Comair 5191 Lawsuit

  • Thread starter Thread starter KennyFlys
  • Start date Start date
I just saw an article stating that the co-pilot has filed suit against the US gov't (FAA), the airport (LEX), and Jeppesen. For all intents and purposes, the pilot is Comair, courtesy of the legal principal of repondeat superior - your employer is generally responsible for your torts as an employee.

Thus, at this point, we've got:

1) Copilot v. FAA
2) Copilot v. LEX
3) Copilot v. Jeppesen
4) Copilot v. Lighting Co.

We can expect to see the inverse of all of those, as well as suits between all of them. Maybe there will be a few more parties added, too.
 
Obi Heed Kenobi said:
I just saw an article stating that the co-pilot has filed suit against the US gov't (FAA), the airport (LEX), and Jeppesen. For all intents and purposes, the pilot is Comair, courtesy of the legal principal of repondeat superior - your employer is generally responsible for your torts as an employee.
Click to expand...
Let's apply a different set of facts. You're PIC and have been sitting on the ramp for some period of time. Your passengers are tired, hungry and irritable; all to be expected after stuck in a plane for six-eight hours. The airline will not allow you to pull into a gate and release the passengers for rest and/or other options.

Finally, you demand a gate or you'll pick one and pull into it. Your demand is answered but once you're aircraft is secured you're sent home. You're later recalled for a meeting to terminate your employment. Your SIC stands with you in the decision. But, because it "violates" a directive by company officials, you both are terminated.

Now, you and the SIC file a civil suit against the airline for wrongful termination. Your defense: You're PIC, you are responsible for the health and welfare of your passengers. You acted on their behalf by obtaining a gate, albeit by demand of your superiors.

So, are you PIC only when it suits you or when you screw up as well?

Both the PIC and SIC had a mandate and an opportunity to verify runway heading with a HSI and wet compass. Apparently, both did neither.

That is why I have a problem with his being the aggressor in any suit; the same for Comair. Defend in order to mitigate damages, perhaps. But there's little, if any, defense there.

Harsh? Sure. But, what would you expect in the same situation?
 
As the original question brought by this thread was regarding Jepp's potential liability in this case, I can't imagine how a judge will not summarily dismiss Jepp from the case.

Jepp is NOT responsible for NOTAMS. As Jepp is well known for its timely and regularly scheduled publication of airport data, approach plates and enroute charts, if the construction work being done was started after the current charts were published, and the next edition of charts were not due out for another month, how can Jepp possibly be held liable in any way? That information would be the responsibility of the local controlling agency to disseminate, and would then be issued as a NOTAM. Whether Jepp knew about it or not, they are NOT an information point for NOTAMS, unless perchance it was a very long term situation. But then it would have been recognized in the NEXT edition of data.
 
Similarly, I can't see how the lighting company, FAA or Lex would be in error for the PIC's actions. FAA and LEX would have to be dismissed but for one reason only... the runway was wrongly marked. I don't mean insufficiently but wrongly, e.g., 26 was marked as 22. Even then, there's reason for verification by HSI and wet compass. I'm not sure what the lighting company was doing as far as runway identification but again, if it were a matter of wrongly marking the runway, ok. But, there's no indication this was done.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top