Posts by user "WillowRun 6-3" [Posts: 100 Total up-votes: 113 Page: 4 of 5]¶

Website of the Clifford Law Office in connection with the press event today has posted the Complaint. Notably, the Kreindler & Kreindler law firm also is on the Complaint (these two firms are massive heavy hitters - nobody asked for my view I realize - I'm not familiar with a third firm also listed).

Perhaps this SLF/attorney should "do the reading" ...... I am quite curious whether, and if so how, these preeminent aviation accident litigators have dealt with the discretionary function exception to the statutory waiver of federal government sovereign immunity.

Edit: case number is 1:25 -cv-03382 (United States District Court for the District of Columbia)

On layman54's summary of the Complaint;

Sorry to return to law prof mode for a moment. The Federal Tort Claims Act waives, that is it removes, federal sovereign immunity. The statute also provides for continued sovereign immunity for federal government "discretionary functions", hence the "exception" is to the waiver of immunity. But the standard for whether a particular allegedly negligent act or omission was, or was not, within the meaning of "discretionary function" is something of a binary statement: if the action was a "ministerial action", then it did not involve the exercise of discretion as meant by the statute. Ministerial actions (though perhaps over-simplifying) are actions applying or following regulations or rules, or perhaps standardized procedures.

If my recollection of federal procedure is accurate, the federal defendants (FAA, and its statutory parent entity, Department of Transportation, and the Army) will need to assert sovereign immunity in motion practice of some sort, or possibly as an affirmative defense that needs to be pled in their (presumably) respective Answers to the Complaint - tbh I'm not certain which (but I'm not re-engaging the yoke of billable hours where I can avoid it).

My prior post thus was imprecise (apologies). The words "discretionary function exception" would not be expected to appear in this Complaint. But the several references to specific FAA rules and other written procedural-type stuff - I see these as carrying two loads. The first is the obvious one of making a strong case that this accident was caused, in major part, by FAA's negligence. FAA and the DOT can argue all they want about the several actually discretionary decisions which are implicated in the structure and operation of that airspace on the night of 29 January (federal legislation about capacity, being a headline among them, perhaps paired with the often-decried FAA basic idea of moving traffic over most other factors). But all those arguments will not bar the plaintiffs from arguing that in addition to discretionary policy decisions, FAA also violated its own rules and procedures. Which would be a serious argument that insofar as those rules and procedures are concerned, FAA was taking ministerial action, i.e., negligent ministerial action.

The Army's situation is more straightforward imo. Certainly a good number of discretionary functions are involved, or were involved, in the operation of the type of helicopter flights involved in this accident, in general, and specifically as training missions. But the altitude deviation and related operational factors do not fit within the scope of the discretiionary function exception to the waiver of immunity.

I recall some poster months ago stating that during the last leg of the approach, the PSA pilots "owned that airspace" or words to that effect. At a perhaps monkey-brain level, I agree with what the airline legal counsel is reported to have said: the helicopter flew into our airplane. But realizing I'm not objective (plus the fact this being a pilots' forum....) it is sickening to see those pilots alleged to have been negligent.

Yes, I think that's right.

H 'n' H.
Ordinarily I have no objection to lawyer bashing (and I've been known (in non-anonymous mode) to tell one or more good lawyer jokes).

Before stating why I object to the aspersion you've cast on legal types in the context of the DCA mid-air collision and the litigation arising from it, I'll suggest that probably most all forum posters (and readers), if not literally all, have heard either an ex-husband or ex-wife relate their unrequited frustration and anger at how the other spouse "got everything", "ripped me off", "took me to the cleaners" and so on. And then someone else will say, "yeah, and the lawyers are the only ones who profit in a divorce." The contradiction is rarely called out, but it is no less a contradiction.

But as to this case. The passenger manifest of the PSA flight isn't necessary to make this point, but I'm sure the estimable Mr. Clifford would consume hours of argument and pages of supporting documents making it clear that 64 lives were cut short, and many were people in the prime of their adult lives - not that one life should be worth more than any other life in compensation in court proceedings, but taking for example the relatively early career attorneys who perished in the accident, their earnings potential over the course of their careers is less speculative than, say, projections about one of the youthful skaters (although I'm pretty sure there are standards which have been worked out in the mine run of personal injury and wrongful death cases). My point is, this case will yield quite significant damage awards in the end. Yes, I realize that issues of immunity of federal agencies will have to be surmounted; having posted a lot about theses issues I realize they exist. Yet the citations of FAA orders, procedures, and rules in the Complaint does suggest that plaintiffs are ready to overcome the immunity argument. And I'm leaving for another day and place the consideration, how do you think it would affect the FAA in the long run to argue that "na na you can't get me" because of "legal technicalities" when it is pretty predictable at this point that NTSB in its final report will be, shall we say, either unkind or unsparing to FAA, or both, in assessing causes and effects.

So the case is likely, if not certain, to pay out big. The lawyers will get - unless legal counsel are using very different formulas than are typical in cases of this type - about one-third.

How is it then that only the lawyers do well? The argument is not about whether big-ticket damage awards can replace a lost loved one. The argument is about whether only the lawyers do well. "Grief" begins with the same four letters as "Grievance" and the crash victims' families certainly are individuals aggrieved by the negligence of some or all of the defendants. Maybe we can split semantic fibers over whether having their grievance abated by significant financial compensation is within the meaning of "doing well" - but under the facts of this case and their tragic losses, I think they will be at least "doing better". And so not only the lawyers.

This all having been said, apologies accepted, naturally.
WR 6-3

I seriously doubt that this case would be split into two trials. You are (of course) correct that the FTCA does not provide for jury trials, but there are many examples of advisory juries being used by federal district court judges (as you also suggest) in FTCA matters. My inclination is to think that district court judges have little apparent reluctance to empanel advisory juries in FTCA matters because negligence claims would - other things being equal - be precisely among the archetypes of claims for which juries serve as the finders of fact.

The practice of using an advisory jury in FTCA matters is, nonetheless, not without its critics. (See, e.g., "Advisory Juries and Their Use and Misuse in FTCA Cases", 2003 BYU L. Rev. 185) (2003)). Perhaps interestingly, the cited law journal article opens with reference to the use of an advisory jury in a trial arising from the incident in Waco, Texas involving federal law enforcement.

But in the current matter, let it be recalled that there are non-federal defendants. So there will be a jury serving as fact-finder already, and it would seem an even less difficult or concerning step for the U.S. District Court judge to assign the jury for the "ordinary civil case" the additional advisory role for the FTCA claims. WIthout claiming any knowledge at the level of aviator or related aviation or engineering role, the overall factual development needed to present the claims against the federal defendants on one hand, and the civil defendants on the other, are so closely related that the advisory role also makes sense from that perspective.

But are there federal defendants, plural? The Complaint names as defendant the United States of America (and includes the nice touch of giving the country a defined term identifier, i.e., "USA" - Complaint, para. 8). So on two levels, I would not anticipate* divergent let alone clashing attorneys representing, on one side FAA, the other the Army. A litigant in federal district court, to the best of my knowledge, has one lead counsel, and I'm unfamiliar with any practice of splitting the defendant. It might have a nice ring to it; I can almost phrase a law journal article built upon it..... "Splitting the Defendant: the Perils of Beat-Generation Hipster Slang in Federal Practice"...... but I digress.

Secondly, I have serious doubts that the "federal powers that be" will fail to coalesce around the essential facts and defense arguments. (There is a sub-sub-agency within the Department of [formerly Defense] War known as the Policy Board for Federal Aviation. I have no experience working with the Board but I have worked information about it - or tried to do so - into academic work. My understanding, provisional (or provincial) as it may be, is that a conflict between U.S. Army PAT helicopter training requirements, and associated practices and habits of the units involved on one hand, and proper structure and operation of the DCA airspace on the other, would be precisely the kind of matter to be brought before the worthies of the PBFA - but I don't "know that for a fact".) In any event, the FAA and the Army, with the NTSB about to levy some pretty heavy criticisms against them, are very unlikely I think to confront each other. In court, anyway.

* How exactly the USA will deal with representation of the FAA on one hand, and its statutory parent Department of Transportation, and also of the U.S. Army, is of course a matter to be considered, evaluated, and decided upon by the Justice Department. There have been sufficient divergences from what conventional wisdom would say DoJ would do (or not do) in particular situations in recent weeks such that I think it wisest not to venture any comment about the overtly political nature of the decisions which will have to be made. Besides, in my career I have not had the occasion to represent the United States in any legal matter, so.

There was no need to apologize in the first instance, H 'n' H, as far as I was concerned - and in retrospect I should have said so. I mean, among other reasons, although I'm a guest on this forum it is not in the form of some sort of self-proclaimed representative or spokesman for lawyers in general or any of them.

In a contingency fee matter, it obviously is not certain that the lawyers will do well (that's the entire point of making the fee contingent on the outcome). But in this particular matter, both sides of the equation are fairly obvious - there is very high likelihood for a large damages award (or settlement) - the facts are too compelling. And therefore, the attorneys will do well too.

I guess the intended humour eluded my limited sense thereof, or just plain limited sense.
Cheers!
WR 6-3

Anticipating what may be a scathing NTSB report, and certainly will be a highly critical report, the FAA and - through some interagency process or similar path through the bureaucracy - the Army as well will already be experiencing significant leverage for reform. Perhaps it will be unprecedented leverage given the almost incomprehensible series of errors which occurred in this accident (not actually incomprehensible, because they happened in fact). And although it makes sense that the airline defendants will have their own reasons for trying to leverage significant reform, one has to wonder to what extent the airline industry as a whole already is taking as strong a position as possible on the many issues in the looming massive spending on new ATC technology and facilities, and (hopefully) new ATM architecture overall.

As for the Army's public presence about this accident, no, you have missed nothing. The Army's witnesses at the NTSB hearing were (imo) well prepared for testimony, but if any other public statements by Army officials have been made, I've missed them too. I would note that one of the purposes of the PAT flights is continuity of government missions. Obviously this would not be a subject on which the Army (or anyone else with official knowledge of and responsibility for same) will be saying much of anything.

A preliminary caveat is necessary - actually, two caveats. The simpler one is that in my legal career I have not handled personal injury (negligence) matters and, although every attorney licensed in the United States presumably knows at least basics of any given legal subject matter - and even though this is only an internet forum and not practicing law - how the facts relating to the briefing of the approach to 3-3 will impact the liability issues probably will get pretty complicated in the actual lawsuit. (More on this to follow).

Second, and without diving into way too much legal stuff, it's important to remember that the substantive content of the law that will be applied to claims such as in the Complaint can be different in one state within the U.S. compared to another state. As I write this I haven't yet read the Complaint in total and although "jurisidiction" and "venue" certainly are covered, "choice of law" might not be. What specifically the tort (negligence) law of the District of Columbia, as a separate legal jurisdiction even though it is not a state within the U.S. might be, I would have to guess. Whether the plaintiffs will have some legal theory for the District of Columbia federal district court to apply the tort law of, say, some other state where the crash victims lived, ..... I don't know.
......
By "mitigating circumstance", I'm inferring that you're asking whether the continous acceptance of deviations from the airline's policy could lessen the force of arguments that the airline has legal responsibility for the accident as (i) one of the causes of the accident, or (ii), under the argument that if the PSA flight had not accepted the approach to 33, then the entire accident sequence would have been broken and would not have occurred. I find (ii) a very difficult proposition to accept, but not because of logic. After all, and even though it is a counter-factual, if the PSA flight had not been where in the space in the sky where the collision occurred....... then none of the other glaring problems about the airspace would be the focus of so much attention.

But so much else was fundamentally wrong with how the airspace in question was structured, how it was operated (for lack of a better term) by FAA, and how it was operated in by the Army, that moving the PSA flight out of the approach corridor to 33 instead of where the collision occurred strikes me as not sensible. First, it is severely simplistic given the other systemic and operational failures. Second, I see it as insulting to the many serious issues about safety in the NAS which are squarely and directly presented by the facts of this accident. But whether the law to be applied, whether it's the substantive law of negligence in the District of Columbia or some other state within the U.S., allows the analysis of legal liability (of the airline) to be determined by such a severe counter-factual which completely ignores the many other serious failures by the other active participants - I cannot say.

But to continue, so the airline has a policy of some sort that the circling approach to 33 should not be accepted if it was not briefed as part of the initial approach briefing for the usual arrival runway. So the pilots are supposed to interpose the company's policy rather than agree to an ATC request - let's say that's the case. But is it really? I'm going to wait for PSA to defend its pilots and the company policies. Does it actually require the pilots not to accept the approach if the initial approach briefing didn't also include 33? - was it really that level of an absolute prohibition? The Complaint contains allegations, not facts. (I have my doubts, but then SLF guys often do.)

As for the specific question about normalization of devicance, .... it is an interesting question! not least because I think it cuts both ways.

In the standard formulation, as rules get broken over and over, the fact that such breaking of such rules creates a cumulative deviation from the legally required standard of care receives less and less attention. In other words, negligence is gradually accepted as okay. So this certainly would not "mitigate" against the legal arguments for finding the airline to have some legal responsibility.

But on the other hand.... do you recall the scene in which the courtroom attorney, famously portrayed by Tom Cruise, confronts the Git-mo Commanding Officer, portrayed also famously by Jack Nicholson, in the Hollywood film, "A Few Good Men."? Attorney Caffee is trying to get Colonel Jessup to reveal that the Colonel had given an illegal order (which had resulted in severe hazing of a servicemember leading, in conjunction with his medical conditon, to that soldier's death). Counsel cannot ask the Colonel directly. So Counsel asks the Colonel if sometimes, when he gives the soldiers under his command an order, they might shrug it off, saying things like "the Old Man doesn't really mean it" or "he is just giving the order for show, we don't have to do anything about it". And the Colonel slams the question down hard, testifying emphatically that his orders are always, unfailingly, taken as direct orders that must be obeyed. (Anyone who recalls the film knows the rest.)

Was the PSA policy really that strident of an order? I have my doubts, and as I said, I'm anticipating - with more than just lawyerly interest, after all, this accident seems to me to be a watershed event in the evolution of the NAS with severe consequences for years to come - PSA's able and motivated legal counsel will have much to say.

I'm pretty frequently amazed, even after a dozen years, at the knowledge many forum community people have about particular aviation accidents stretching back decades. I wonder, are there examples where the legal system tried to blame pilots, but not for making any error as such, and also amid such a wealth of almost incomprehensibly negligent factors in the structure and operation of the airspace, and the operation of military aircraft in that airspace? (If this is too strong for some readers, my reason is this is a pilot's forum, and so when I see that someone is parking a big bus with a banner reading "throw 'em under here" I think it's okay to sound off.)

Many thanks, ATC Watcher!

From Senate Commerce Committee website, following is a summary of the ROTOR Act - Rotorcraft Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform Act. Commerce Committee vote may take place next week.
___________
Rotor Operations Transparency and Oversight Reform (ROTOR) Act
Upgrading In-Flight Safety Technology and Fixing Helicopter Operations to Eliminate Risk
[Sponsors] Senators Ted Cruz (R-TX), Jerry Moran (R-KS), Marsha Blackburn (R-TN), Ted Budd (R-NC), Shelley Moore Capito (R-WV), Roger Marshall (R-KS), Eric Schmitt (R-MO), Tim Sheehy (R-MT), Todd Young (R-IN)

The Problem : The midair collision between American Airlines Flight 5342 and an Army Black Hawk helicopter on January 29th was preventable. For decades, the airspace around the Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport (DCA) operated without an accident, but with thousands of close calls that should have resulted in preventive action. The Black Hawk was likely operating in congested airspace without transmitting Automatic Dependent Surveillance Broadcast (ADS-B) Out\x97a satellite beacon technology that can transmit location, altitude, and velocity to air traffic control and other nearby aircraft faster than radar or other transponders. The airspace is only as safe as its least equipped aircraft, which is why military aircraft must not play by different rules.

The Solution: The ROTOR Act
The ROTOR Act improves aviation safety, addresses FAA knowledge and oversight of ADS-B, and directs the Army Inspector General (OIG) to reevaluate its aviation safety practices. The bill requires:
1. All aircraft operators to equip with ADS-B In technology and transmit such information. ADS-B In is a technology for aircraft to receive location signals from other nearby aircraft and ground technology, improving safety in the sky and on runways.
2. Closes Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) loophole that permitted the Army Black Hawk to fly without broadcasting ADS-B Out. The ROTOR Act allows the FAA to only grant exceptions for \x93sensitive government missions,\x94 not training flights.
3. Requires the FAA to review helicopter routes near airports. The FAA would comprehensively evaluate the airspace at congested airports\x97where helicopters and airplanes are flying near each other\x97nationwide.
4. Directs the Army OIG to initiate a safety coordination audit. The Army Inspector General has declined to voluntarily review the Army\x92s aviation safety practices. The Inspector General would conduct an independent review of the Army's approach to safety.
5. Initiates FAA study on dynamic restricted area for helicopters near airports. The FAA would review whether audio and visual signals could be deployed to reduce airspace confusion and avoid traffic conflicts.
6. Repeals a Fiscal Year 2019 NDAA provision that exempted the Department of Defense from enacted ADS-B transmission requirements.

Why This Matters: The tragic midair collision earlier this year exposed serious and systemic weaknesses in how civilian and military aircraft share and operate in congested airspace. While the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) investigation continues, initial findings show glaring failures in oversight and coordination that must be addressed now, not later. The ROTOR Act was drafted in direct response to the operational shortcomings that led to the midair collision. Deconflicting congested airspace and establishing better communication standards between civilian and military aircraftis not optional\x97it is essential. The ROTOR Act does exactly that, ensuring American skies remain the safest in the world.

As a non-technical poster on this forum I sure as shucks won't comment on the ADS-B content of the proposed legislation. But point 4 of the summary:
"Directs the Army OIG to initiate a safety coordination audit. The Army Inspector General has declined to voluntarily review the Army's aviation safety practices. The Inspector General would conduct an independent review of the Army's approach to safety."

Why does this not make real sense?

The NTSB will very likely (undoubtedly, I think) include, in its report, quite extensive findings about the Army's operations. It was at least very unusual, if not unprecedented, for the NTSB to issue urgent recommendations to FAA in the immediate aftermath of January 29 with regard to use of the helicopter routes. On these facts, why is it not sensible to require the Army to undergo an IG review?

Although without a service record, I do generally understand the idea that the Army's task and purpose is lethality, at least in the meaning of that term before the assemblage at Quantico earlier this fall. Surely operating in domestic airspace doesn't make safety irrelevant "becasue lethality", does it?

One other aspect of this tragic and from many perspectives senseless midair collision is that very dedicated professional people in the aviation field are going to have their respective actions and failures to act in the events of January 29 scrutinized in the most harshly critical light in a courtroom. Bluntly, their performance will be trashed - the Army pilots, one or more controllers, and as discussed recently on this thread, the airline aviators too. On these facts, and hoping that reasonable minds may differ, I think the IG review isn't just a sensible idea, it's a necessity. It is something owed to those people, who are not going to speak up in their defense, or in their eternal regrets, from the great beyond. The least the United States can do is to find out what to do better. I'll work for the IG project, gratis, .... if they'd take me.

On the Inspector General portion of the proposed legislation (and I'm taking the summary published by the Senate Commerce Comm. as accurate of what actually is in the proposed legislative measure): I had been under the impression that the various Inspector General offices throughout the federal interagency work on any assignment they are given, that they need to tackle and proceed with the established IG process, and there isn't a project-by-project requisition for funding. In other words whatever work they are assigned, the annual appropriation for the IG function is in place. But not having worked with any IG office - and knowing that "partner in a law firm" is a quite different world, I don't really know.

There's more to the IG part of the proposed legislation than budgeting, however. My first thought when I read the Sen. Commerce Comm. summary was that the IG and - speaking generally here - various senior-level authorities in the Defense (now "War") Department, the Army, and the White House, realized almost immediately after the accident - certainly once the initial set of facts came to light - that an Army IG investigation would be guaranteed to produce one thing at least: free discovery for the accident victims' families and their attorneys. As time has rolled on, and with the first Complaint now on file in federal district court, this dynamic has become even more persuasive imo.

I'll litter the thread with legal stuff only a little more here. Anyone following the thread has seen posts about the application of part of sovereign immunity to claims against the Army and the FAA/DOT, despite the Federal Tort Claims Act. Specifically, sovereign immunity continues to apply where the alleged negligence resulted from a federal entity exercising "discretion" in making some decision based on weighing competing policy interests and requirements (apologies both for repeating myself from prior posts, and for the legal readers, for oversimplifying). I think this case is going to descend very far down "into the weeds" on this issue; the factual development seems very likely to get highly granular. And the reason for this is that ordinarily, the "discretionary function" refers to a specific decision at a particular time based on development of some sort of administrative record. I've resisted the impulse to post a summary of the Varig Airlines case, in which the discretionary function part of sovereign immunity protected the FAA from liability in an aviation accident matter - the FAA had made a specific decision about how to handle inspections of aircraft (again, apologies for oversimplifying). But in the DCA midair ..... I think there was not one decision to which the discretionary function part of sovereign immunity could attach. This was not a case of discretion being exercised by FAA or by the Army at a specific time for making a decision about a particular thing - no, this was for lack of a recognized term - discretionary inertia. A cousin of normalization of deviance.

What does this have to do with the Army IG and higher-ups (and very very higher-ups) telling the IG to stay in their barracks, I mean offices? In examining the presumably many decisions (or just the intertia of informal practices) the Army made about helicopter flights in DCA airspace, and about altimiters, and about NVGs, and all the rest of the actual flying stuff I don't know, the IG would develop a factual record, and a very official one at that, about how far outside the discretionary function exception this situation really was. How much discretionary inertia was at work, and about how many different parts of the factual record. Which in turn would greatly complicate the Army - and FAA/DOT also in my view - defending in court . . . . if not actually sink the sovereign immunity defense pretty early on.

Caveat: there are probably thousands of published court decisions involving the discretionary function exception; I haven't read them (other than Varig Airlines, and that was in law school for my law review article), and I could have botched the analysis here handsomely.

On politicians and opportunists of other sorts: The Senate Commerce Committee has done heavy lifting in the civil aviation sector not long ago, in the aftermath of the MAX accidents. I'd give the professional staff working for the Committee some credit, not to say that I can take a side about ADS-B, but instead that they (and the Senators, obviously) see the greatly impactful aftermath of the DCA midair collision, and want to try to set the system on a better footing. And that's before NTSB's report lands on desks, whether noticed only for a few news cycles (if those even exist still) or instead lands with a thud. I'm anticipating it will be scatching, but many following the thread watched the hearings (and read the interviews), so . . . .

And don't forget, 12.5 billion bucks have been appropriated for new ATC stuff, with another 18 billion waiting, if not in the wings, then in the cloakrooms. Congress never hesitates to try to get in front of where the money is going, and 12 billion here, 18 billion there, pretty soon you're talking..... we hope not another NextGen sad story. Possibly the Senate Committee is staking out territory from which to try to assure this time, modernization gets done and done right. (I know, there are structural issues too, but one hill to die on at a time.)

QUOTE=Propellerhead;11971298]Suing AA is just corporate greed by the lawyers. Don\x92t see how any of this is the fault of the airline pilots.[/QUOTE]

I entirely agree with the second sentence, and "slapping myself upside of the head" if any of my posts even left the door open to suggesting otherwise. At the same time, the legal process exists to adjudicate claims of injured parties, in this instance, the families of the accident victims. Their lawyers are doing what the system expects them to do, and while lawyers as a group will never, in this society, engender feelings of sweetness and light, I don't think greed is the reason claims against the airline were filed. I'll leave to one side the familiarity (slight though it may be) I happen to have with the lawyers who filed the Complaint - it won't help here to say they've done plenty well, they're consummate professionals, and they are ethically bound to press for significant compensation for their clients. Others will, understandably, scoff and say, "yeah, that's what I meant, lawyers are greedy." (There was, some years ago, a law firm gossip message board known as Greedy Associates, but I digress.)

No, I think the attorneys for the accident victims' families had little choice other than to assert claims against the airline, as wretched as I think those claims are. First, the federal defendants might pull off a Hail Mary of some sort and establish sovereign immunity through the discretionary function exception under the Federal Tort Claims Act. Second, there are no punitive damages awards against the federal defendants, even if they are found liable. Third, including these claims helps to develop a thorough (and might I say, persuasive) factual record to argue to the court and to the jury (leaving aside factors about advisory juries in FTCA matters & etc.). One could just say "deep pockets" but I wanted to highlight what I believe was the lawyers' thought process. Of course they'll vehemently assert the airline actually was negligent, meaning the pilots..... wretched, abhorent.

Maybe I can find an organization which would like to intervene in the case, on behalf of professional piloting - the pilots are victims of the screwed up airspace management too, aren't they? - and then become counsel of record in the case. Don't hold any breaths.

I would have thought that the IG office that is part of any particular organization within the federal government, and especially the senior level people in such offices, develop a deep understanding of their "client's" activities. Perhaps not.

I also seem to recall that somewhere in this thread ..... maybe it was a different thread ..... a handful of posts described the Army's own investigation process for accidents such as this, and the admittedly vague recollection includes reference having been made to the rank of the officers who typically run those processes or something else about the process. (Maybe about different levels of inquiry and hearing boards?) It would be logical for an IG not blessed with aviation expertise to nonetheless avail themselves of people with experience conducting official investigations, which would close much or even most of the gap.

Also, the NTSB hearing included testimony by Army witnesses who may not have had aviation expertise in the sense of flying but who according to the information from the hearing and Board docket were members of the Army's cadre of aviation experts. They could possibly be assigned to work with the IG (.....though I don't know how it actually works, obviously).

In reverse sequence;
Without an assessment of potential liability and damages, no defense counsel I have ever known would recommend settlement negotiations to start. What you say about some plaintiffs and their counsel potentially wanting to buy certainty of recovery in exchange for waiving possibly larger recovery later on certainly can happen in litigation. However in this case, the attorneys who filed the Complaint are, to state it (or to try to state it) neutrally, about the biggest guns in the business of litigating claims on behalf of air crash victimns' families. Sure, they might take the earlier, lower dollar route, and/or recommend such a choice to clients, but their reputations - and track records - suggest this will be the least likely course, and only much futher down the timeline. On the other hand, I have no role in the case and do not know whether the two firms (one in NYC the other Chicago) actually represent all the passengers on the American Eagle flight. (And do the estates and survivors of the deceased airline pilots have representation? Or the estates and survivors of the decesased soldiers? I don't know - and not getting into why they might have representation in this case or in general. Or whether an organization on behalf of ATCOs, in the U.S., or more globally, might seek to intervene in light of the facts being asserted against one or more controllers.)

Further, the government attorneys as well as the airline attorneys on the defense would be (imo) pretty far outside practice norms to recommend settlement negotiations without joining issue on anything yet. Perhaps one or more defendants will not file their (respective) Answer to the Complaint before broaching settlement, but doubtful this will happen (insurers' counsel lurking off-stage probably would insist upon an Answer being filed). And, the defense applying sovereign immunity through the discretionary function exception to the FTCA waiver is most likely an "affirmative defense" which, under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, probably must be included in a defendant's Answer to the Complaint. Even if your continued doubts about its applicability prove correct, it strikes me as quite inconsistent with the current Department of Justice approach to things to skip the pleading stage and jump to settlement. Especially when the opposing attorneys are among the biggest guns in this part of the trial bar, and especially with the political overtones of the litigation looming (as in, funding by Congress of the new ATC system, and legislation which may be lurching ahead of NTSB findings, as in recent posts about 'the ROTOR Act').

As to the discretionary function exception on the merits:
On the current state of the public record, it is pretty straightforward to say that the helicopter crew deviated from the applicable duty of care (i.e., negligence) - as noted, though, I can't imagine the Army component of the Defendant-USA just declining to contest liability at this stage. It must be noted that plenty of acts and/or failures to act by the FAA component of the Defendant-USA also appear to have departed substantially from the applicable duty of care. Maybe it's too cyncial to have this view, but I think FAA is more deeply entrenched in trying to prevent a litigated result that it had mismanaged the DCA airspace - more deeply entrenched than the Army because, as the airline company attorney reportedly said, the helicopter flew into the airliner, pretty simple. I cannot quite verbalize how the FAA would try to shift major responsibility to the Army and off itself, but the discretionary judgments FAA might argue drove its methods and processes for operating the DCA airspace could be the way FAA tries to do so. Of course, ultimately that still leaves Defendant-USA fully liable - just a politically different outcome.

But recall that the defense of sovereign immunity through the discretiionary function exception to the FTCA waiver is an Affirmative Defense. The defendant can rasie it even when the plaintiff has not sought to plead anything which would, by itself, invoke the issue. And in federal court (unless things have drastically changed since I last stepped up to the lectern in a courtroom with the Big Eagle on the wall behind the bench) the standard for pleading is "notice pleading" not "fact pleading". The Complaint just has to give sufficient notice of what the claims are about and what they're based on, and not all the facts necessary to state a particular claim under the specific substantive law. (Certain State courts still follow "fact pleading" though....been a minute.)

I think the point you were making is that nothing the Complaint has alleged factually, and nothing else about the accident that is in the public record at this time, suggests that a defense based on the discretionary function exception would work, or in fact would be worth trying. My view is that the government will take a very close look at trying to assert it. For example, the way the Army operated the proficiency flights in general and in DCA airspace in partiucular, including but not limited to use of NVGs, draws upon (it would be argued) policy judgments about the critical importance of "continuity of government" operations, and even the more routine VIP transport. Will that be enough to overcome the assertedly "clear negiigence" of the helicopter crew in their visual scan for visual separation, and altitude adherence (and possibly other related operational factors)? Maybe not, but I have no clear idea what process the Army went through to devise the rules by which those proficiency flights are conducted, evaluated, and so on. (And which a proper Army Inspector General inquiry and review would delineate, and with clarity.)

And for the FAA, how many times on this forum have posters pointed out that FAA's operating principle has been to move traffic in volume, and not to focus on what FAA eviderntly considers minor details of proper ATC methods and procedures? Sloppy discretion, maybe, but Congress recently expanded the slots at DCA (iirc) and so in a sense the United States did indeed exercise discretion.

I have posted several times that I do not believe the defense should be successful here. But what some non-pilot SLF and attorney writes (hoping not to overstay my guest-on-the-forum status) here might be many levels of altitude below what will actually happen in the litigation and in the courtroom.

Nothing I'm saying in this post is meant to exonerate FAA or deflect responsibility away from it.

That being said, even though the FAA published a certain tolerance, and the helicopter's 78 foot deviation was within that tolerance, I think it is quite likely (if not certain) that on this particular subpart of the overall factual record, the plaintiffs will argue that the Army knew or should have known that despite the deviation being within the tolerance, such a deviation nonetheless was significantly unsafe and therefore negligent on the Army's part. It would be argued that the Army had a legal duty independent of what FAA published to operate its helicopters safely. The acts and omissions of more than one actor in a given situation can be oustide the established duties of care and therefore negligent. (I'm imagining that military aviators may disagree insofar as it may be an article of faith as well as military regulation that the FAA is absolutely the one responsible party for civil controlled airspace, but as a legal point I think plaintiffs will attack it.)

The process "to investigate and unveil" the key facts about simultaneous use of Route 4 during RWY 33 arrivals and RWY 15 departures will more likely be the NTSB investigation and not the pre-trial discovery activities, pre-trial motions, and trial in the lawsuit. The object of the lawsuit, despite what my esteemed colleagues in the legal profession may insist, is not "getting to the truth" or "learn[ing] the real lessons of this accident." (In the first season of the t.v. series N.Y.P.D. Blue (circa late 1993 early '94), one of New York City's Finest was charged with homicide. In a talk with her big-time defense attorney, he reminded her that a "trial" and "the truth" have about as much to do with one another as a "hot dog" and a "warm puppy.")

Unless all the possible plaintiffs intend to proceed with the same lawyers who already have filed a Complaint in federal court, other complaints with perhaps different approaches to the facts and the law are to be expected. But at this time, I think there's pretty strong reason to understand the Complaint which was filed as pitching the ATCO and one or more of the helicopter pilots directly toward a large Greyhound. If, after finding time (and attitude) sufficient to read every single word on every single page of the Complaint very closely, I realize that plaintiffs' counsel have not done so in the current Complaint, I'll frame some correcting post.

As a somewhat related point, and without intending to be a flame-thrower, what about the airline pilots in this matter? Imagine being one of their immediate family. The passengers and cabin crew will be part of the overall group of plaintiffs. With the allegations in the current Complaint, the pilots are being alleged to have operated the flight negligently - is this not a fair and accurate reading of the Complaint? But if this accident was caused - in the sense of the actual realities of flight operations and airspace and all the other actual aviating facts - by the airspace design and operation, and the wrong time and place flight of the helicopter - why aren't the families of the pilots entitled to their day in court as well? And I don't mean day in court just to defend their actions against allegations as in the Complaint, I mean in claims against the FAA and possibly the Army....... oh sure, sue the United States? I'm guessing the airline corporate entities which are defendants probably would not think that would be a good idea. And neither would airline industry trade groups - but maybe this is something for former New Hampshire Governor Chris Sununu to tackle in his new role as CEO of Airlines4America. Something that seems to be part of this is that the airline corporate entities are well-insured. But what good does that do for the families of the two pilots? - answer, it doesn't do any good for them, other than a probable off-ramp for the entire case at some point down the litigation timeline. And still without the families of the two pilots having their day in court to claim rights and remedies against the real causal agents of the accident. End of rant. For now anyway. (See perhaps Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, re: permissive intervention)

I entirely agree that getting the facts, at the granular level (that is, with as much completeness and detail as the facts themselves warrant), about how the airspace got configured and how its operation was established as those facts existed on the night of January 29 should be a strong focus - I would say exteme focus - of a real effort to understand how this accident could have happened. Including the names, and roles and responsibilities, of all significant decision-makers and others with non-trivial input into any decisions. As prior posts have made clear, the way in which the helicopter routes were used during particular approach and departure usage of DCA runways did not just spring into existence deus ex machina.

It is tempting to say that a proper discovery plan in the federal district court litigation - which let's recall has only just started - would indeed drill down into those granular facts. The case might actually see that sort of intense and relentless discovery. In the current era of electronic discovery and perhaps utilizing AI tools to continue to refine content of interrogatories and requests to produce documents (and, down the road a bit, requests to admit specifically articulated facts), more massively intrusive discovery efforts would seem possible. And I say "intrusive" because good and effective discovery really is like taking a sewing needle to one's finger to extract a wood splinter which has embedded itself deeply even if also visibly. You've got to keep digging at it.

If such discovery actually eventuates in the litigation, it could produce results approaching revelation of "the truth" about what happened. Still, seeking compensation for the families of the accident victims, and I'm not unaware for the attorneys for their work (if not also for validation and fulfillment in the type of legal careers they've chosen) will be the main lodestar for all that happenes, imo. (Whether this case ultimately turns out to be an example of the need for "civil justice reform" in the United States .... I can't predict. That would be like saying Congress should enact special legislation to compensate the families of the crash victims, after a proper investigation beyond what the NTSB will provide .... yeah, when Hades sets new wind-chill records.)

Same comments about the myriad previous incidents and follow-up or absence of follow-up. It could be the focus of highly intrusive discovery, which to be effective would need to be conducted in waves, taking information extracted first and then using it to dig out more. I should add, probably need to add, that whether the case management plan which ultimately will be approved by the federal district court judge will or will not contemplate such wide-ranging, time-consuming, expensive, and - to the defendants, "objectionable as unduly burdensome" - discovery is yet to be seen. Of course, the attorneys and law firms already in action (per the Complaint filed recently) aren't rookies, far from it.

One other comment which current Congressional action seems to make relevant. Already 12.5 billion bucks have been appropriated with another 18 billion supposedly somewhere in the Congressional authorizations-appropriations process. No one in the aviation community needs reminding of the litany of emerging and/or intensifying issues confronting the NAS. I happen to hold the view that the European and global ATM communities have advanced very significantly on defining these issues and working - albeit incrementally, and even though not without political issues - on solutions. New entrants, not least UAM. The introduction of AI into ATC functions. Cybersecurity (remote towers being a valid example of the locus of the issue). Of course the drive toward reduced emissions, whether called net-zero or anything else. Include calls for equity and inclusion. HAO; Class E airspace. Service Delivery Model of the ATM Master Plan (Service-Oriented Architecture). My point, which is only partially a rhetorical question, is: how could it be even remotely possible for the United States to design and implement a new ATC system worth 30 billion dollars - and which accounts for the issues I've noted to the extent they apply here as well as in Europe and globally - if the actual hard and distressing facts about the causes of the January 29 2025 DCA midair collision are not uneartherd and properly taken into account?

A number of observations about the litigation and the facts from which it arises (to the extent the facts are in the public record so far) support my disagreement with the assertions (or if it is preferred, analysis or reasoning) in the quoted post.

First is the alignment and nature of the defendants. Only the airline company defendant has exposure to punitive damages (because of the limitations in the FTCA), and unless one is willing to assert that the U.S. taxpaying base is a kind of insurer, only the airline company defendant brings the deep pockets of its insurers into the plaintiffs' calculus. This is the situatjon even though most all if not actually all aviation professionals on this forum deride claims based on acts or omissions of the CRJ pilots - this isn't stopping the plaintiffs, of course. (The plaintiffs' attorneys, it should be noted, include some very highly experienced aviators, one of whom (according to his bio filed with the court) was part of the PAT unit operating in the relevant airspace earlier in his career.) There may be, though it's too early to be certain, some reluctance to assert strong factual and legal attacks against the Army pilots - it might thought that it just doesn't have a good look and recall, the claims against the airline will be tried to a jury, so minimizing "evil lawyer" opportunities could be important. (Gerry Spence once reported that after winning a hotly contested jury trial and a big damage award, one of the jurors caught him in the corridor and asked him why he had made the jurors "hate him so.")** [Correction! see **]

The relevance of this is that the excerpt your post quoted was about the scope of discovery. Given the claims against the airline are situated as the biggest financial targets, I very seriously doubt that plaintiffs' counsel will make their discovery plans based on only one theory of liability. (I have to add that, in early case filings, the bios of the plaintiff's lawyers (or some of them) are included, with regard to the discovery steering committee and executive committe for what will become many other lawyers involved. I hope I did not fail to articulate in earlier posts how voluminous are the experience portfolios of some of these counsel and their firms - saying they're 'heavy hitters' should NOT be read as damning with insufficient recognition of their. . . . well, Pacer is available to anyone who wants to read the bios themselves.)

So, although the discretionary function exception might be advanced by the government's attorneys, the scope of discovery sought by plaintiffs will, in my view, be very broad. And it's too early to say whether the airline company attorneys (and their insurers' counsel who will be deeply involved, I think) will cause discovery also to go the maximum extent. And this is without any implication at all that discovery expense would be run up on purpose to cause defendants to settle earlier and/or for larger sums - I know this happens in federal court civil llitigation sometimes, but that isn't the driver here (imo).

Second, I think the Complaint already provides a basis to understand the plaintiffs are indeed making allegations against - for lack of a better term and without intention of disrespect - functionaries and lower-level or mid-level managers within the FAA. Even if the Complaint does not spell all such facts out at this point, after the testimony at the Board hearing, it seems quite likely that plaintiffs will assert allegations of negligence against one or more ATCOs. the managers at DCA including in the ATO (the testimony of an ATO official at the Board hearing struck me as ripe for plaintiffs to zoom in on - and iirc it was the very same official who was involved in cross-talk leading to rebuke from the Board Chair), and perhaps on up in the ATO organization. The testimony by a fairly senior manager in the Potomac Tracon for example - whether or not this provides grist for the discretionary function exception for the government attorneys, I don't know, but it does appear likely for plaintiffs to want to discover quite a lot about the memo he testified he had written (about spacing of arrivals, iirc) and what, if anything, was done with it.

So I think my view isn't different, insofar as allegations against let's say individual actors within the overall set of "FAA facts" would naturally lead to very wide-scope discovery.

Third, with regard to the FTCA and the exception as potentially invoked on behalf of FAA overall, I've posted more than a few times that I think it should not apply. But perhaps it will in fact be asserted, and then it could prevail (but see the first point above, with regard to anticipating the scope of discovery). I can imagine the successive iterations of the legal analysis as to whether the exception becomes applicable if and only if there is a defined and specific decision, the determination of which was documented whether extensively or at least to some extent. Again (and I apologize for repeating it) as I recall the Varig Airlines case, the process FAA had set up for certain inspections (of aircraft components which failed and caused an accident) was that type of specific determination of a particular course of action or process. Tell me there's a memo from the FAA Administrator to the head of the ATO directly addressing the margins of safety for simultaneuous helicopter flights on the DCA routes when the specific runways are in use (per ATC Watcher's earlier post) and stating that aircraft movements must be given priority - or something similar as this - and then I would more likely agree that the discretion necessary to invoke the exception may well have been applied.

But what we have here is a much more diffuse situation, which took place over many years, isn't it? Normalization of deviance, or normalization of inertia toward "it hasn't caused a problem so far". And similarly, all the safety-related reports - and the apparent lack of meaningful action - or any action? - addressing these, there wasn't a specific determination about a particular choice or course of action with respect to which the federal district court could justify ruling that discretion had been exercised.

A friend who sometimes follows the forum asked me whether all the talk about the discretionary function exception was classic "over-thinking" because the FAA obviously made choices about how to structure and manage the airspace. Well, I answered, we see opinion polls every day about how people would vote if the election were held today, or how they anticipate they'll vote when Election Day occurs. Those are not votes, though, only your ballot cast in the election is a vote. All of FAA's incremental acts and failures to act - just answers to pollsters, not the ballot box. Maybe the analogy works, maybe not.

I have to acknowledge, never having been a law clerk to any judge at any level, that I'm completely speculating, but the law clerks for the federal district court judge to whom this case was assigned certainly will earn their pay, and will they ever have a great tale to tell, sometime down the road.

** I recalled this incorrectly - Spence had lost the case. Considering that some lawyer at some point in this litigation will engender extreme dislike, here's the tale as told by Gerry Spence:
"When I was a young lawyer feeling my power, my strategy in a certain case was to attack
and destroy every witness the other side put against me. I took on the witnesses, old men with
watery eyes who I knew were but company sycophants trying to keep their jobs. I took on the
experts, scholarly actors who I knew were but paid witnesses attempting to earn their fees rather than
reveal the truth. Cut them up, shredded them, pulverized them. The jury was out only fifteen
minutes before it returned a verdict against my client. I was devastated. Hadn't I won every battle?
Hadn't I destroyed the witnesses? Hadn't my power on cross-examination been overwhelming?
As the jury was filing out of the courthouse, one of the women approached me. She looked
up at me with tears in her eyes. It had obviously been hard for her to turn my severely injured client
out of a court of justice with nothing.
'Mr. Spence,' she said quietly, 'why did you make us hate you so?"'
GERRY SPENCE, How TO ARGUE AND WIN EVERY TIME 44-45 (1995) (quoted in [citation omitted]).

((Long pause.....))
1. Facts. The NYT does report the House passed its version of the NDAA. The NYT further reports that the provision at issue does "not appear in the Senate version" of the NDAA which the upper chamber previously passed. Though I have not worked on any Capitol Hill staff, it still is safe to say that there will be a conference between the two bodies to iron out a final version acceptable to majorities in both chambers.
NOTE: the NYT also reports the strong objections of the aviation sector leadership in the Senate, on an actually bipartisan basis. This includes the Chair and Ranking Member of the Senate Commerce Committee (Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) and Sen. Maria Cantwell (D-Wash.), respectively, and the Chair and Ranking Member of the Committee's Aviation Subcommittee (Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kansas) and Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D.-Illinois)). Doubtless few need to be reminded that Senator Duckworth, currently the Land of Lincoln's junior United States Senator, flew helicopters in the United States Army in armed conflict and actual combat during which she was severely wounded. I don't want to get bumped into blasting jets but I don't see the provision at issue as a wise legislative manuever or that it is wise to make Sen. Duckworth really angry about an aspect of helicopter operations in Washington, D.C. airspace.

Further, NTSB Chair Homendy, per the NYT: "Nobody actually knows what a commercial aviation compatibility risk assessment is". She also reportedly noted that the legislative measure does not task this assessment, whatever it might be intended to cover or what process it might be intended to utilize, to the FAA. Designation of a service secretary and the Secretary of Transportation as authority for issuing the pertinent waiver is not the same thing as tasking the process to FAA, first, as a strictly legal and legislative matter, and second, as a fact of life in the interagency.

2. Interpretation. Cynically, one could assert that this provision is another instance of the drive toward almost unlimited or, as a practical matter, effectively unlimited executive power.

Presumptuously, one could instead assert that somewhere deep inside the national security or intelligence bureaucracy, there is some as yet undisclosed risk or development which requires the Army or any other service to operate helicopter flights in a manner the same or very similar to the procedures allowed prior to the accident.

It may be poor form to transfer the phrase from its original context, but I think the provision at issue produces shock and awe, except that the awe is in the nature of disgust.

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/Documents/...tion%20Act.pdf

Letter to Congressional leaders re: NDAA from NTSB Chair Homendy.
The letter is addressed to the Chair and Ranking Members of the Armed Services Committees in both the House and Senate.