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

There are obvious dangers inherent in events such as the Reno Air Races. The victims of the disaster were undoubtedly aware of those dangers and attended the event anyway. Does that mean they should not be able to file lawsuits to obtain compensation for their loss? 

Not at all.

Granted, Life is Full of Risks

There are risks involved in most everything. We take a chance every time we cross the street. But it’s nonetheless reasonable for us to believe we will be safe when we are in the crosswalk. When we use the crosswalk, we are where we are supposed to be.

If an SUV hits someone in the crosswalk, we may all agree it was “just an accident.” Yet, we require the driver to compensate the pedestrian for his injuries. If the driver couldn’t see the pedestrian because the crosswalk was poorly designed, we might require the city to compensate the pedestrian. In either case, we don’t tell the pedestrian that he is out of luck because he assumed the risks of getting hit by a car.

It doesn’t matter that the driver had a very good driving record up to that point in time. While we don’t punish those responsible for an accident, we do hold them accountable and require them to compensate the person who, through no fault of their own, is seriously hurt.

The victims at Reno undoubtedly understood that there were risks associated with the Air Races. But they were exactly where they were supposed to be. Sure, the crash was an accident. But that doesn’t mean whoever is responsible for the injuries – whether that is a mechanic or a course designer -- shouldn’t compensate the victims for their losses.

The Race Sponsors Were Supposed to Provide Patrons with a Safe Viewing Area

Some say that Nevada law lets sponsors off the hook for injuries to spectators.  And it's true that, in Turner v. Mandalay Sports Entertainment, the Nevada Supreme Court said that a baseball stadium was not responsible for serious injuries a fan sustained when she was struck by a foul ball. But in that case, the fan was not in the viewing area. Had the fan been injured in a viewing area, the result might have been different. That’s because the court recognized that a ballpark has a duty to provide the patrons with at least some designated safe seating.

Once a stadium owner or operator complies with the rule's requirements by providing sufficient protected seating, the owner or operator has satisfied the legal duty of protection owed to its patrons.

The Reno Air Race victims were in the designated viewing area. They were exactly where they were supposed to be. But it appears that the sponsors failed to ensure that the area was safe. Turner v. Mandalay would thus seem to support the victims’ claims for compensation, not undercut it.  

The Language on the Ticket Is Not a Contract

A reader of this post noted that, according to the tickets sold for the event, the spectators voluntarily assumed all the risks and released the event sponsors from liability for any injuries.  Isn’t that the end of the matter?

No.

Sure, a spectator can, by contract, agree ahead of time not to sue if he is injured, even if the person who caused the injury was negligent. But for there to be a contract, there has to be an agreement. If the spectator actually signed something, then that would be one thing. Without the victim’s signature, the fine print on the ticket won’t be binding on anyone. 

Related Content:

• Reno-Stead Airport Seeks to Influence NTSB Investigation
• Victims' Lawsuits Against FAA Will Face Hurdles
• Reno Air Race Disaster No Freak Accident
• Leeward a Hero?
• Leeward's Aircraft Lost Trim Tab

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (16)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The FAA was supposed to protect the Reno Air Race spectators by, among other things, assuring that the race course design was safe. It failed to do so. Do the victims have a right to bring a lawsuit against the FAA?

Sovereign Immunity.

The FAA or, more accurately, the United States government can be sued just like any other individual, when it’s negligence contributes to a citizen’s injury or death. There are some important limitations, however. For example, the FAA cannot be sued if it’s employee -- in committing the negligent act -- was acting within his discretion. Rather, the “Discretionary Function Exception" protects the government from liability in those circumstances. The government can, however, be sued when someone is injured or killed as a result of an FAA employee’s failure to follow the FAA’s own rules. The theory is that, when in that circumstance, the employee had no “discretion.” If he was supposed to follow rules, and didn’t, and as a result someone is killed or injured, the government is liable.

FAA’s Involvement in the Reno Air Races.

The FAA approved the pilots, the planes, and the design of the course. For purposes of illustration, let’s discuss only the design of the course. For an FAA employee to approve a race course, the course design must meet certain requirements. FAA Order 8900.1 spells those out in detail. Some of the math involved is set forth on the right. The math is a bit complicated. But in short, the requirements are supposed to ensure that a plane is never pointed at the crowd, and to otherwise keep the spectators safe if something goes wrong with a plane or a pilot.

If a proposed course design didn’t comply with the requirements set forth in Order 8900.1, and an FAA employee approved it nonetheless, the FAA is potentially liable. That’s because the employee has no discretion to approve a course that doesn't comply with the rules. If a course doesn't comply with the rules, the FAA employee is supposed to reject it.

What if the course design complied with the requirements of Order 8900.1, but the victims prove that the Order’s requirements were too lax to protect the public from harm, and that they should have been more stringent? Then the victims will have a much harder time suing the government. Deciding what the rules should be is a task likely within the FAA’s discretion. Thus, the government would assert the “discretionary function” defense to the victims’ lawsuit.

Related content on this blog:

• Reno-Stead Airport Seeks to Influence NTSB Investigation
• Reno Air Race Lawsuits and the Assumption of Risk Defense
• Reno Air Race Disaster No Freak Accident
• Leeward a Hero?
• Leeward's Aircraft Lost Trim Tab

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Hall of Fame aerobatic champion Patty Wagstaff says that it was just bad luck that Jimmy Leeward's accident involved spectators.

At the speeds Leeward was moving, had the malfunction occurred four seconds earlier or later, or almost anywhere else on the course, it would have terminated in the desert.  This was not an accident waiting to happen – this was a freak accident.

Patty, this was not the first time that flutter sent a highly modified warbird out of control during the Reno Air Races.  It happened in 1998, when flutter ripped a trim tab from a P-51 called "Voodoo."  Bob Hannah, the pilot, immediately found himself heading straight up, just as Jimmy Leeward did.  Hannah lost consciousness from the high g-loading, but regained his senses as the aircraft rolled over the top.  Unlike Leeward, Hannah landed safely.

So, though it's too early to say for certain, it looks like Leeward's precise airframe failure -- or something pretty darn close -- actually happened before.  And sure, Leeward's failure could have just as easily occurred somewhere else along the nine mile course, and not at show center. But that doesn't make it a "freak accident," any more than losing at Russian Roulette can be considered a freak accident. 

Nope. This was an accident waiting to happen.

The warbird pilots push their aircraft to their limits and beyond.  That's why it's called "Unlimited" racing.  No one would deny pilots, fully aware of the risks they are taking, the right to fly their aircraft to the point of destruction.  It is, after all, their own lives that they are risking over the Nevada desert.  But they should not be permitted to place spectators at risk.  Pilots might be willing to flirt with death.  But that's not what spectators bargain for.

Sorry, Patty.  Leeward's crash was no "freak accident."  And suggesting it was is not fair to the victims.

Related content on this blog:  

• Reno-Stead Airport Seeks to Influence NTSB Investigation
• Reno Air Race Lawsuits and the Assumption of Risk Defense
• Lawsuits Against the FAA Will Face Hurdles
• Leeward a Hero?
• Leeward's Aircraft Lost Trim Tab

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (16)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

That's what some press reports are saying.  Had Jimmy Leeward not maneuvered the stricken plane as he did, things could have been much worse.

"The way I see it, if he did do something about this, he saved hundreds if not thousands of lives because he was able to veer that plane back toward the tarmac,” Johnny Norman, who was at the show, told the Associated Press.

That's a nice thought.  But it's probably not true.  Leeward likely was unconscious for most of the accident sequence, unable to veer the aircraft anywhere.

This isn't the first time a P-51 lost its trim tab at the Reno Air Races.  It happened once in 1998, when flutter ripped a trim tab from a P-51 called "Voodoo." Bob Hannah, the pilot, immediately found himself heading straight up, just as Jimmy Leeward did.  Hannah lost consciousness from the high g-loading, regained his senses as the aircraft rolled over the top, and saved the aircraft.  

As reported by AvWeb,

You OK Bob?" called Hinton. "Yea, this thing just popped big time," replied Hannah. What Hannah didn't mention is that the g-load from the quick pull-up had caused him to black out. He finally managed to reach the throttle and reduced Voodoo's power. At that point Hannah radioed that he "(wasn't) out of it yet," but he wasn't thinking clearly. Later, he declared a mayday and made a perfect landing. . . . On the ground one could see what cause Voodoo's problems during the race. The left elevator torque tube failed when the elevator trim fluttered and departed the plane.

It's quite possible that Leeward blacked out just like Hannah did in 1998 but, unlike Hannah, never regained consciousness. 

Take a look at the two pictures of Leeward's aircraft, the "Galloping Ghost."  The photo on the left is the cockpit before takeoff.  Leeward's helmet is clearly visible.  The frame on the right is the cockpit during the dive, a second before impact.  Leeward is nowhere to be seen.  Perhaps he is slumped over, unconscious.  Regardless, it's hard to imagine that Leeward was in any position to control the aircraft's flight path.

Related content on this blog:

• Reno-Stead Airport Seeks to Influence NTSB Investigation
• Reno Air Race Lawsuits and the Assumption of Risk Defense
• Lawsuits Against the FAA Will Face Hurdles
• Reno Disaster No Freak Accident
• Leeward's Aircraft Lost Trim Tab

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (1)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

This photo, taken moments before the crash, shows that the P-51 had lost its left elevator trim tab. (I've circled the spot where the trim tab should be.) Without the trim tab, the aircraft may have been uncontrollable.

(Original Photo by Tim O'Brien, Grass Valley Union (AP).)

Why did the aircraft lose its trim tab?  One possibility is "flutter," an aerodynamic phenomenon that can, once it starts, damage a control surface quite suddenly.  Here's a NASA video of flutter in action.

An aircraft is at risk of flutter when its airspeed pushes up against or exceeds its design limits.

Related content on this blog: 

• Reno-Stead Airport Seeks to Influence NTSB Investigation
• Reno Air Race Lawsuits and the Assumption of Risk Defense
• Lawsuits Against the FAA Will Face Hurdles
• Leeward A Hero?
• Reno Disaster No Freak Accident

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (78)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Operators have begun using LSAs -- particularly "trikes" -- to give air tours over the Hawaiian islands.  LSAs fly low and slow, just like helicopters, and are much cheaper to run.  But they have a terrible safety record.  And it's illegal to use LSAs for commercial tours.

If it is illegal to use LSAs for commercial tours, how do LSA operators get away with it?  As I wrote here, they simply say that they are taking the passenger for an introductory "flight lesson," rather than a tour. 

The FAA now recognizes that operators are taking advantage of the regulatory loophole. According to one FAA official, "It appears some operators are trying to get around the air tour provision by offering flights under the guise of introductory flying instructions."

The Honolulu Star-Advertiser reports that  the FAA's plan for dealing with the problem is to  step up surveillance:

the plan will call for more unannounced visits, interviews with pilots and record examinations of aircraft operators. Officials also held a meeting with weight-shift control operators to encourage more voluntary compliance.

The FAA says no new regulations are needed, since the existing rules are clear.  Yes, the rules are clear.  That's the problem.  It's clear that it's legal to take a paying passenger for an introductory flight lesson.  And so that's exactly what the tour companies operating LSAs will continue to do.

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

When an EMS helicopter goes down, our legal system treats the family members of the passengers lost in the accident quite a bit differently from the families of the crew.  For example, while the family members of the passenger may perhaps get their day in court, the claims of the crew members' families are usually precluded by workers' compensation law.

We've talked about that before here. Christine Negroni, writing about a recent EMS helicopter crash in Kansas City, points out a case where that scenario seems to be playing out now.  The crash killed 58-year old Terry Tacoronte, who was a patient, along with the pilot, the flight paramedic, and the flight nurse. Due to workers' compensaton laws, it's likely that only Taraconte's widower will be permitted to press a lawsuit.

The law seems unfair to crew members.  But as Negroni writes, perhaps by pressing his case, the passenger's widower will make the industry safer for crew members going forward.

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