Posts about: "Accountability/Liability" [Posts: 44 Page: 3 of 3]¶

Wall Street Journal,
quoting in full (claiming fair use):

The U.S. government accepted fault for a midair collision earlier this year that killed 67 people near Washington, D.C., saying it is willing to pay damages to the families in connection with the incident.

The Justice Department\x92s filing in federal court Wednesday said the pilots of an Army Black Hawk helicopter \x93failed to maintain vigilance so as to see and avoid\x94 an American Airlines regional jet.

\x93Their failure was a cause-in-fact and proximate cause of the accident,\x94 the department\x92s lawyers wrote.

The filing said that an air-traffic controller didn\x92t comply with a federal order to tell aircraft on converging courses to separate. The government also said the American Airlines pilots should have been alerted to the location of the Black Hawk helicopter by a collision alert system and that the pilots \x93failed to maintain vigilance\x94 to avoid the aircraft.

The American regional jet had been flying from Wichita, Kan., when it collided with the Army helicopter on approach to Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport on Jan. 29. The military helicopter was conducting a training exercise along the Potomac River, one of the most congested airspaces in the U.S.
_________
Edit: The court filing in which liability is admitted is the Answer by the United States to the Complaint. It's 209 pages, not a surprise, as the Complaint includes quite detailed allegations, most all of which needed to be addressed point by point.
Notably, the airline is still a defendant and in fact lead counsel for the plaintiffs already has issued a statement to that effect.
I'm not indulging any further law prof mode for now.

The summary of the admission of liability was:

"GENERAL ADMISSION OF LIABILITY The United States admits that it owed a duty of care to Plaintiffs, which it breached, thereby proximately causing the tragic accident on January 29, 2025, as specifically set forth below. The United States admits that it, among other tortfeasors, is liable to a Plaintiff who is legally eligible to recover monetary damages, as permitted by the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. \xa7\xa7 1346(b), 2671\x9680, in an amount yet to be determined and apportioned among other tortfeasors."

The admission is based on the failure of the helicopter pilots to see and avoid traffic. The US also accepts that the air traffic controller failed to comply with a regulation but denies that this was a proximate cause of the accident and therefore that this incurred legal liability. The US briefly makes reference to the policy and political questions exemption with reference to some of the plaintiff's broader claims. The US also appears to be claiming that the jet pilots also had a duty to see and avoid traffic and so that the US is not solely liable.

Some reactions and at least attempts at valid observations.

FAA and ATCOs. Did the Department of Justice's Answer to the Complaint throw the controller(s) "under the bus?" Yes, and no. In brief, the Answer does not state that the controllers' acts or omissions were a cause-in-fact and proximate cause of the accident.

The Complaint alleges a long list of allegedly negligent acts by the controller(s) in Paragraph 250, which starts on page 158 and runs on to 164 (in the Answer). Without having studied the pleadings for hours upon hours (as one might do in actual practice) perhaps I've missed something -- but I think the only admission made by DOJ with regard to the controllers is that a very specifically cited FAA rule or procedure of some sort was not followed: "the DCA local controller did not comply with \xb6 7-2-1(a)(2)(d) of FAA Order JO 7110.65AA, chg. 3, Air Traffic Control (Sept. 5, 2024)." This specific admission is made recurrently in the Answer, amidst many other denials of (again, unless I missed something) everything else in the massive and detailed Paragraph 250 of the Complaint.

Edit [forgot to include]: the Complaint alleges generally the following about FAA and the ATCOs.
"the Federal Aviation Administration\x92s air traffic controllers failed in their two most important priorities, namely to separate aircraft in airspace and issue Safety Alerts when aircraft are in an unsafe proximity to one another; that the air traffic controllers on duty failed to abide by numerous other policies and procedures, including that air traffic control failed to provide traffic advisories to both aircraft and air traffic control failed to resolve an aural and visual Conflict Alert that advised air traffic control that the two aircraft were on an unsafe and converging collision course; and that the air traffic controllers failed in their duties concerning the \x93tower team concept\x94 within an air traffic control facility so that all controllers assist each other to prevent, amongst other things, a mid-air collision. The Defendants\x92 [meaning, both the U.S. and the airlines] collective failures (for which they are jointly and severally liable) caused, and/or contributed to this senseless and entirely avoidable tragedy."

So, "no", because the DOJ does not admit ATC was a cause-in-fact and proximate cause (both needed for liability, if I recall 1-L) but yes, first, specifically with regard to the FAA Order, and second, for all of the reasons ATC Watcher invokes. Whether those several factors would ever be considered for inclusion in an Answer to a big tort case such as this is doubtful . . .BUT especially after the fireworks over Section 373, watch for the NTSB report to lay it all out. (And incidentally, the Complaint now includes several excerpts from NTSB hearing and docket - not sure if these were part of the original Complaint. The Answer is the first pleading in response to the Complaint and it has become the Master Complaint, as I understand it, because it is the pleading on behalf of all the plaintiffs, regardless of whether they are represented by the attorneys who filed the very first Complaint in the case. Further, according to press reports (WSJ print edition today) both the airline companies filed motions to dismiss. Thankfully, or maybe not, my Pacer account is acting up, so, no comment....)

2. The airline and its parent company. The Complaint paints a very negative picture about the acts and omissions of the airline companies and the two pilots of 5342. The Answer was filed only on behalf of the United States (FAA and Army) and so the DOJ does not address the specific allegations forming the claims against the airline - this is standard practice. Still, I found this in the Answer (re: Para. 174): "The United States admits that the AE5342 pilots failied to maintain vigilance and to see and avoid PAT25".

I am refraining from trying to summarize or comment on the many aspects of the story about the airline pilots and airline companies alleged in the Complaint. It is a very detailed story. It probably if not certainly will outrage people in the industry writ large. I've not practiced tort law, either suing or defending, but that won't stop me from saying that it seems pretty clear that the trial lawyers are gunning for the airline company deep pockets, the availability of punitive damages when those are not awardable against the Federal Government, the availability of a jury trial, and insurance policies. To state the obvious.

As for the Army, Para. 253 starts on page 168 and runs to 176; the DOJ admits some but not all of the many specifically alleged negligent acts and omissions by the Army and those pilots.

One other little item caught my attention. In paragraph 106, reference is made to "risk assessment" stuff the Army aviation unit conducted or did not conduct. "Risk Assessment", that wouldn't be the same thing as showed up in Section 373, by chance?

(For information, the case number in federal district court in D.C. is 1:25-cv-03382-ACR.)

Uh, yes, very conspicuous by its absence.

First, I have taken something posted on this thread some time ago as a deeply important article of faith. It was (I'm not quoting it exactly but from memory) "they owned the airspace of the last several hundred feet of the final approach to 3-3." The effort to paint them as negligent by the (estimable and highly successful) plaintiff lawyers frankly makes me want to puke. And I don't care one iota that some or several of those lawyers own their own aircraft and have pilot licenses. They didn't build hours, did they? And, .... it's one thing to try build a case against the airline company, but something else to assail the deceased pilots.

Relatedly, and second, I tend to think the NTSB sees this in somewhat the same way. But the NTSB really excoriated the FAA, and it richly deserved it too. This was - it cannot be said too often AFAI-am concerned - a systemic failure. So between being revolted by the effort to invade the ownership of those last few hundred feet of airspace or flight path of Bluestreak 5342 on final to 3-3 on the night of 29 January 2025, and gunning for bear in the form of a complacent, ridiculously evasive if not obstructionist if not dishonest FAA, the Board had zero-decimal-zero tolerance or inclination for assigning causal factors to two dead pilots on final to 3-3. And that's EVEN IF the airline company should have done more.

Third, and I don't know if it would be viable, but to the extent that the accountability for this accident lies mostly with FAA, and somewhat with the Army pilots and Army, then aren't the pilots victims too, rather than negilgent party-defendants? Shouldn't their estates have legal representation, as a party-intervenor in the case? That is what I meant earlier, who speaks for them? As we all know, the Board does not find fault. I somewhat think the lawyers seeking their contingency fee will probably, I guess, be talking about "fault." But the Army pilots are a bit different. It is distasteful and unseemly to criticize them, as they were in service, and just as much victims of the systemic failures as Bluestreak 5342's two pilots. And Uncle Sam, why, he's already admitted fault.

Fourth and last, yes, the airline company will get raked over the coals for not having outsmarted the failures of the FAA. Jackpot justice, what a way to improve the architecture and operation of the NAS. (With apologies to a very estimable and deservedly highly well-respected airline industry attorney - a real one - who at a conference in Paris oh, a couple three years or so ago, made the point that plaintiff lawyers should not be the ones setting aviation policy through liability lawsuits.)

What good is a lawyer clodding around a pilot's forum on the internet without a rant now and again, eh?