Another drone in the Airport

[Chip]

...aviation fuel won't detonate in a crash, although it will burn.

Just curious, do you think Alaska should pay for the property damage or should they say @#!* the homeowner it was a stolen plane what do you expect us to do? What is your feeling?

New Ketron Island resident was home when stolen plane crashed nearby

 

[sar104]

Just curious, do you think Alaska should pay for the property damage or should they say @#!* the homeowner it was a stolen plane what do you expect us to do? What is your feeling?

New Ketron Island resident was home when stolen plane crashed nearby

I didn't see any reference to property damage. But if there were property damage then presumably the airline, or its insurers, would be on the hook for compensation.

 

[Chip]

Did you have a particular crime in mind? As in a particular law that was breached? Not to argue that the aviation industry might not want to look at ways to secure aircraft from unauthorized takeoff, but if the mechanic that you authorize to work on your vehicle goes joy-riding in it and injures or kills someone, would you expect to be prosecuted for a crime?

Based on some research I would have to agree with you that charging the car or plane owner with a crime for damage caused by the thief would be very difficult under WA state law absent some evidence of conspiracy or collusion. But, as you possibly allude to in your last post, the civil law may provide recourse under negligence theory.

Acoj said back in #54 that : I kind of see it being similar to if someone stole your car from in front of your house, then drove it 100 miles an hour through an orphanage killing everyone inside, should you be held accountable for the damage and personal loss?

I replied with: In your hypothetical, did I leave the keys in the car with the engine running in a high crime area where people have stolen my car before and drove off and killed people?

Then I went in search of a real case with a real answer to both questions. I found the case! It did not involve an orphanage but it did involve maniac on meth mowing down people in a stolen bus in Seattle.

 

[sar104]

Based on some research I would have to agree with you that charging the car or plane owner with a crime for damage caused by the thief would be very difficult under WA state law absent some evidence of conspiracy or collusion. But, as you possibly allude to in your last post, the civil law may provide recourse under negligence theory.

Acoj said back in #54 that : I kind of see it being similar to if someone stole your car from in front of your house, then drove it 100 miles an hour through an orphanage killing everyone inside, should you be held accountable for the damage and personal loss?

I replied with: In your hypothetical, did I leave the keys in the car with the engine running in a high crime area where people have stolen my car before and drove off and killed people?

Then I went in search of a real case with a real answer to both questions. I found the case! It did not involve an orphanage but it did involve maniac on meth mowing down people in a stolen bus in Seattle.

The reason that I think the airline would have some liability is not because they were negligent, but because it was their employee - i.e. an agent of the airline - who stole the plane.

 

[Chip]

The reason that I think the airline would have some liability is not because they were negligent, but because it was their employee - i.e. an agent of the airline - who stole the plane.

Then we are flipping sides for a minute! I figure airline could argue its employee's actions were outside the course and scope of his employment as baggage handler and therefore no vicarious liability as matter of law.

 

[sar104]

Then we are flipping sides for a minute! I figure airline could argue its employee's actions were outside the course and scope of his employment as baggage handler and therefore no vicarious liability as matter of law.

They could, and certainly would argue that, but the absence of criminal negligence doesn't mean that the company is not liable to compensate for an employee's actions, I think. They will have insurance coverage for that.

 

[Chip]

...the absence of criminal negligence doesn't mean that the company is not liable to compensate for an employee's actions...

Before I looked up stolen vehicle cases, I looked up stolen firearm cases because I assumed underlying principles would be the same. Here is summary of 2014 WA supreme court case:

Bauer kept multiple loaded guns unsecured throughout his house which were accessible to his girl friend's minor children, including TC, a nine-year-old boy who frequently visited and sometimes stayed the night. Unsupervised, TC put one of Bauer's handguns into his backpack. Two days later, that gun, still in TC's backpack, discharged in a classroom, seriously injuring one of TC's classmates. Bauer did not notice his handgun was missing until after the shooting.

The State charged Bauer with assault in the third degree under the deadly weapon prong which states that a person is guilty of third degree assault who, " [w]ith criminal negligence, causes bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm."

The court concluded that Bauer did nothing illegal and his actions did not "cause" the shooting. It takes more to prove "causation" of injury in criminal than civil case. I admit I was surprised to read it. Not sure if result would be same if prosecutor had charged a much lesser offense like reckless endangerment to begin with.

 

[ac0j]

Before I looked up stolen vehicle cases, I looked up stolen firearm cases because I assumed underlying principles would be the same. Here is summary of 2014 WA supreme court case:

Bauer kept multiple loaded guns unsecured throughout his house which were accessible to his girl friend's minor children, including TC, a nine-year-old boy who frequently visited and sometimes stayed the night. Unsupervised, TC put one of Bauer's handguns into his backpack. Two days later, that gun, still in TC's backpack, discharged in a classroom, seriously injuring one of TC's classmates. Bauer did not notice his handgun was missing until after the shooting.

The State charged Bauer with assault in the third degree under the deadly weapon prong which states that a person is guilty of third degree assault who, " [w]ith criminal negligence, causes bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm."

The court concluded that Bauer did nothing illegal and his actions did not "cause" the shooting. It takes more to prove "causation" of injury in criminal than civil case. I admit I was surprised to read it. Not sure if result would be same if prosecutor had charged a much lesser offense like reckless endangerment to begin with.

That doesn't surprise me. I remember a case I heard on the news a few years back where a gun store was held accountable for selling a gun to a guy who later used it to kill his wife. Had to pay a pretty big fine.(I think he was inebriated when they sold it to him) But now we are really stretching the comparisons.
If you have an employee, and that employee causes damage, any damage while on duty, you as the employer are responsible and if insured it would probably be covered. NOT the plane lost in this case, but the damage caused by the plane.
If you have full coverage on two cars in your driveway, and your wife runs into one with the other, insurance will only pay for one cars repair... (dont ask me how I know that, or why I brought it up now )

 

[Chip]

acOj, here are the facts in that stolen bus case:

Public bus is driving through Seattle when two passengers in the back get into an altercation. Bus driver pulls over to the side of road and asks everyone to get out. He leaves keys in ignition with motor running. Everyone obeys except for the two guys arguing and a third passenger, Carpenter.

Driver then exits the bus and waits for the three. In a few minutes, the two guys who were arguing finally come out. The driver goes back into the bus where he observes Carpenter "exhibiting bizarre behavior, including acting as if he were talking to somebody outside the bus although nobody was there, yelling unintelligibly and striking the windows of the bus with his fists."

Driver did not want to risk further physical confrontation so after asking guy to leave several times he exited the bus. Carpenter then ran and jumped into the driver's seat and took off in 14 ton bus before crashing into several vehicles and injuring people. Turns out he was on PCP ( when I said meth above I made mistake).

The injured parties sued the driver's employer arguing the driver was negligent for leaving keys in bus with motor running with one strange acting individual on board. County argued we cannot be responsible for some guy who steals our bus and commits vehicular assault.

What do you say?

 

[sar104]

Before I looked up stolen vehicle cases, I looked up stolen firearm cases because I assumed underlying principles would be the same. Here is summary of 2014 WA supreme court case:

Bauer kept multiple loaded guns unsecured throughout his house which were accessible to his girl friend's minor children, including TC, a nine-year-old boy who frequently visited and sometimes stayed the night. Unsupervised, TC put one of Bauer's handguns into his backpack. Two days later, that gun, still in TC's backpack, discharged in a classroom, seriously injuring one of TC's classmates. Bauer did not notice his handgun was missing until after the shooting.

The State charged Bauer with assault in the third degree under the deadly weapon prong which states that a person is guilty of third degree assault who, " [w]ith criminal negligence, causes bodily harm to another person by means of a weapon or other instrument or thing likely to produce bodily harm."

The court concluded that Bauer did nothing illegal and his actions did not "cause" the shooting. It takes more to prove "causation" of injury in criminal than civil case. I admit I was surprised to read it. Not sure if result would be same if prosecutor had charged a much lesser offense like reckless endangerment to begin with.

It might have been different if the airline had not been following industry standard practice with respect to securing aircraft, but they were. That's a quite different situation again from leaving unsecured weapons lying around, or even abandoning a bus with the keys in the ignition.

 

[ac0j]

acOj, here are the facts in that stolen bus case:

Public bus is driving through Seattle when two passengers in the back get into an altercation. Bus driver pulls over to the side of road and asks everyone to get out. He leaves keys in ignition with motor running. Everyone obeys except for the two guys arguing and a third passenger, Carpenter.

Driver then exits the bus and waits for the three. In a few minutes, the two guys who were arguing finally come out. The driver goes back into the bus where he observes Carpenter "exhibiting bizarre behavior, including acting as if he were talking to somebody outside the bus although nobody was there, yelling unintelligibly and striking the windows of the bus with his fists."

Driver did not want to risk further physical confrontation so after asking guy to leave several times he exited the bus. Carpenter then ran and jumped into the driver's seat and took off in 14 ton bus before crashing into several vehicles and injuring people. Turns out he was on PCP ( when I said meth above I made mistake).

The injured parties sued the driver's employer arguing the driver was negligent for leaving keys in bus with motor running with one strange acting individual on board. County argued we cannot be responsible for some guy who steals our bus and commits vehicular assault.

What do you say?

Its a good story, but you know as well as I do that in America, and a lot of other countries it is not about what is right or wrong. Its about how good of lawyer you have. I'll use OJ Simpson as an example. The one with the best lawyer will win. And who gets the best lawyer is decided by where the most money is to be had by the best attorney. You can argue these points all you want, but you know this is the case.

 

[chazzm]

Sorry. I call BS on this one too. I don't have access to original articles in Portuguese with more information but with the limited information presented in English-language articles, the odds of this "event" being a drone are highly unlikely, and even if it was actually a drone, an extreme overreaction by the air traffic controllers. From the article:
"Operations at Porto airport were put on hold for 40 minutes yesterday afternoon after an aircraft saw a drone flying 5,500 feet from the ground."

(Drone halts flights at Porto Airport)
Drone was forced to stop Porto Airport in 40 minutes – Observer

Why the airport would halt operations (and it never says the sighting was confirmed) for 40 minutes after a pilot reported a drone over 1 mile high in the air is beyond me. Assuming it actually was a drone, any aircraft spotting a drone at that height would have been a significant distance from the airfield itself. Halting operations (especially takeoffs and landings) was an extreme overreaction to a singular sighting of a drone (even if in a flightpath) several miles from the runway. (e.g. ca.15 nm on approach). And honestly, I doubt a drone was flying at that height (though it's not impossible) and if it was, it certainly wasn't flying at that altitude for more than a few minutes.

I’ve never had any problems with flying over a mile, in height, been up 2 and a half several times, no issues!

 

[sar104]

I’ve never had any problems with flying over a mile, in height, been up 2 and a half several times, no issues!

2.5 miles is 4000 m. At a climb rate of 5 m/s (Mavic sport mode maximum) and a descent rate of 3 m/s, that's 36 minutes round trip. Are you quite sure about that?

 

[Chip]

Its a good story, but you know as well as I do that in America, and a lot of other countries it is not about what is right or wrong. Its about how good of lawyer you have. I'll use OJ Simpson as an example. The one with the best lawyer will win. And who gets the best lawyer is decided by where the most money is to be had by the best attorney. You can argue these points all you want, but you know this is the case.

Im sorry acOj. I was carded for bringing up subjective feelings in the first half so I am calling this one. No double standards!

 

[Chip]

https://storage.googleapis.com/afs-prod/media/media:7e177965e5cd44a78e5752fadcc4dd23/576.mp4

 

[Chip]

Getting back to the story of the guy who stole the bus in Seattle in 2007. The court said:

It is not possible to state definite rules as to when the actor is required to take precautions against intentional or criminal misconduct. As in other cases of negligence, it is a matter of balancing the magnitude of the risk against the utility of the actor's conduct. Factors to be considered are the known character, past conduct, and tendencies of the person whose intentional conduct causes the harm, the temptation or opportunity which the situation may afford him for such misconduct, the gravity of the harm which may result, and the possibility that some other person will assume the responsibility for preventing the conduct or the harm, together with the burden of the precautions which the actor would be required to take.

 

[ryanolivas]

He really dares to fly in the airport area

 

[Chip]

He really dares to fly in the airport area

Yeah check this out he actually backed plane out and cut off Delta jet on runway before taking off.

 

[sar104]

Getting back to the story of the guy who stole the bus in Seattle in 2007. The court said:

It is not possible to state definite rules as to when the actor is required to take precautions against intentional or criminal misconduct. As in other cases of negligence, it is a matter of balancing the magnitude of the risk against the utility of the actor's conduct. Factors to be considered are the known character, past conduct, and tendencies of the person whose intentional conduct causes the harm, the temptation or opportunity which the situation may afford him for such misconduct, the gravity of the harm which may result, and the possibility that some other person will assume the responsibility for preventing the conduct or the harm, together with the burden of the precautions which the actor would be required to take.

Seems reasonable.

 

[Chip]

Seems reasonable.

I agree with you. It covers the bases. Lisadoc?