Page Links: Index Page
| layman54
February 17, 2025, 21:48:00 GMT permalink Post: 11830216 |
I think that compensation will almost certainly be made available one way or another, as to how, well, I don't know whether it really matters much. There's plenty of precedent for a 'we're not admitting fault but we're paying anyway' type of deal q.v. Iran 655
I very strongly doubt that the US govt would do a 'technically we're immune so tough luck' here. The optics would be dire. Subjects: None No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
March 21, 2025, 06:04:00 GMT permalink Post: 11851077 |
"Two caveats to wrap: I don't envy the advocates for the victims' families, as it will be terribly challenging to argue the facts of this case without appearing to cast aspersions on some or all of the pilots and controllers. Nobody wants that, and I certainly don't."
Subjects
FAA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
March 23, 2025, 07:03:00 GMT permalink Post: 11852462 |
I think you might be under the impression that the Army, and the Department of Defense, would not have the "discretionary function exception" available. Both of those federal entities (and that's just convenient shorthand, not an actual definition of legal status) would interpose this exception to the removal of sovereign immunity.
Subjects: None No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
March 23, 2025, 18:28:00 GMT permalink Post: 11852866 |
...
3. Under all the airspace and traffic conditions which obtained on the night of the accident, you're certain, are you, that a case of negligence against the helicopter pilots can be framed, litigated, and won? If you are, you must know a boatload more about DCA airspace and operations than most folks on this forum do; it's plainly more than this SLF/attorney knows, I'll have to admit. ... It seems clear the helicopter crew made mistakes that don't qualify as an exercise of discretion. Under the FTCA the crew is immune from lawsuits but the government is liable for the consequences of any such mistakes they made. As it was the governments responsibility not to assign them missions for which their training was inadequate. I don't see such a case against the FAA. Perhaps if you find some specific regulation that was violated. I think there is a reasonable chance the government will concede liability. The FTCA doesn't allow punitive damages and FTCA cases are not tried by juries. So if the government concedes liability I see no reason there will be any evidence presented about the cause, the remaining issues will be the amount of damages. This all applies to the people on the jet. The helicopter crew can't claim against the military because of the Feres doctrine. Perhaps they have a claim against the FAA but I think their chances are distinctly weaker than those of the people on the jet. Subjects
Accountability/Liability
DCA
FAA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
March 25, 2025, 01:57:00 GMT permalink Post: 11853641 |
I somewhat doubtful it's an either/or. Designing an approach where one in a thousand landings attempts ended in a crash would be a travesty. It's been a long time since I went to law school, but I'm pretty sure the crew that got wrong what 999 others got right would still be considered negligent.
Subjects
Accountability/Liability
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
March 26, 2025, 14:52:00 GMT permalink Post: 11854591 |
Slow down, cowboy. Drive across the Cross Bronx Expressway at any time of day in your 13\x926\x94 truck. Damned near every underpass on those few miles and there\x92s a lot of them marked something between 12\x926\x94 and 13\x922\x94. I never noticed it until a trucker mentioned it.
Subjects: None No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
March 30, 2025, 19:13:00 GMT permalink Post: 11857494 |
According to post 1346 the accident helicopter was higher and to the west of the position of the typical helicopter flying that route. Was this a slight error that in this case was fatal? Subjects
Close Calls
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
March 31, 2025, 06:35:00 GMT permalink Post: 11857732 |
"I will be neither surprised nor shocked if the lawsuits also name American Airlines, which has no protection obviously under the FTCA. It didn't do anything wrong ..."
Well presumably any lawsuit naming American Airlines will have to allege they did something to incur liability. The only such theory I can come up with is that the jet pilot should have refused the rerouting to runway 33 because he should have known that would increase the jet's exposure to reckless helicopters. Which is sort of blaming the pilots squared. Is that what you want to go with or do you have an alternative way of dragging American Airlines into this? Of course American Airlines is already involved in that they have a FTCA claim against the government for at least the value of their plane. Subjects
Accountability/Liability
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
March 31, 2025, 06:45:00 GMT permalink Post: 11857734 |
....
So, for example, based on the difficulty in picking out the correct aircraft from the inbound stream, one of the many questions I've been asking myself is "Why were the PAT25 crew so willing to say they had the CRJ in sight (twice they said that) in that environment?". Had that become "normalised" on the Sqdn, or were the risks of miss-IDing a/c not being adequately highlighted in Local Orders, particularly given the geometry of that specific set-up? ... ... Subjects
ATC
CRJ
PAT25
Separation (ALL)
Visual Separation
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
September 27, 2025, 07:04:00 GMT permalink Post: 11960370 |
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) The best (in my view) argument against the airlines is that it was PSA policy that their pilots should not accept a diversion from runway 1 to runway 33 if they had not already briefed this approach (in addition to briefing the approach to runway 1). The pilot in charge hadn't done this but nevertheless accepted the diversion. This looks bad of course but there is little reason to believe that the omission of the briefing made any difference. It is also argued that the response to the TCAS conflict alert was inadequate which seems only clear in hindsight. Finally there were also insinuations to the effect that airlines should not serve busy airports because they are dangerous that I didn't find convincing. The argument against the FAA is that the ATCs had actually violated various regulations starting with having one controller handle both helicopters and airplanes and continuing with the specific instructions and information provided to the helicopter and airplane. I suspect these purported violations are not as clear cut as claimed. In any case it is unclear they made any difference. The argument against the army is that the blackhawk crew violated specific regulations and rules that they were required to observe. Most seriously that they were too high, knew they were too high but didn't correct this in a timely way. This clearly did make a difference and in my view if proven would be sufficient to establish liability. I didn't notice any references to the discretionary function exception. In general the arguments against the government are based on purported specific violations of established rules and regulations by low level personnel and not on debatable broad policy decisions. The case that an army pilot doesn't have discretion to violate altitude limits seems easy to make to me. Any more than an army driver has discretion to ignore stop signs. Last edited by layman54; 27th September 2025 at 07:09 . Reason: fix formatting, fix word order Subjects
ATC
Accountability/Liability
Blackhawk (H-60)
FAA
TCAS (All)
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
September 29, 2025, 03:56:00 GMT permalink Post: 11961297 |
I think the point here is that, had the 5342 pilots followed PSA procedures (i.e., not accepting an approach that wasn\x92t previously briefed), they would have refused the circle 33 offer by ATC, thereby avoiding the accident.
Reviewing the 5342 CVR, runway 33 was not included in the CA/PF\x92s approach briefing about 35 minutes prior to the expected landing time. The CA/PF did do an abbreviated briefing for 33 after the circle 33 option was accepted. Subjects
ATC
PSA Procedures
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
September 29, 2025, 04:07:00 GMT permalink Post: 11961300 |
As long as you are in law prof mode one immediate issue appears to be the fact that the complaint asks for a jury trial but the FTCA does not provide for jury trials. So I guess the case may have to be split in two. But another possibility appears to be the case may proceed with a jury trial but the jury's decision will only be advisory as regards the government defendants. Speaking of the government defendants is the government obligated to provide a consistent defense or could we see one government lawyer representing the FAA blaming everything on the Army and another government lawyer representing the Army blaming everything on the FAA?
Subjects
FAA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
October 19, 2025, 05:13:00 GMT permalink Post: 11972294 |
"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 continue to doubt the discretionary exception will be important to this case. In my view the helicopter crew was clearly negligent (in ways that are not covered by the discretionary exception) and that is all that is needed to make the government liable. There is no need (and it would probably be inadvisable) for the plaintiffs to bring in anything that might be covered by the discretionary exception. If I were the government I would be trying to settle these cases. I expect there are plenty of plaintiffs (and even some plaintiff's lawyers) who would rather have a certain $x now instead of an uncertain $3x in 5 years. Subjects: None No recorded likes for this post (could be before pprune supported 'likes').Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
October 24, 2025, 06:16:00 GMT permalink Post: 11975407 |
"The 78 feet deviation by the Mil Heli is not the cause of this accident . I hope the lawyers during the trial do not focus on that and minimize the rest ."
It wasn't the sole cause but it was one of the holes in the cheese. If the helicopter had been where it was supposed to be (further east and lower) the accident would not have occurred. The purpose of the trial is to determine legal liability. It is the purpose of the NTSB investigation to recommend ways to improve safety. Subjects
Accountability/Liability
NTSB
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
October 24, 2025, 06:58:00 GMT permalink Post: 11975422 |
... 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) As for the airline I would certainly expect them to sue the government at a minimum for the value of their airplane. And perhaps other stuff like any death benefits due to their crew, any expenses involved in responding to the crash, any reputational damage, their legal expenses and so forth. Subjects
FAA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
October 24, 2025, 07:16:00 GMT permalink Post: 11975426 |
"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. ..."
There are two possible theories of government liability. One is that the accident was the result of negligence by the low level people, the helicopter crew and possibly some ATC people. The other is that it was a system failure in which higher level people placed a greater priority on keeping traffic moving than on keeping things safe. The second theory has a serious flaw from a legal point of view. If it is true the government is likely immune from paying damages because of the discretionary function exception. So why would the plaintiff's lawyers waste time and money on trying to establish a theory under which the government is likely immune when there is a perfectly viable alternative theory with no such difficulty. Subjects
ATC
Accountability/Liability
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
December 14, 2025, 00:05:00 GMT permalink Post: 12004874 |
"...
causes someone to try to do something to avert such an outcome."
The government could simply concede liability. Then the only issue is damages and there would be no reason for testimony about government incompetence. Subjects
Accountability/Liability
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
December 14, 2025, 17:01:00 GMT permalink Post: 12005250 |
As a non-lawyer and non-American, can I just clarify my understanding of this situation:
...
If I've got this wrong, can you correct me? Subjects
DCA
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
| layman54
December 18, 2025, 03:41:00 GMT permalink Post: 12007246 |
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. Subjects
ATC
Accountability/Liability
See and Avoid
Reply to this quoting this original post. You need to be logged in. Not available on closed threads. |
Page Links: Index Page