Runs out of gas, family sues ATC

Well, with 2020 almost done... someone needs to invent some flimsy and insecure technology to allow ATC to turn your little fuel selector knob FOR you, then we can make it a 2030 mandate. For safety you know.
 
denverpilot said:
It’s annoying that it works way too often for aircraft and would go nowhere with an automobile driven into a pole at 100 MPH.
Click to expand...
Not yet, at least. New cars have radars and apply brakes when the car thinks there's a danger of crashing. At some point, somebody probably WILL sue the automaker because it didn't prevent them from driving into something....

Ron Wanttaja
 
Wasn’t there a case where a guy flew into a mountain and family sued Lycoming...and won, despite the fact the engine was working fine up till the time it ran into the mountain?


Tom
 
deyoung said:
If he switched fuel tanks he would have landed at his planned destination without incident.

It also looks like he never actually declared an emergency. Why wouldn't you, even before the second engine quit?

I really don't see anything here that ATC can reasonably be criticized for, I have to say.
Click to expand...
Beats me.... pride I guess. It's just stupid. There would be 11 less orphans if he would've done his job.
 
He should have declared an emergency, not accepted any assigned altitudes, and went with best glide.
 
PlasticCigar said:
When you have engine problems, it’s pretty standard for ATC to clear you for a lower altitude. I had a partial power loss and ATC cleared me for lower. I said, “No, I’m going to stay as high as I can.” They had no problem with it.
Click to expand...

I may be new at this flying stuff, but I bet they clear you to a lower altitude because it is difficult to remain at an altitude without an engine.

You are, literally, falling out of the sky and you have permission to do that.
 
I’d go after big oil. Deep pockets and it makes more sense than blaming ATC.

The fuel wasn’t efficient enough to get them to the destination
The fuel caused a fatal explosion/fire after the crash
 
No telling from the article if the aircraft wasn’t treated as an emergency. Pilot nor the controller has to make the statement, only that emergency service is being provided. If the aircraft has already lost an engine and is looking to land, it should be obvious that the aircraft should get emergency assistance. The one time on approach I had a twin (Aztec) experiencing fuel exhaustion, I made sure I transmitted “Aztec 345, just to clarify I am treating your situation as an emergency.” That clears the air and removes any ambiguity. Not required though.

There’s no way from the article to tell if the controller gave PD to 5,000 either. Which is what I would have done in that situation. Either way, the PIC has authority to say “unable.”

The 20 vs 29 miles is substantial but the PIC really needs to determine where to go anyway. I’m sure he had a NRST feature on his GPS. Can’t tell if the controller got fuel remaining either but I would have gotten that info to determine appropriate landing sites along with issuing specific info on that landing site.

Weather? I don’t see anywhere listed that it was MVFR or IFR so really wind is about the only thing I’d give.

Without transcripts, there’s no way to determine ATC’s culpability in this accident. Doesn’t really sound like they went the extra mile but I doubt they were negligent either. PIC bears the brunt on this.
 
Zeldman said:
Not just aircraft.....EVERYTHING.
Click to expand...
A friend (acquaintance really) of mine owns a large local appliance store. They have been sued because one of their most experienced installers made a mistake. He hooked up a dishwasher in a customer's condo, but he got the hot and the ground wire backwards and electrocuted himself. Now, I feel as bad for this repairman as anyone, and I was almost on his side at first when I read the article in the paper. But the lawsuit by the family of the repairman claims he was not properly trained. This man had 20 years experience installing major appliances and he could well have been the trainer himself. And not only is the store being sued, but the owner of the Condo and the dishwasher manufacturer are being sued for various crimes including wrongful death.

As I said, I feel bad for the repairman and the family, but he made a mistake doing something he has done hundreds of times before. Who else's fault could it possibly be?
 
Fiveslide said:
What's the time limitation for a slip-and-fall lawsuit? Cause my wife took a nasty fall in a Bass Pro shop in 2012. I might have found a way to buy me a Cirrus! :D
Click to expand...
You’ll still have to lure them into court. You might be stretching the line a bit...
 
PeterNSteinmetz said:
I am curious if they have any such duty as well. After all, even LEOs have no duty to protect a specific person or intervene in a particular incident.
Click to expand...

This is from a case applying Virginia law:

"Pilots and air traffic controllers 'are burdened with concurrent duties of due care for the protection of the aircraft and its occupants.'"
Turner v. United States, 736 F. Supp. 2d 980, 1000 (M.D.N.C. 2010).

Here's another case from the Eleventh Circuit:

"The duty of care owed is “reasonable care under all of the circumstances.” West v. E. Tenn. Pioneer Oil Co., 172 S.W.3d 545, 550 (Tenn. 2005). We’ve said that air traffic controllers and pilots have a concurrent duty to exercise due care to avoid accidents. Daley, 792 F.2d at 1085. 'The government’s duty to provide services with due care to airplane pilots may rest either upon the requirements of procedures manuals spelling out the functions of its air traffic controllers or upon general pilot reliance on the government for a given service.' Gill v. United States, 429 F.2d 1072, 1075 (5th Cir. 1970).4 A defendant has breached his duty to the plaintiff if he fails to exercise reasonable care. West, 172 S.W.3d at 550." Knous v. United States, 683 F. App'x 859, 863 (11th Cir. 2017)
 
Last edited:
steingar said:
A court of law is no place for an honest man.
Click to expand...

Indeed.
A few years ago I was talking to a friend and called it the “justice system”. He corrected me and said “it used to be...now it’s the legal system”. Big difference.
 
Velocity173 said:
There’s no way from the article to tell if the controller gave PD to 5,000 either. Which is what I would have done in that situation. Either way, the PIC has authority to say “unable.”
Click to expand...
According to the transcript, he was told, "descend and maintain six thousand." That seems like an instruction to me. I don't know anything about that side of the scope so don't know I'd the controller meant to clear him down and just used the terminology that he uses most often or what. Regardless, even if that was a mistake, not all mistakes result in liability and as you say, the PIC could have said unable, or in an emergency situation just not followed the instruction.

I imagine that it's hard for any family to accept that their loved ones are dead solely because of their own screw ups, and I hope I never have to find out what my own response would be.
 
Velocity173 said:
No telling from the article if the aircraft wasn’t treated as an emergency. Pilot nor the controller has to make the statement, only that emergency service is being provided. If the aircraft has already lost an engine and is looking to land, it should be obvious that the aircraft should get emergency assistance. The one time on approach I had a twin (Aztec) experiencing fuel exhaustion, I made sure I transmitted “Aztec 345, just to clarify I am treating your situation as an emergency.” That clears the air and removes any ambiguity. Not required though.

There’s no way from the article to tell if the controller gave PD to 5,000 either. Which is what I would have done in that situation. Either way, the PIC has authority to say “unable.”

The 20 vs 29 miles is substantial but the PIC really needs to determine where to go anyway. I’m sure he had a NRST feature on his GPS. Can’t tell if the controller got fuel remaining either but I would have gotten that info to determine appropriate landing sites along with issuing specific info on that landing site.

Weather? I don’t see anywhere listed that it was MVFR or IFR so really wind is about the only thing I’d give.

Without transcripts, there’s no way to determine ATC’s culpability in this accident. Doesn’t really sound like they went the extra mile but I doubt they were negligent either. PIC bears the brunt on this.
Click to expand...

Transcripts are here.
https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/...eaf24494f-166A6B15-9C53-4DD6-76352270858C7E81

They were pretty much in handling it as an emergency mode. A few i’s and t’s were left undotted and uncrossed though. It wasn’t a factor in this case, but failure to get Souls on Board is a no no. Emergency crews not knowing how many people they are looking for can be a problem. Yup, telling the pilot that you have declared an emergency is not required and sometimes there is good reason not to. Like a scared inexperienced pilot. That’s the last thing they need to hear. They just need the help. The 20 vs 29 miles is the thing a Jury could get it’s head wrapped around. But so far all we’ve heard about that is in the Newspaper article. I’m guessing there might be a basis to it. I couldn’t determine it by comparing the Transcript times to the Radar Data plots but it probably could be. NTSB made nothing of it.
 
Eric Brunelle said:
He should have declared an emergency, not accepted any assigned altitudes, and went with best glide.
Click to expand...
What is the published best glide in that airplane with both engines inop and both props unfeathered?
 
EdFred said:
Unfortunately in today's society everything always has to be someone else's fault. Their precious Bobby could never be the one that was the problem.
Click to expand...

A number of years ago I was pushing my kid in a swing at a park. Another little kid walks behind the swing and promptly gets put on his rear. As he is crying the mom comes up to console him and says “it’s ok, it wasn’t your fault”. I guess my kid should have stopped in mid-air...
 
Sam D said:
A number of years ago I was pushing my kid in a swing at a park. Another little kid walks behind the swing and promptly gets put on his rear. As he is crying the mom comes up to console him and says “it’s ok, it wasn’t your fault”. I guess my kid should have stopped in mid-air...
Click to expand...
Assigning or absolving blame seems to be the first thing that most people need to address, rather than solving the problem. My current job is the first place I've worked where finding solutions comes first. It's nice.
 
luvflyin said:
Transcripts are here.
https://dms.ntsb.gov/pubdms/search/...eaf24494f-166A6B15-9C53-4DD6-76352270858C7E81

They were pretty much in handling it as an emergency mode. A few i’s and t’s were left undotted and uncrossed though. It wasn’t a factor in this case, but failure to get Souls on Board is a no no. Emergency crews not knowing how many people they are looking for can be a problem. Yup, telling the pilot that you have declared an emergency is not required and sometimes there is good reason not to. Like a scared inexperienced pilot. That’s the last thing they need to hear. They just need the help. The 20 vs 29 miles is the thing a Jury could get it’s head wrapped around. But so far all we’ve heard about that is in the Newspaper article. I’m guessing there might be a basis to it. I couldn’t determine it by comparing the Transcript times to the Radar Data plots but it probably could be. NTSB made nothing of it.
Click to expand...

Well after reading that, ATC really didn’t get much info out of the guy. POB and fuel remaining being a couple important ones. Would’ve given a PD descent but the controller did seem to indicate a PD type descent in his comments. Would’ve given him the ceiling, vis, winds and basic airport info but the ceiling did get out eventually after the pilot asked. Really not very good communication on both sides but I think the NTSB’s report is accurate.
 
Sam D said:
A number of years ago I was pushing my kid in a swing at a park. Another little kid walks behind the swing and promptly gets put on his rear. As he is crying the mom comes up to console him and says “it’s ok, it wasn’t your fault”. I guess my kid should have stopped in mid-air...
Click to expand...

Man, if that were us my parents would have said "don't be a dumbass!" OK, maybe not those exact words, but we were told when we did dumb stuff.
 
All on PIC even if ATC said decent and maintain 5000. If my engine stops and I have altitude in my favor I don’t care what ATC or FAA or any other 3 letter guys says or thinks, at that specific point I also don’t give 2 poops about what the rules are. It’s my arse up there and I am doing everything I can to save it. Now if I do something dumb, it’s all on me.

However in this world... they might even win
 
MauleSkinner said:
Assigning or absolving blame seems to be the first thing that most people need to address, rather than solving the problem. My current job is the first place I've worked where finding solutions comes first. It's nice.
Click to expand...
Are you hiring? That would be a nice change of pace from where I work, haha...
 
The thing is...we all know pilots like this. That is, those who, for whatever reason, managed to get by their flight review or IPC without revealing their lack of understanding or command of flight control and operation. I mean, this incident is apparently one of a long train of fuel mis-management accidents that plague GA. There are lots of ways to inadvertently f-up flying a GA aircraft, but fuel mis-management shouldn't be one of them.
 
Omalley1537 said:
Are you hiring? That would be a nice change of pace from where I work, haha...
Click to expand...

No kidding! I mean, they actually recognize there are problems, #1, and that problems often have solutions to be found, #2. I deal with folks who can't get to #1, much less #2.
 
chemgeek said:
The thing is...we all know pilots like this. That is, those who, for whatever reason, managed to get by their flight review or IPC without revealing their lack of understanding or command of flight control and operation. I mean, this incident is apparently one of a long train of fuel mis-management accidents that plague GA. There are lots of ways to inadvertently f-up flying a GA aircraft, but fuel mis-management shouldn't be one of them.
Click to expand...
I recently gained a little more understanding of fuel MISmanagement when I visited a friend that just bought a Cessna 310. Now granted, all of my experience is in a SE Cessna with gravity fed (high) wing tanks or with my Bonanza that has two 40 gallon wing tanks.

His 310 hast two built in tip tanks, which are the MAIN tanks. It also has 2 (or was it four) auxiliary wing tanks.
The fuel systems returns unused fuel to the mains, so if you start off on the aux wing tanks, the return lines will hit the full mains and be dumped overboard.
After you run some fuel out of the main tips, you can switch to the aux tanks, but if you didn't burn enough out of the mains, they will be refilled by the return fuel and could possible dump more fuel once the mains are again full.

That to me seems really difficult to keep up with, especially in single pilot IFR operations. I guess you get used to it though.
 
JOhnH said:
I recently gained a little more understanding of fuel MISmanagement when I visited a friend that just bought a Cessna 310. Now granted, all of my experience is in a SE Cessna with gravity fed (high) wing tanks or with my Bonanza that has two 40 gallon wing tanks.

His 310 hast two built in tip tanks, which are the MAIN tanks. It also has 2 (or was it four) auxiliary wing tanks.
The fuel systems returns unused fuel to the mains, so if you start off on the aux wing tanks, the return lines will hit the full mains and be dumped overboard.
After you run some fuel out of the main tips, you can switch to the aux tanks, but if you didn't burn enough out of the mains, they will be refilled by the return fuel and could possible dump more fuel once the mains are again full.

That to me seems really difficult to keep up with, especially in single pilot IFR operations. I guess you get used to it though.
Click to expand...

No question that fuel management in a multi-tank aircraft is more complex, but if you operate this aircraft you have to know how it works and how to work it. More urgently, if you have a power failure, there is an emergency procedure, and ONE of those emergency procedure items is identifying and correcting any fuel supply issues. If TWO engines fail at once, one should perhaps strongly suspect fuel supply issues.
 
Yeah, that continental setup is straight up (term from the 80's that is frowned upon now) special.

Love the fuel setup in the Comanche with tip tanks.
Two selectors, one for each side. Off-tip-main. Fuel goes straight to the engine, no return lines, and can run from both sides simultaneously.
 
JOhnH said:
I recently gained a little more understanding of fuel MISmanagement when I visited a friend that just bought a Cessna 310. Now granted, all of my experience is in a SE Cessna with gravity fed (high) wing tanks or with my Bonanza that has two 40 gallon wing tanks.

His 310 hast two built in tip tanks, which are the MAIN tanks. It also has 2 (or was it four) auxiliary wing tanks.
The fuel systems returns unused fuel to the mains, so if you start off on the aux wing tanks, the return lines will hit the full mains and be dumped overboard.
After you run some fuel out of the main tips, you can switch to the aux tanks, but if you didn't burn enough out of the mains, they will be refilled by the return fuel and could possible dump more fuel once the mains are again full.

That to me seems really difficult to keep up with, especially in single pilot IFR operations. I guess you get used to it though.
Click to expand...
I used to fly a Supercub with 4 tanks that was similar. It wasn't fuel infected so there wasn't want return fuel, but the aux tanks weren't plumbed to the engine, they were plumbed to the mains only. So you had to empty the mains first and then run aux pumps to refill the mains from the aux tanks. And same the 310, if you didn't create enough space in the mains before you did the transfer, you would end up just pumping fuel out the vents. Its really a pretty simple concept to plan for. Burn the main down to 1/4 tank, run the pump until it shows 3/4 full, burn down to 1/4 tank again and run the pump until the ball stops going up.
 
JOhnH said:
I recently gained a little more understanding of fuel MISmanagement when I visited a friend that just bought a Cessna 310. Now granted, all of my experience is in a SE Cessna with gravity fed (high) wing tanks or with my Bonanza that has two 40 gallon wing tanks.

His 310 hast two built in tip tanks, which are the MAIN tanks. It also has 2 (or was it four) auxiliary wing tanks.
The fuel systems returns unused fuel to the mains, so if you start off on the aux wing tanks, the return lines will hit the full mains and be dumped overboard.
After you run some fuel out of the main tips, you can switch to the aux tanks, but if you didn't burn enough out of the mains, they will be refilled by the return fuel and could possible dump more fuel once the mains are again full.

That to me seems really difficult to keep up with, especially in single pilot IFR operations. I guess you get used to it though.
Click to expand...

Earlier Bonanzas are like this also (1960 and before I believe.. so M35s and prior -- auxes return excess fuel to the mains)

I think you can train for and be safe in anything. It's probably why insurers value time in type.
 
Velocity173 said:
No telling from the article if the aircraft wasn’t treated as an emergency. Pilot nor the controller has to make the statement, only that emergency service is being provided. If the aircraft has already lost an engine and is looking to land, it should be obvious that the aircraft should get emergency assistance. The one time on approach I had a twin (Aztec) experiencing fuel exhaustion, I made sure I transmitted “Aztec 345, just to clarify I am treating your situation as an emergency.” That clears the air and removes any ambiguity. Not required though.

There’s no way from the article to tell if the controller gave PD to 5,000 either. Which is what I would have done in that situation. Either way, the PIC has authority to say “unable.”

The 20 vs 29 miles is substantial but the PIC really needs to determine where to go anyway. I’m sure he had a NRST feature on his GPS. Can’t tell if the controller got fuel remaining either but I would have gotten that info to determine appropriate landing sites along with issuing specific info on that landing site.

Weather? I don’t see anywhere listed that it was MVFR or IFR so really wind is about the only thing I’d give.

Without transcripts, there’s no way to determine ATC’s culpability in this accident. Doesn’t really sound like they went the extra mile but I doubt they were negligent either. PIC bears the brunt on this.
Click to expand...

The ATC transcripts in the docket reveal a lot of information, and from my reading they were very concerned about the flight and acted properly throughout. This was despite the pilot's refusal to treat the threat as an emergency.

The pilot was never commanded to go to a lower altitude, he was cleared to descend at his discretion.
 
3393RP said:
The ATC transcripts in the docket reveal a lot of information, and from my reading they were very concerned about the flight and acted properly throughout. This was despite the pilot's refusal to treat the threat as an emergency.

The pilot was never commanded to go to a lower altitude, he was cleared to descend at his discretion.
Click to expand...

1559:58 the pilot was given “ descend and maintain 6,000.” Where in the transcripts was PD given?

The transcripts reveal a lot of information that wasn’t given as well. As the lawsuit states, the pilot wasn’t given the weather for the new destination. That’s a violation of the .65. As @luvflyin stated, no POB was solicited. Not only that, if they would have asked for fuel remaining in minutes, that would have directed the pilot to his fuel gauges and gotten to the heart of the problem. The controller doesn’t have to get all the items of info (Ch 10) for an emergency but those are two that would have been important to get. Difference between 20 and 29 miles is significant for ADM. With range rings and a software feature that gives exact distance, I don’t know how the controller could even make a 9 mile error. Now, is all that critical and would have made a difference between life and death? I doubt it but the lawyers are gonna eat it up in the lawsuit.
 
Last edited:
3393RP said:
The ATC transcripts in the docket reveal a lot of information, and from my reading they were very concerned about the flight and acted properly throughout. This was despite the pilot's refusal to treat the threat as an emergency. The pilot was never commanded to go to a lower altitude, he was cleared to descend at his discretion.
Click to expand...
ATC definitely was, but where's the 'at your discretion' part'? I read the transcripts and didn't catch that. At 1559:58 R13 says "seven sierra alpha cleared to tango charlie lima via direct descend and maintain six thousand".

Granted I'm a VFR pilot, but if a controller said that to me in the middle of an emergency I hope I'd have enough wherewithal to no blindly comply. We've heard this time and again that some pilots throw in the towel under duress and want ATC to get them out of the ****storm they got themselves into. I'm not saying ATC killed this guy but it's not a stretch to think the family and their lawyer(s) would latch onto that instruction as a reason to point the finger at ATC.

I've never been in an emergency, so I honestly do not know with certainty how I would react. I have had an engine stumble on takeoff and immediately pulled the throttle and put it back down on the remaining; definitely got my heart pumping. If the fan quit completely, I have to trust my primary training will kick in and I'd do the stuff needed to stay alive. I need to practice engine outs more...
@Velocity173 beat me to it
 
Atc is not responsible for diagnosing problems, this guy should have declared and he should have landed at the 8 mile airport and sorted it on the ground. Hindsight is a great thing, but really it should be foresight, a fuel pump is a serious issue, don't screw around, get on the ground. I hope I practice what I preach if I'm ever in this guy's situation. RIP
 
1559:50 N447SA atlanta center seven sierra alpha i may need to make an a ·(land) a landing i ' m losing my fuel pump

1559:50 R13 seven sierra alpha can you make it to tuscaloosa

1559:55 N447SA uh yeah i should be able to make it to tuscaloosa

1559:58 R13 seven sierra alpha cleaeed to tango charlie lima via direct descend and maintain six thousand

1600:51 R13 okay seven sierra alpha i got you that time ah tuscaloosa ah maintain six thousand is there anything else you need at this time

1601:00 N447SA not right now but ah i'm working on it i'm jusL trying to get her trimmed up but i just got a lot of manifold pressure loss

The descent to 6000 was normal. Pilot said he needs to make a landing because he's losing a fuel pump. Not both. Not that the engines are quitting. He's having a problem and he want's to get down and land. Getting a descent out of 12,000 is going to be needed to get down and land. Best glide angle is not in the equation yet. Controller asks if there is anything else he needs. Pilot says no. Doesn't say he'd like to stay up at 12,000 for a bit. A controller who is also a pilot with Navajo experience and a Crystal Ball may have saved the day. That expectation is beyond reason
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top