Comair sues FAA, Lexington airport

[capt. megadeth]

The night you make your first speech as president, I'm going drunk driving on a mission...to see how many mini-vans with baby on board stickers I can P.I.T. manuver into rolling. Lawsuit reform, bring it on!

I'd say that's a little extreme but these days, the drunk driver would sue the mini-van driver and friggin win a couple million....

"The mini-van was in my way your honor"

 

[fried chickens]

I wonder if Comair is using the same lawyers from the Pinnacle crash?

 

[FN FAL]

I'd say that's a little extreme but these days, the drunk driver would sue the mini-van driver and friggin win a couple million....

"The mini-van was in my way your honor"

While it does seem that civil cases end in lottery sized winnings to the those who filed cases and won, I think that if you had the statistics on what people actually received in all civil cases, it might be surprisingly lower than what you think.

If someone suffers a loss at the actions of another, the only way you can argue the facts surrounding such a loss, is in civil court...the criminal courts are not the place for such an argument.

In addition, since government printed money is the legal tender in this country, it would be pretty extreme that a husband that lost a wife in a car accident of someone else's fault be made to accept one of the defendant's daughters or wife in exchange for the loss...regardless of how comely they may be.

The intent of civil courts was to keep society civilized. Without them, a person would only have personal vengeance to turn to. While it would be interesting to read about multiple daily shotgun massacres in the newspapers, most people would agree that would not be the most civilized method for airing grievances with other people.

In addition, with a civil trial, you have the two adversaries presenting their side of the story in front of an impartial finder of fact and a jury. Believe me, juries are typically persons who think people "just sue for money"...so it isn't the free ride on the money train you might think it is.

 

[igneousy2]

Are you saying I don't know that the crew lined up on the wrong runway? Pretty indisputable fact. Can't help you on the open heart surgery or the fuel injection on an F1 car. I did find this one little regulation that might help you out though. It's kinda' like a law. (kinda' like means similar)

Title 14: Aeronautics and Space
PART 91—GENERAL OPERATING AND FLIGHT RULES
Subpart A—General

§ 91.3 Responsibility and authority of the pilot in command.

(a) The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft.


So, the airport has issues. A lot of airports have issues. Why do you view this as some personal attack when it isn't? People screw up, they make mistakes. It happens all the time. This time it was tragic. Are there mitigating factors? Sure. But the crew is still, in the end, the one that lined up on the wrong runway and didn't catch their mistake.

What are you like 80 years old? The United States and parts of the rest of the world realized somewhere around 1970 that you can't merely blame the pilot because it's the easy thing to do. You can ALWAYS logically blame the pilots in some way in every accident because the Captain is ALWAYS responsible, if everyone had your attitude we would still be killing people by the hundreds every year.

Later,

 

[Jonny Sacko]

accident of someone else's fault be made to accept one of the defendant's daughters or wife in exchange for the loss...regardless of how comely they may be..

Now we're talking, I'm going driving, anyone want to come along. I'm headed to a local college!!!! HOT BLOND CHICKS

 

[SKYMASTER]

I am incredibly surprised by the reaction of this thread.

As mentioned earlier, of course the captain is responsible. Everyone knows that. On the other hand, it generally takes more than one factor to have an accident.

I agree 100% with the lawsuit against the FAA and the airport. Sometimes a lawsuit is one of the only tools we can use to change a beauracratic outfit like the FAA. Once again the captain was in command and responsible, but you better believe that airport management and the FAA shared responsibility in this.

It doesn't take a genius to know that you don't need a final report to determine this. Common sense will tell us that there should have been two controllers. Even the FAA has already admitted this. The same goes for airport signage and advisories, among many other factors.

 

[Blade Runner]

COMAIR might have a case if they can prove neglegence on the part of the County for improper signage and any confusing NOTAMs concerning Taxiway changes. The Jury will not be made up of aviation professionals but people who know little about our industry.

 

[TheBaron]

What are you like 80 years old? The United States and parts of the rest of the world realized somewhere around 1970 that you can't merely blame the pilot because it's the easy thing to do. You can ALWAYS logically blame the pilots in some way in every accident because the Captain is ALWAYS responsible, if everyone had your attitude we would still be killing people by the hundreds every year.

Later,

What are you, like 2 years old. Where did I say the flight crew is responsible for every accident. There are still accidents caused by catastrophic mechanical failures, weather, and other unforeseeable events. This wasn't the case in Lexington.

 

[Dizel8]

How long was those taxiways changes underway? Did Comair stop flying into the airport at night when these were taking place?

No other crew made this mistake, or if they did, they caught it, this crew did not and people died. It has been a while since I have been into LEX, but from what I have read, the two runways are still remarkably different in appearance, even at night.

Yes, there were only one controller, yet most of us currently operate or have operated at airports where there are no controllers. Who do we blame then if there was a mishap, the airport manager, his dog?

Yes, perhaps there are issues with signage, or markings or whatever, they might all be included into the lawsuit, but the biggest issue here, is the two pilots, that for whatever reason, tried to take off from a runway that was too short.

 

[spotterpilot]

I cant believe that that there are professional pilots who really believe that there is anyone other than the PIC /SIC to blame for this tragic accident. This accident didnt happen because there was only 1 controller/construction ect...

 

[DrewBlows]

I did find this one little regulation that might help you out though. It's kinda' like a law. (kinda' like means similar)

Well, Johnny Cochran, since you are helping me out, let me help you out. A regulation (in this case an aviation regulation) is not law. The last time I checked, the constitution has not been changed to allow the FAA to write laws. This should go unsaid, but since you have already demonstrated your expansive knowledge (lack of) of law, I think it needs to be covered. I'll even capitalize it so you don't skip over it. CONGRESS IS THE ONLY BODY THAT CAN ENACT LAWS. So your clever citation of § 91.3 (case closed, right), has proven that the captain is open for certificate action, which, given his current condition, is moot. But if you think the FAA should pursue certificate action on a dead man, I suggest you call Oklahoma City and voice your concern.

Why do you view this as some personal attack when it isn't?

I was merely pointing out your ignorance of law, but now that you mention it...

The crew was completely to blame for the outcome.

...you even bold-faced it to make your point.

 

[TheBaron]

I am incredibly surprised by the reaction of this thread.

As mentioned earlier, of course the captain is responsible. Everyone knows that. On the other hand, it generally takes more than one factor to have an accident.

I agree 100% with the lawsuit against the FAA and the airport. Sometimes a lawsuit is one of the only tools we can use to change a beauracratic outfit like the FAA. Once again the captain was in command and responsible, but you better believe that airport management and the FAA shared responsibility in this.

It doesn't take a genius to know that you don't need a final report to determine this. Common sense will tell us that there should have been two controllers. Even the FAA has already admitted this. The same goes for airport signage and advisories, among many other factors.

That is the same argument that every psycho my-mommy-didn't-love-me-enough loser in this country makes.
Foley..."Sure I sent inappropriate homoerotic e-mails to interns but I was molested as a young man"
Fey..."Sure I took bribes from Abrhamoff, but I have a drinking problem"
Kennedy..."Sure I was driving under the influence but I have a problem with prescription pills and I was dyslexic as a child"
Good old Rush..."Sure I'm a drug addict, but I have chronic pain"

Explain how the FAA is responsible. A second controller would not have necessarily caught the error made by the crew. It might have prevented the accident. It certainly didn't cause the accident.

Hell, lets just sue the Wright brothers for inventing the airplane!

 

[TheBaron]

Well, Johnny Cochran, since you are helping me out, let me help you out. A regulation (in this case an aviation regulation) is not law. The last time I checked, the constitution has not been changed to allow the FAA to write laws. This should go unsaid, but since you have already demonstrated your expansive knowledge (lack of) of law, I think it needs to be covered. I'll even capitalize it so you don't skip over it. CONGRESS IS THE ONLY BODY THAT CAN ENACT LAWS. So your clever citation of § 91.3 (case closed, right), has proven that the captain is open for certificate action, which, given his current condition, is moot. But if you think the FAA should pursue certificate action on a dead man, I suggest you call Oklahoma City and voice your concern.




I was merely pointing out your ignorance of law, but now that you mention it...



...you even bold-faced it to make your point.

Gee, you quoted me and still didn't get it right. That's hard to do. Go back and re-read my post. I said it was a regulation not a law. I said... "It's kinda' like a law. (kinda' like means similar)"

 

[DrewBlows]

Gee, you quoted me and still didn't get it right. That's hard to do. Go back and re-read my post. I said it was a regulation not a law. I said... "It's kinda' like a law. (kinda' like means similar)"

It's not even "kinda' like a law"! It's not anything like a law, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit.

 

[TheBaron]

It's not even "kinda' like a law"! It's not anything like a law, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the lawsuit.

I didn't realize you were privy to the defense the FAA and the airport authority would come up with. You must move in powerful circles and have all the inside info. I just assumed that when this goes to trial, someone, maybe even the FAA, might just mention the responsibility and authority of the PIC.
And maybe, just maybe, you aren't the lawyer you think you are. Go sit in Federal Court at an NTSB hearing and you will see just how similar a regulation is to a law.

 

[DrewBlows]

I didn't realize you were privy to the defense the FAA and the airport authority would come up with. You must move in powerful circles and have all the inside info. I just assumed that when this goes to trial, someone, maybe even the FAA, might just mention the responsibility and authority of the PIC.
And maybe, just maybe, you aren't the lawyer you think you are. Go sit in Federal Court at an NTSB hearing and you will see just how similar a regulation is to a law.

Why does it need to go to court? You have already proven that the airport and the FAA share none of the responsiblilty in the accident. If I were a government lawyer, I would call you on the stand to explain how since § 91.3 says that the PIC is the ultimate authority, he alone is at fault. After all, regulations are "similar" to law.

 

[TheBaron]

Why does it need to go to court? You have already proven that the airport and the FAA share none of the responsiblilty in the accident. If I were a government lawyer, I would call you on the stand to explain how since § 91.3 says that the PIC is the ultimate authority, he alone is at fault. After all, regulations are "similar" to law.

Who knows. Maybe they will. They've called me twice before. And I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night.

 

[400pilot]

Yes, perhaps there are issues with signage, or markings or whatever,

There wasn't. This was all after crossing 26, not before. They never made it that far.....

 

[DrewBlows]

There wasn't. This was all after crossing 26, not before. They never made it that far.....

What about the taxiway closing that made it look like the taxiway ended whey you got to RW26 (in other words, made it look like it was supposed to look at RW22)?

Come on guys, it's not as simple as some would make it out to be. I don't think there is much doubt who will shoulder the majority of the blame (cause) of this accident, but to simply say "pilot error" and move on does no one any good. I hope that the NTSB doesn't do this, and we are able to see some safety improvements as a result (taxiway markings, lighting, english Notams, minimum tower staffing levels, et cetera).

 

[SKYMASTER]

That is the same argument that every psycho my-mommy-didn't-love-me-enough loser in this country makes.
Foley..."Sure I sent inappropriate homoerotic e-mails to interns but I was molested as a young man"
Fey..."Sure I took bribes from Abrhamoff, but I have a drinking problem"
Kennedy..."Sure I was driving under the influence but I have a problem with prescription pills and I was dyslexic as a child"
Good old Rush..."Sure I'm a drug addict, but I have chronic pain"

Explain how the FAA is responsible. A second controller would not have necessarily caught the error made by the crew. It might have prevented the accident. It certainly didn't cause the accident.

Hell, lets just sue the Wright brothers for inventing the airplane!

That's not a good comparison. It is the FAA's policy to have two controllers. Not having one there is most likely a contributing factor. Catching and preventing the error is pretty much the same thing in this case. You are admitting that had there been two controllers, 49 people may not be dead. This among other factors are hard evidence this should not have happened. Yes, it happened because of the flight crew, but there are other major contributing factors.

Sure airline pilots take off from uncontrolled fields. However, usually they are single runway, or at least no general aviation runways at airline airports. These are more contributing factors that if different, could have prevented an accident. Pilots make errors. There are ways to make flying safer that are sometimes ignored. I'm very sorry 49 people are dead.

Fly safe.