Aviation Law Monitor : Aviation Lawyer & Attorney : Michael Danko Law Firm : California Airplane & Helicopter Crashes : Aviation Law Monitor

In 1994, the FAA -- hoping to reduce the number of helicopter tour crashes in Hawaii -- promulgated a controversial rule that set minimum altitudes for Hawaiian sight seeing flights.

According to an article appearing this spring in Aviation, Space and Environmental Medicine, after the rule went into effect the overall number of helicopter crashes in Hawaii decreased, but the number of crashes resulting from improper VFR flight into instrument conditions increased.  That means fewer overall crashes (especially ocean ditchings), but  more crashes into mountainsides hidden in the clouds. The number of fatal crashes remained the same.

Although its data and methodology may be questionable, the recent report concludes:

the FAA should reconsider the Rule's clause that established a minimum flying altitude of 1,500 feet, as we know higher altitudes are associated with more cloud cover. 

This conclusion delighted the helicopter industry which opposed the new minimum altitude requirement.  And a possible increase in weather-related accidents was one of the FAA's concerns from the outset.  Requiring helicopters to maintain more clearance from terrain features, and more altitude to deal with engine failure, makes it harder for them to remain clear of the clouds.  But the report fails to consider the "deviations" the FAA has issued to air tour operators that allow them to fly lower than the established minimums.  Depending on the number of deviations that the FAA issued, it may be unfair to blame the rule for the increased number of mountainside collisions.

It’s a modern day Scylla and Charybdis. (OK, you'll have to indulge me, my favorite mythical allusion because it's more accurate than saying "catch-22” or "caught between a rock and a hard place.") Is the danger posed by the close proximity to the terrain more daunting than the unpredictable cloud cover? When it spoke in 1994 the FAA said, “No -- higher altitude is safer".
 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The easy answer: the applicant is the Pilot in Command and is fully responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft, not the FAA check pilot. But what about when the check pilot attempts to simulate an engine failure by chopping the throttle? At that point, hasn’t the check pilot assumed control of the aircraft?

Well, that’s what happened recently when another AS350 helicopter accident occurred during a check ride in Maui. The applicant, a commercially certificated air tour pilot working for Sunshine Helicopters, made a forced landing after the helicopter experienced a total loss of engine power. The helicopter was destroyed and both the pilot and the FAA check pilot suffered serious injuries.

The FAA defends the check pilot, explaining that it is routine to simulate the loss of engine power during a check ride. The air tour operator, Sunshine Helicopters, claims that while a simulated loss of engine power may be routine, the check pilot's actions resulted in an actual engine failure over terrain unsuitable for an emergency landing.  Causing an actual engine failure is anything but routine.

The F.A.A. regulations require that, to pass a check ride, an applicant must demonstrate that he is the “obvious master of the aircraft.”  It follows that the applicant is presumed to be the pilot in command and responsible for the safe outcome of the flight. But if the applicant pilot can prove that the check pilot improperly interfered with his ability to control the aircraft, then he may successfully overcome that presumption and hold the FAA check pilot responsible. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Who can be held responsible for compensating the Mountain Lifeflight families, and who is immune from suit?   

Maintenance.  If faulty maintenance is proven to be the cause of this helicopter crash, the families can recover against the maintenance company, provided that the families can prove that the maintenance company was negligent.  There is an important exception, however.  The families cannot sue the company that performed the maintenance if that company was Mountain Lifeflight itself.  That's because the worker's compensation laws immunize a crew member's employer from suit brought by the crew member's family.  More on that here.

Pilot error.  There is no reason to believe that the crash was caused by pilot error.  To the contrary, as discussed here, it looks as though the crash was likely caused by a mechanical failure.  However, assuming for argument's sake that the crash was caused by pilot error, the workers' compensation laws prohibit the families from suing either the pilot's estate or the pilot's employer.

Design defect.  Other A-Star accidents similar to this one raise the question of whether the crash was caused by the helicopter's faulty design.  The families are entitled to sue the aircraft's manufacturer, Eurocopter, and get to the bottom of the design defect issue.  If the families prove that the crash was in fact caused by a defect in the design of the helicopter, then they can hold Eurocopter responsible.

But there is one hurdle the families must overcome before winning a design defect suit.  The accident helicopter, N5793P, was manufactured in 1982.  The General Aviation Revitalization Act, or GARA, immunizes manufacturers from liability from lawsuits arising from aircraft that are older than 18 years.  At first blush, it would seem that the families have no recourse against the manufacturer at all.  But there is an important exception to GARA.   If the accident occurred as a result of a new part that was installed on the aircraft less than 18 years before the accident, the manufacturer can't assert the defense, no matter how old the aircraft.  And it has been reported that N5793P had been completely rebuilt only a few years before the crash.  Therefore, even though the helicopter was manufactured more than 27 years ago, it's likely that most critical parts on the aircraft were less than 18 years old, and that GARA won't protect the manufacturer.

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Federal Tort Claims Act allows citizens who have been injured by the federal government to sue the United States.  But there's an important exception.  No suit against the government is allowed when the victim is a service member injured by the negligence of the United States military. 

The rule protecting the military is called the Feres Doctrine.  In aviation accident cases, the doctrine bars service members from suing the government regardless of whether the crash was caused by the negligence of a military mechanic, air traffic controller, dispatcher or pilot.

Not surprisingly, the Feres Doctrine is controversial.  It allows the military to avoid responsibility for not just simple negligence, but for gross negligence as well.  Because of its unfairness, Congress has repeatedly been asked to abolish the rule, or at least limit it.  (Large pdf of Congressional Hearing here.)  But the Feres Doctrine remains the law.  As long as the victim was an "active" service member, and the injury or death was "incident to service," the military is immune from suit.  

That doesn't mean that injured soldiers or their families cannot sue others who may have contributed to a military aircraft accident.  For example, if a defect in the design of the aircraft contributed to the crash or to the injuries the crew member received, the crew member can still sue the aircraft's manufacturer. The aircraft manufacturer may be able to assert defenses of its own, such as the "government contractor defense," but not the Feres Doctrine.

The military prepares an investigative report after every accident involving one of its aircraft.  The report focuses on the military's role in the accident.  It seldom addresses whether a manufacturer or other civilian contractor may have been at fault. In fact, as discussed in this article concerning a military helicopter crash off the California coast, sometimes the report provides no answers at all.  Families will often need to enlist an aviation accident attorney to conduct an investigation on their behalf.  The attorney may need to file suit against the manufacturers just to obtain access to the evidence bearing on who, other than the military, may be responsible for a service member's injury or death.    

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link