Greaser!
Gone West
Joined
Feb 12, 2005
Messages
16,975
Location
Lake County, IL
Display Name
Display name:
iWin
A federal judge has ruled WGN radio personality Bob Collins was not at fault for a 2000 airplane collision that resulted in the deaths of Collins, his passenger and a student pilot.

In a 49-page written opinion issued late Friday, U.S. District Court Judge John Darrah blamed an air traffic controller and the Federal Aviation Administration for misguiding the small planes.

http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/...thsep30,0,5973183.story?coll=chi_tab01_layout
Click to expand...

Folks this was at a Class D towered airport, sans radar, where Collins gave his position wrong.

I guess there is a FAR that says you can't be both a pilot that is famous and a pilot that makes an error.
 
How sad. Bob screwed the pooch when he gave his position wrong. The law may not have found him guilty but that does not sway my opinion of the incident.
 
So I guess this precedent means that, once cleared to land, you're no longer responsible to see-and-avoid?
 
mikea said:
Folks this was at a Class D towered airport, sans radar, where Collins gave his position wrong.

I guess there is a FAR that says you can't be both a pilot that is famous and a pilot that makes an error.
Click to expand...

Mike, can I assume you were the one who posted in the comment section?
 
This is a sad day indeed, one that darkens my opinion even further on our legal system.

We have created a culture where no one is responsible for their own actions anymore.
 
WTF did they actually read the d@mn opinion?? Judgment for the US.
Also civil trials don't find anybody guilty of anything.
 

Attachments

  • show_case_doc.pdf
    1.4 MB · Views: 43
infotango said:
WTF did they actually read the d@mn opinion?? Judgment for the US.
Also civil trials don't find anybody guilty of anything.
Click to expand...

Thanks for that document, Rob. What's amazing is all of the lawsuits and settlement amounts, and who sued who. Even American Flyers filed suit against the USA. And the three medical centers that Collins' plane crashed into after the mid-air all settled individually for $300K each against American Flyers. ??? What role could AF have possibly played in this catastrophe? I guess settling is cheaper than the lawsuit?

And we wonder why flying is so d@mn expensive?!

The other thing I found interesting was the discussion about TARDIS (remote radar at an airport control tower keyed off another bigger airport's radar) and how influential Congressmen and Senators are in getting airport hardware funding pushed through the FAA. Every example given where TARDIS was installed involved a politician having to get involved. (see pages 24 & 25 of the pdf).

"The requests for a TARDIS by other politicians or members of the general public and/or non-influential persons were ignored."
 
Last edited:
"N1234 enter left base rwy 12"
Allright, eyes inside now, he'll watch out for us! The courts say its tower's responsibility, not ours!


"the government will take care of us, that's what there there for!"
 
Last edited:
TangoWhiskey said:
...I guess settling is cheaper than the lawsuit?

....
Click to expand...


In many instances, yes. Suppose I'm a plaintiff's lawyer. I know that it will take you $300,000 to defend a case (and that can be cheap, depending on the case) regardless of whether you win or lose, I'll offer to settle with you for $250,000. That way, you save $50,000, and you "buy peace of mind," meaning that you don't have to worry about a massive verdict against you.

So the answer to your question is an emphatic YES.
 
Actually, Collins was found to be 5% at fault (see page 48), and there were substantial damages paid by the estates of both pilots.

In any event, review of the transcript makes it clear that the court concluded as a "finding of fact" that the information presented to the controller did not provide him sufficient basis to conclude that Hock's plane was outside Collins', and therefore he erred by telling Hock to turn base (in front of Collins) after clearing Collins to land and telling him he was #1 for the runway. Yes, the pilot is still responsible for clearing, and Collins' estate is paying for that failure, but I find it hard to argue that the primary responsibility for what happened was anyone's but the controller's, and vicariously, his employer's.

That the FAA was found not liable was a quirk of law under the FTCA and the contract by which Midwest was operating; clearly, had this been an FAA tower, and Fowler an FAA employee, the FAA would have had to pay up as Midwest did.
 
Last edited:
I'll be in AZ starting on Tuesday, but if I get a chance I will print off the opinion/order and give it a read. If anybody is interested, I'll post my thoughts on it.
 
Rob, thanks for the link to the case. Reading it was chilling to me. A mid-air is my biggest fear in flying, and this didn't help. I can see this happening at a non-towered airport, but I guess I always thought a Class D had radar or some other way to identify tiargets.

As for our legal system, ditto to the other posts. It's sickening.

I'm not sure what Hock did incorrectly, if anything. Yet her estate was sued pretty heavily. Unbelievable.
 
nddons said:
Rob, thanks for the link to the case. Reading it was chilling to me. A mid-air is my biggest fear in flying, and this didn't help. I can see this happening at a non-towered airport, but I guess I always thought a Class D had radar or some other way to identify tiargets.

As for our legal system, ditto to the other posts. It's sickening.

I'm not sure what Hock did incorrectly, if anything. Yet her estate was sued pretty heavily. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

It is chilling. But do not ever assume just because you are talking to a controller that you are somehow safer from a midair. This was a perfect example of that. Had Uncle Bobby (the pilot of the Zlin's radio name) not reported his position incorrectly this all may not have occurred.

There is a trust between pilots and controllers and while this poor controller was trying to help out a student he may have assumed the more experienced pilot actually knew where he was at and trusted the position report instead of visually verifying it. Had the controller done so he may not have called out the turn for the student pilot. Of course then there would not have been a collision.

not all towers have the capability to see what is happening via radar in the air. Sometime I think that Waukesha is one of those towers. I have had a couple of close calls where I see the traffic very close without even getting a warning from them.
 
smigaldi said:
It is chilling. But do not ever assume just because you are talking to a controller that you are somehow safer from a midair. This was a perfect example of that. Had Uncle Bobby (the pilot of the Zlin's radio name) not reported his position incorrectly this all may not have occurred.

There is a trust between pilots and controllers and while this poor controller was trying to help out a student he may have assumed the more experienced pilot actually knew where he was at and trusted the position report instead of visually verifying it. Had the controller done so he may not have called out the turn for the student pilot. Of course then there would not have been a collision.

not all towers have the capability to see what is happening via radar in the air. Sometime I think that Waukesha is one of those towers. I have had a couple of close calls where I see the traffic very close without even getting a warning from them.
Click to expand...

Excellent advice, especially about KUES. I've wondered about that.

Uncle Bobby (I do remember him from growing up in Chicago) had a radio call sign? What, did he think aviation radio = Citizens Band? :rolleyes: Maybe he made it more aviation-related by saying "Breaker, this is Uniform Bravo 10 miles out ..."
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
In many instances, yes. Suppose I'm a plaintiff's lawyer. I know that it will take you $300,000 to defend a case (and that can be cheap, depending on the case) regardless of whether you win or lose, I'll offer to settle with you for $250,000. That way, you save $50,000, and you "buy peace of mind," meaning that you don't have to worry about a massive verdict against you.

So the answer to your question is an emphatic YES.
Click to expand...
That strategy would likely have averted Piper's first bankruptcy. Then-owner Stuart Millar dropped product liability insurance and hired a couple of in-house lawyers to fight every product liability claim they determined didn't have merit. Then they got hosed and lost the Cub shoulder harness case to the tune of a couple million dollars that otherwise would have gone toward paying suppliers.
 
Ken Ibold said:
That strategy would likely have averted Piper's first bankruptcy. Then-owner Stuart Millar dropped product liability insurance and hired a couple of in-house lawyers to fight every product liability claim they determined didn't have merit. Then they got hosed and lost the Cub shoulder harness case to the tune of a couple million dollars that otherwise would have gone toward paying suppliers.
Click to expand...

I'm not familiar with what happened in that case, but it sounds like you're right.

What it comes down to is that, for businesses (and all litigants), settlement is something that they have a degree of control over. Once that case goes to a jury, though, anything can happen.

Which to harp on it yet again, is why we need to revamp our civil justice system for these complex cases. No matter who you get on a jury, there are complex things out there that it often takes advanced training to understand (for instance, aviation).

For these suits, we at least ought to have a prerequisite finding by a panel of experts that there is "probable cause" to believe that victory is obtainable for the plaintiff - it's what the EEOC does, and several states (including Colorado) require an expert's approval before filing certain types of professional liability cases. If there's concern over the impartiality of the "approver," make its/his/her decision appealable. But the basic idea is to allow such a body to act as a filter on complex cases.

But in complex civil cases, allowing a jury to decide the claim can and does lead to injustice. It's not the jury's fault - I'm firmly convinced that jurors do their best to determine the true facts and to follow the law.

There are some things that simply can't be explained in the course of a 10-day or 10-month jury trial...people such as doctors or engineers spend years building their expertise. How can we expect a jury to become well-versed enough in the course of a trial to be able to make a meaningful decision?
 
It's interesting that the judge fixed Collins' percentage of fault at 5%. As I re-read the decision I was left with the nagging suspicion that both of Collins' position reports were inaccurate, not just the second. Say what you will about controllers, but GIGO applies here, too.

Reading just a little between the lines it looks like the judge was very receptive to all manner of factors which could mitigate Collins' fault ("ground clutter" "glare" "low-wing sight obstruction").

my $.02: 5% may have been a generous discount.
 
Ron Levy said:
.... Yes, the pilot is still responsible for clearing, and Collins' estate is paying for that failure, but I find it hard to argue that the primary responsibility for what happened was anyone's but the controller's, and vicariously, his employer's.
Click to expand...

It seems to me that the bigger failure was giving false position reports. That 1.4 mile spread could have saved some lives that day, litigation aside of course.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I'm not familiar with what happened in that case, but it sounds like you're right.
Click to expand...
Going off of memory here ... A guy was taking off in a Super Cub from the back seat (solo from front seat) in which a large video camera had been mounted in the front seat. As he was trying to depart, someone with whom he'd just had an argument pulled a van onto the runway to block his departure. Block the departure it did.

Piper was sued by the estate of the pilot for not having shoulder harnesses in the airplane, despite the fact that shoulder harnesses were not required for several years after the airplane had been manufactured.

Jury verdict was something like $3 million for the plaintiff.

When you play a high-stakes game of "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer" you'd best be sure you have a good 'un.
 
Pjsmith said:
It seems to me that the bigger failure was giving false position reports. That 1.4 mile spread could have saved some lives that day, litigation aside of course.
Click to expand...
Let's go by the transcript.

At 2059:50Z, Collins said he was a mile or two offshore and was cleared to land. Hock was instructed to continue downwind and advise when the Zlin was in sight. When Hock said she did not have the traffic and asked for Fowler to call her base, Fowler agreed -- implicitly assuming responsibility for keeping Hock behind Collins. Even when Collins called "just crossing the shoreline" while still 1.4 miles from it, Fowler asked Hock if she had crossed the shoreline, and she said she had not. At that point, I can see no basis for Fowler to assume that Hock was farther out than Collins. Nevertheless, Fowler instructed Hock to turn base (an instruction which 14 CFR 91.123(b) required Hock to obey), thus betting lives that he fully understood where everyone was.

Now, one might argue that Hock's reply to Fowler's question about whether she had crossed the shoreline that she was "gettin' there" was a basis for assuming that by the time she turned, she'd be behind Collins. Personally, I would not want a controller turning another airplane me in front of me without a more exact position report than that given by Hock, but that is no more than my opinion. However, it is the apparent finding of the court as a matter of law and fact that the court agrees with my opinion, and that Fowler erred in a negligent manner when he ordered Hock to turn base.

Once Hock had turned in, she had no reason to believe Collins' plane was behind her (note that the leading edge of Collins' wing hit Hock's rudder, conclusively showing Hock was in front of Collins), leaving her in the position of searching in front of her for a plane that was behind her.

Even when Collins said "negative contact with the Cessna in front of us" (suggesting that perhaps Collins realized Hock was not behind him), Fowler said, "You should be number one, Bob," i.e., that there was nobody between Collins and the runway -- which was not so. In any event, Hock was in Collins' blind spot, creating an untenable situation in which Hock was looking ahead for a plane behind and above her, and Collins was told there was no traffic while Hock was invisible to him.

While it might be argued that Collins' inaccurate position report and failure to see Hock turning in front of him contributed in part to the accident (and clearly the court agreed when it allocated 5% of the liability to Collins), it is clear that the court found that the primary responsibility was Fowler's when he turned Hock in front of Collins despite a lack of positive confirmation that Hock's plane was outside Collins'.

At the end of the day, I can't find any significant fault in the court's conclusions. And as a pilot, I like knowing that controllers are responsible for making sure they aren't turning me in front of someone else when they give me an instruction I am obligated by regulation to obey.

BTW, an 8000-hour ATP/CFI might have felt the hackles rise on the back of his neck had he been in Hock's position when Tower called the base turn, and either lagged the base turn, or queried for a more exact location on Collins to ensure the Zlin was in front of rather than behind the Cessna. However, I can hardly fault a 35-hour Student Pilot for this lack of situational awareness, and it seems by default that the court felt the same way. Had I been in Collins' plane, I probably would have been looking for Hock's plane, also "just to be sure," but the evidence presented suggests it may have been pretty hard to see, and the court has accepted that as fact, and given the thirde plane on the opposite downwind from Hock, Collins had nowhere else to go but straight ahead anyway.
 
Last edited:
Ken Ibold said:
Going off of memory here ... A guy was taking off in a Super Cub from the back seat (solo from front seat) in which a large video camera had been mounted in the front seat. As he was trying to depart, someone with whom he'd just had an argument pulled a van onto the runway to block his departure. Block the departure it did.

Piper was sued by the estate of the pilot for not having shoulder harnesses in the airplane, despite the fact that shoulder harnesses were not required for several years after the airplane had been manufactured.

Jury verdict was something like $3 million for the plaintiff.

When you play a high-stakes game of "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer" you'd best be sure you have a good 'un.
Click to expand...

PRODUCT LIABILITY — A CASE STUDY
By John S. Yodice (From AOPA Pilot, December 1992.)
This copyrighted article is in the AOPA "Members Only" section - rbl
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Ken Ibold said:
Going off of memory here ... A guy was taking off in a Super Cub from the back seat (solo from front seat) in which a large video camera had been mounted in the front seat. As he was trying to depart, someone with whom he'd just had an argument pulled a van onto the runway to block his departure. Block the departure it did.

Piper was sued by the estate of the pilot for not having shoulder harnesses in the airplane, despite the fact that shoulder harnesses were not required for several years after the airplane had been manufactured.

Jury verdict was something like $3 million for the plaintiff.

When you play a high-stakes game of "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer" you'd best be sure you have a good 'un.
Click to expand...

http://home.netvista.net/hpb/cases/piper-1.html

Read all about it...
 
Jesus crimminy crickets...no wonder my distane for the legal profession is getting more and more everyday. How the hell am I supposed to read and understand half of that stuff without a law degree?

BTW...the jury was insane. Piper built a "bad design" because it had limited forward visibility? How about the P51, or hell the Space Shuttle!? We have such a pu**ified citizenry now it is ridiculous.
 
Ron Levy said:
.... Even when Collins called "just crossing the shoreline" while still 1.4 miles from it, Fowler asked Hock if she had crossed the shoreline, and she said she had not. At that point, I can see no basis for Fowler to assume that Hock was farther out than Collins.
Click to expand...

Yes, let's go by the transcript. I think you have more succinctly stated the underlying facts of my circumspection than I did. When Collins said "just crossing the shoreline" the controller assumed he was, in fact, crossing the shoreline and not 1 minute or so away from doing that. Following, he asked Hock if she had crossed the shoreline and her answer is, basically, 'not yet'.

From this limited segment of the transcript, I cannot see how Fowler could have had any belief other than that Collins was ahead of Hock. Remember, Collins said 'crossed' and hock said 'not yet'. At this point, the controller believes that the sequencing is still correct....because Collins told him he was a mile and a half further along for a straight in than he really was.

Ron, am I missing something in the facts here?
 
Pjsmith said:
Yes, let's go by the transcript. I think you have more succinctly stated the underlying facts of my circumspection than I did. When Collins said "just crossing the shoreline" the controller assumed he was, in fact, crossing the shoreline and not 1 minute or so away from doing that. Following, he asked Hock if she had crossed the shoreline and her answer is, basically, 'not yet'.

From this limited segment of the transcript, I cannot see how Fowler could have had any belief other than that Collins was ahead of Hock. Remember, Collins said 'crossed' and hock said 'not yet'. At this point, the controller believes that the sequencing is still correct....because Collins told him he was a mile and a half further along for a straight in than he really was.

Ron, am I missing something in the facts here?
Click to expand...
Yes -- Hock was on downwind, and was telling the controller when she crossed the shoreline outbound; Collins was on final, and telling the controller when he crossed the shoreline inbound. Unless Hock and Collins had both reported crossing the shoreline (i.e., Hock beyond the shoreline on downwind and Collins inside it on final) or Hock had Collins in sight (which she specifically said she did not), Fowler had no way to know for sure that turning Hock to base would put her behind Collins.
 
Ron, I understand your point. Perhaps it is that very confusion that reigned that day in Waukegan. Though I still think the core reason there was any confusion in the first place was Collins' lying about his position.

On that point, here's my cheap seat opinion based on the literal lay of the land -

The airport is actually a little less than four miles from the beach if you follow the extended centerline of 23. Really.

So the controller has at least two other planes working the pattern. Yet he clears Collins for a 4 mile straight in final. Ummmmm, playing favorites? From the transcript it's pretty clear the controller knew exactly who he was handling.

Of course, it really was a 5.4 mile final, since that's how far out Collins was. I suspect that Collins knew that the controller knew who he was, too.

Meanwhile, the controller has the student pilot extending her downwind to the shore (again, 4 miles), and vectoring the other pilot in 360s to allow Collins to land?

This stinks like a brothel at low tide.
 
Pjsmith said:
Ron, I understand your point. Perhaps it is that very confusion that reigned that day in Waukegan. Though I still think the core reason there was any confusion in the first place was Collins' lying about his position.

On that point, here's my cheap seat opinion based on the literal lay of the land -

The airport is actually a little less than four miles from the beach if you follow the extended centerline of 23. Really.

So the controller has at least two other planes working the pattern. Yet he clears Collins for a 4 mile straight in final. Ummmmm, playing favorites? From the transcript it's pretty clear the controller knew exactly who he was handling.

Of course, it really was a 5.4 mile final, since that's how far out Collins was. I suspect that Collins knew that the controller knew who he was, too.

Meanwhile, the controller has the student pilot extending her downwind to the shore (again, 4 miles), and vectoring the other pilot in 360s to allow Collins to land?

This stinks like a brothel at low tide.
Click to expand...

I would be surprised if the tower guy had a little star envy of Bob Collins. MJ keeps his plane there as well as several other Chicago celebs. Uncle Bobby is kinda a bottom feeder on the celebrity scale IMHO. But I do think the core issue is that Bob Collins, by giving a false position report, is what precipitated the incident.

There is a trust between controllers and pilots and Collins violated that trust by lying. Although he court document states that they do not believe that his unreported diabetes had any part in the crash I think it did. Not that it caused a physical issue. I think it shows a pattern of deception and a willingness to flaunt rules on his part.
 
Y'all are being a bit harsh on the late Mr. Collins by saying he "lied" about his position. There are many reasons other than deliberately misstating his position why the position he reported and the position he appeared to be in on the radar tapes could be a mile off.

And it's clear the court felt (and I personally agree) that even if Collins misstated his position by a mile or so, the fact that Hock said she had not yet crossed the shoreline outbound (and thus could be anywhere on that 4-mile stretch between airport and shore), and Collins had not reported inside the shoreline, was sufficient reason for Fowler not to tell Hock to turn base -- that Fowler should have delayed telling Hock to turn until it was certain that Hock was behind Collins, which the court felt was not certain based on the reports from Collins and Hock.

It all comes down to the "but for" test -- the court appears to have concluded that regardless of the accuracy of Collins' report, but for Fowler's decision to tell Hock to turn despite Hock having said she had not yet reached the shoreline, the accident would not have occurred. That makes Fowler's decision the legal "cause in fact" of the accident. OTOH, I do not see that it is not possible to determine with any significant degree of legal certainty (other than, perhaps, a self-serving, and therefore evidentially lightweight, statement by Fowler) whether a more accurate position report from Collins would have dissuaded Fowler from that decision, which would lead the court to conclude that Collins' report (inaccurate though it might have been) was not the "cause in fact."

In any event, let's keep our eyes on the important safety issue -- we all need to keep our awareness of the entire situation, including listening to what other aircraft are saying and what ATC says to other planes, because anyone can make a mistake and put us at risk. No matter what the controller says, if you feel there's something going wrong (as Collins perhaps might have had he understood that Hock had not reached the shoreline outbound when Fowler turned her, and thus might be turning in front of him), speak up, ask questions, and look out!
 
I know I've messed up a position report or two.
 
jesse said:
I know I've messed up a position report or two.
Click to expand...
We all have, probably. But in severe VMC there should be no doubt when you are over water and over land. It could be that he gave his report to try and ensure that he could continue his straight in and not have to deal with the slow 172 with a student in front of him. I have seen garbage like that from some pilots, makes me sick.
 
http://www.adn.com/nation/story/780664.html
An appeals court says the Federal Aviation Administration can't be held financially responsible for the collision of two small planes that killed a popular Chicago radio personality nearly 10 years ago.


The 7th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals issued the ruling Friday upholding a federal judge's decision in a lawsuit filed by Bob Collins' family.
Click to expand...
 
Ken Ibold said:
Going off of memory here ... A guy was taking off in a Super Cub from the back seat (solo from front seat) in which a large video camera had been mounted in the front seat. As he was trying to depart, someone with whom he'd just had an argument pulled a van onto the runway to block his departure. Block the departure it did.

Piper was sued by the estate of the pilot for not having shoulder harnesses in the airplane, despite the fact that shoulder harnesses were not required for several years after the airplane had been manufactured.

Jury verdict was something like $3 million for the plaintiff.

When you play a high-stakes game of "my lawyer can beat up your lawyer" you'd best be sure you have a good 'un.
Click to expand...

As I recall, the plaintiff even removed the optional shoulder harness that had been installed in the Cub! That type of sleazy plaintiff and any lawyer that would even take the case, and any judge that wouldn't through the case out upon review, is one of the biggest roots of the growing litigation problem in our country.
 
nddons said:
Rob, thanks for the link to the case. Reading it was chilling to me. A mid-air is my biggest fear in flying, and this didn't help. I can see this happening at a non-towered airport, but I guess I always thought a Class D had radar or some other way to identify tiargets.

As for our legal system, ditto to the other posts. It's sickening.

I'm not sure what Hock did incorrectly, if anything. Yet her estate was sued pretty heavily. Unbelievable.
Click to expand...

Never let your guard down. I've been turned onto base TWICE in Class D, right into a Baron and a 747 on their short finals. And I mean right into them, as in dive under them now right, and I don't get spooked easily when flying. It was our last second see and avoid ONLY, that prevented midairs.
 
Dave Krall CFII said:
As I recall, the plaintiff even removed the optional shoulder harness that had been installed in the Cub! That type of sleazy plaintiff and any lawyer that would even take the case, and any judge that wouldn't through the case out upon review, is one of the biggest roots of the growing litigation problem in our country.
Click to expand...
The real problem in this case was not the size of the verdict (which probably accurately reflected the damages suffered by the plaintiff), but the combination of the finding that Piper was 1% at fault and the "joint and several" liability law in the state in which the case was tried. I don't think any of us would disagree that the guy who blocked the runway should have been held liable for the result, although I think it's hard for us to comprehend how Piper could have been found even that much at fault. But even so, the finding only made Piper responsible for $30K in damages (probably less than the cost of defending the suit). However, because that van driver lacked any assets to cover the damages, the "joint and several" rule kicked in, and Piper, which should have had to pay only $30K, had to pay virtually the entire $3M. Put it all together, and it was a lousy situation for Piper.

Of course, the 1994 GARA law was one of the results of this case, but even that law has had unintended consequences.
 
Pjsmith said:
It's interesting that the judge fixed Collins' percentage of fault at 5%. As I re-read the decision I was left with the nagging suspicion that both of Collins' position reports were inaccurate, not just the second. Say what you will about controllers, but GIGO applies here, too.

Reading just a little between the lines it looks like the judge was very receptive to all manner of factors which could mitigate Collins' fault ("ground clutter" "glare" "low-wing sight obstruction").

my $.02: 5% may have been a generous discount.
Click to expand...

Ya got that right. The only errors were made by Collins and yet it's determined that his contribution was just 5%.
 
Ron Levy said:
In any event, review of the transcript makes it clear that the court concluded as a "finding of fact" that the information presented to the controller did not provide him sufficient basis to conclude that Hock's plane was outside Collins', and therefore he erred by telling Hock to turn base (in front of Collins) after clearing Collins to land and telling him he was #1 for the runway. Yes, the pilot is still responsible for clearing, and Collins' estate is paying for that failure, but I find it hard to argue that the primary responsibility for what happened was anyone's but the controller's, and vicariously, his employer's.
Click to expand...

Right. Collins might have mistaken Lake Michigan for some other nearby lake.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top