DJI Mavic, Air and Mini Drones
Friendly, Helpful & Knowledgeable Community
Join Us Now

Suing FAA for wrongful

NOLADG

Well-Known Member
Joined
Nov 29, 2019
Messages
151
Reactions
173
Age
54
Location
New Orleans, LA
I am always amazed at what people sue for these days and who they hold responsible. About a year ago we had a local news anchor go on a flight with a stunt pilot and the plane crashed shortly after takeoff after radioing back for an emergency landing to the tower. The husband of the news anchor is suing the FAA as they were negligent for letting the flight happen.


Maybe the next time we are in an automobile accident, we should sue the Department of Motor Vehicles. :)
 
  • Sad
Reactions: dawgpilot
One of the big changes needed in our legal system is "loser pays" all fees. That won't happen, of course, as a goodly number of politicians are lawyers and the American Trial Lawyers Association is a major lobbyist.
 
The husband of the news anchor is suing the FAA as they were negligent for letting the flight happen
Looks like everyone gets a lawsuit.
The family of former WVUE-TV news anchor Nancy Parker, who died in an August plane crash in New Orleans, has filed suit against the owner of the plane and the maker of the plane's engine.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Johnmcl7
Think of this analogy. People complain to the local dog catcher about a stray vicious dog with no collar who has been snarling and biting passerby. It’s the dog catchers job to protect public from vicious dogs. But he did nothing about this dog, he ignored the complaints, and one day the dog bites a kids face off. Is the dog catcher liable to the kid who lost his face for failing to do his job?
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scubadiver1944
Think of this analogy. People complain to the local dog catcher about a stray vicious dog with no collar who has been snarling and biting passerby. It’s the dog catchers job to protect public from vicious dogs. But he did nothing about this dog, he ignored the complaints, and one day the dog bites a kids face off. Is the dog catcher liable to the kid who lost his face for failing to do his job?
Is it suggested or suspected the FAA knew there was an issue with the airworthiness of the aircraft and let it fly anyway?
 
Is it suggested or suspected the FAA knew there was an issue with the airworthiness of the aircraft and let it fly anyway?

I don’t know the specific facts of the case. The article is sketchy. NTSB is still investigating the cause of crash. The article says FAA approved flight. The op asked what’s next, suing the dmv for a car accident? So I came up with the dog catcher analogy and posed my own question.
 
Many states follow the “public duty doctrine” which says that if a government entity or agency owes a duty to the entire public then it owes no duty to any one person. This doctrine could be used to defeat injury claim against FAA or dog catcher for alleged negligent failure to enforce laws or regulations. But it depends on law and locality and there are exceptions.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawgpilot
This doctrine could be used to defeat injury claim against FAA or dog catcher for alleged negligent failure to enforce laws or regulations.

My apology. The issues and the likely results may vary considerably depending on whether state or federal government is involved due to Federal Tort Claims Act. Cannot mix the two up.

You cannot sue the FAA without complying with the Federal Tort Claims Act which limits what kinds of claims may be brought against federal agencies and employees. The FAA has limited liability for negligent failure to enforce safety regulations as per US Supreme Court United States v. Varig Airlines 104 S. Ct. 2755 (1984).

In Varig, a Boeing 707 burned because a smoldering cigarette was not extinguished when placed in a lavatory trash receptacle. The Court found that, under FAA regulations, the fire should have been contained in the disposal. The Court found that the decision by the FAA not to inspect the trash receptacle was discretionary. The Court reversed the lower court's decision and held that the discretionary function exception protected the U.S. from liability.

Having said that, I looked at the Boyd complaint filed in federal court in New Orleans which alleges in part as follows:

On August 16, 2019, decedent, Nancy Parker Boyd, known professionally as Nancy Parker and employed by WVUE Fox 8 as a television news reporter, was an invited guest passenger in an Aerotek Pitts S-2B aircraft bearing registration N600DF, which aircraft was owned by Drug Fighter, LLC and operated by Franklin J. P. Augustus.

On or about February 18, 1992, FAA personnel approved the addition of a 14-gallon ferry fuel tank to aircraft N600DF which was installed under the passenger seat and acted as an extension of the main fuel tank.

On or about November 11, 1983, FAA personnel approved the addition of a Scholl smoke system for skywriting that was installed in aircraft N600DF along with a required placard that stated, “Operate Smoke During Solo Flight Only, Drain Oil Tank for Two Place Flight.”

Aircraft N600DF was hangered at and operated from KNEW for many years and, upon information and belief, had a lengthy and well-known history of substandard maintenance, mechanical problems and scant flight time.

Upon information and belief, the long-standing financial problems plaguing Drug Fighter, LLC and the consequent substandard maintenance and infrequent use of aircraft ND600DF were well known to local FAA personnel.

Despite knowledge of these maintenance and operational problems with N600DF, appropriate steps were not taken by FAA officials to ensure that N600DF was airworthy prior to clearing the aircraft for flight on or about August 16, 2019.

Upon information and belief, despite this knowledge, no one affiliated with the FAA at the New Orleans Lakefront Airport informed decedent about the history of aircraft N600DF and the resulting foreseeable risk of harm to life and limb associated with flying in the aircraft.

On August 16, 2019, upon information and belief, the planned flight, the purpose of which was to allow decedent to do a documentary news story on Mr. Augustus and the aircraft and to perform a skywriting exercise, was delayed taking off for a number of hours from KNEW due to mechanical problems with the aircraft’s engine which negatively impacted engine performance and safety of flight.

On August 16, 2019 at approximately 3:05 p.m., upon information and belief, despite knowledge of maintenance and operational problems with aircraft N600DF and knowledge that the pilot intended to skywrite with a passenger on board, the aircraft was cleared for takeoff from the Lakefront Airport by FAA personnel. Once airborne, the aircraft proceeded in a southernly direction with Franklin J. P. Augustus as pilot and decedent as passenger.

Upon information and belief, shortly after takeoff, the pilot radioed the duty KNEW tower controller that he was having problems with the aircraft and requested immediate clearance to return to the airport for an emergency landing, which clearance was granted.

On August 16, 2019 at approximately 3:06 p.m., as the pilot was attempting to return to KNEW, the aircraft pitched nose down and crashed into the ground. Much of the aircraft wreckage was consumed in a post-crash fire. Decedent, Nancy Parker Boyd, was killed in the above described crash. Plaintiffs’ claims are brought pursuant to the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §2671, et
seq. (“FTCA”).

The aforesaid casualty and resulting death of Nancy Parker Boyd were caused by the negligence of defendant, the United States through the Federal Aviation Administration, in the following non-exclusive particulars:

a. Failing to properly supervise and actively monitor airport operations;
b. Failing to have and/or enforce policies and procedures prohibiting operation of known defective aircraft;
c. Failing to ensure that aircraft N600DF was maintained and certified in accordance with all applicable regulatory requirements and aviation industry standards;
d. Failure to deny departure/take-off clearance to aircraft N600DF;
e. Failure to inform the decedent of the foreseeable risk of harm to life and limb associated with flying in the aircraft;
f. Failure to abide by applicable federal general aviation rules and regulations, guidances, professional standards of care and/or other legal duties under the laws of the State of Louisiana.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Scubadiver1944
I don’t know the specific facts of the case. The article is sketchy. NTSB is still investigating the cause of crash. The article says FAA approved flight. The op asked what’s next, suing the dmv for a car accident? So I came up with the dog catcher analogy and posed my own question.
Yeah ok, absent it being the case that the FAA was aware of an issue with the aircraft your analogy isn't a very good one.
 
Yeah ok, absent it being the case that the FAA was aware of an issue with the aircraft your analogy isn't a very good one.

The complaint alleges that the FAA was aware of more than one issue with the aircraft that crashed. I have no idea of the merit of the allegations. I still like my analogy of the dog catcher with this caveat. FAA safety inspectors have special protection or immunity under federal law (FTCA) for various negligent acts or omissions committed in the course and scope of their employment which cause or contribute to death or injury of a third party, which no dog catcher gets.
 
  • Like
Reactions: dawgpilot
The complaint alleges that the FAA was aware of more than one issue with the aircraft that crashed. I have no idea of the merit of the allegations. I still like my analogy of the dog catcher with this caveat. FAA safety inspectors have special protection or immunity under federal law (FTCA) for various negligent acts or omissions committed in the course and scope of their employment which cause or contribute to death or injury of a third party, which no dog catcher gets.

Your analogy is based on the premise that the FAA are responsible for mechanically assessing a plane before granting clearance but I can't find anything which suggests this at all and it's certainly not part of a flight plan plus I can't see how it would even be remotely viable for them to do this so what's your source for this? Even that aside I'm sure you could find many planes on a daily basis that have had repeatedly the same mechanical issue and that's delayed a flight but it's not prevented them from getting flight clearance.

In addition, the NTSB preliminary report found the following:

A review of the airplane's historical maintenance logs was conducted and no deficiencies were noted.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: dawgpilot
Looks like everyone gets a lawsuit.
The family of former WVUE-TV news anchor Nancy Parker, who died in an August plane crash in New Orleans, has filed suit against the owner of the plane and the maker of the plane's engine.

Such a shotgun approach suggests unsurprisingly there's not much merit to the case and some of it doesn't make much sense given they're suing the engine manufacturer for a dangerous design but also suing because the owner didn't maintain the engine properly. Suing the FAA seems particularly suspect given I can't find any information that requires the FAA to consider mechanical condition before granting flight clearance and even then the NTSB are saying the logs were clear of any issues. I feel sorry for the family because it's a terrible loss regardless of the cause and being dragged through the courts with legal cases with little merit can only make it worse.
 
Yeah ok, absent it being the case that the FAA was aware of an issue with the aircraft your analogy isn't a very good one.

Your analogy is based on the premise that the FAA are responsible for mechanically assessing a plane before granting clearance but I can't find anything which suggests this at all and it's certainly not part of a flight plan plus I can't see how it would even be remotely viable for them to do this so what's your source for this? Even that aside I'm sure you could find many planes on a daily basis that have had repeatedly the same mechanical issue and that's delayed a flight but it's not prevented them from getting flight clearance. In addition, the NTSB preliminary report found the following:

You guys make some good points that caused me to dig deeper. You are right. Winning suit against the FAA for conducting a negligent or careless inspection of a plane or failing to inspect a plane, that later crashes is very difficult due to the Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) and the US Supreme Court holding in United States v. Varig Airlines, 467 U.S. 797 (1984).

At the end of a flight from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, a Varig Boeing 707 made an emergency landing in a field as it approached Orly airport. A cigarette had burned through the lavatory trash can and black smoke was billowing through the passenger cabin, asphyxiating many passengers before the airplane was even on the ground. 123 people died. Varig sued the FAA because, by law, the trash bin should have contained the fire. The FAA certified the jetliner even though the airplane failed to meet that requirement.

Excerpts from "United States v. Varig Airlines: The Supreme Court Narrows the Scope of Government Liability under the Federal Tort Claims Act ," Journal of Air Law and Commerce Volume 51 Issue 1 1985 By: Mitchell E.F. Plave

The Court in Varig focused exclusively on the issue of negligent certification and concluded that the Boeing 707 was never actually inspected. The court reviewed the spot check system, used by the FAA to decide on those parts of an aircraft to inspect during certification. The Court found that decisions concerning what to inspect were based on a variety of factors, such as the manufacturer's compliance record and its experience in production. The spot check system, the Court concluded, was within the protection of the discretionary function exception of the FTCA.

In making this decision, the court found that decisions of the engineers and inspectors regarding the extent of inspection involved statutorily granted discretion. Based on this, the Supreme Court held that actions against the FAA for its negligence in certifying aircraft were barred by the discretionary function exception.

Conclusion of Article: Varig places the entire FAA certification and inspection process under the protection of the discretionary function exception. The implications of Varig are broad and significant. Under the decision, any regulatory agency that monitors private industries' compliance with federal regulations may be immune from liability under the FTCA.
 
Why It’s Unlikely the FAA Will Be Sued for the 737 MAX by Christine Negroni

Excerpts: The first of several Congressional hearings into the safety of the Boeing 737 MAX, held last week, centered on the relationship between the Federal Aviation Administration and Boeing. Concern that the crash of Ethiopian Airlines flight 302 might be connected to a software problem discovered in the investigation into the Lion Air Flight 610 disaster forced the grounding of Boeing’s latest airliner.

Reports in the Seattle Post-Intelligencer, the Wall Street Journal and the New York Times claimed that in its rush to get the 737 MAX to market, Boeing made several design changes including adding a stall protection system — the Maneuvering Characteristic Augmentation System or MCAS — that is now at the center of both accident probes. The FAA gave Boeing authority to certify MCAS as safe.

With many fingers pointing at the FAA’s apparent lax oversight of Boeing during the MAX’s certification, senators want to know if allowing Boeing employees to serve as FAA designees in order to self-certify is the equivalent of putting the fox in charge of the henhouse, as Senator Richard Blumenthal suggested.

“Confidence in the FAA as the gold standard for safety has been shaken,” Calvin Scovel, inspector general for the Department of Transportation, told the members of the Senate Subcommittee on Aviation and Space. Scovel has been charged by Congress with conducting his own investigation, in addition to the half dozen other government probes already underway. But regardless of what Scovel or anyone else’s investigation uncovers, it will be difficult for people harmed by the MAX disasters to sue the FAA.

It is possible to sue the US government under the Federal Tort Claims Act enacted in 1946, but only within a narrow frame because government decisions, even bad decisions, are protected. That protectio
n was unanimously upheld by the US Supreme Court three decades ago following the crash of a Brazilian airliner in 1973.

So, can the FAA delegate certification to the airline manufacturer and everyone gets immunity courtesy of the FTCA? May have to tackle that one another day....will retire the dog catcher analogy for now...working on something better!
 
Lycus Tech Mavic Air 3 Case

DJI Drone Deals

New Threads

Forum statistics

Threads
131,086
Messages
1,559,711
Members
160,071
Latest member
Htrismegistus