AA5342 Down DCA
Joined: Mar 2019
Aviation Qualifications: Spotter
Posts: 29
Likes: 49
From: Seattle
Ward Carroll posted some thoughts about the crash following the evidence a couple of weeks ago. He gives a quick summary of the faacts, and looks at the blame game.
He's quite clear that he thinks that ATC alerting the CRJ about the presence of the helo (using visual flight separation) probably wouldn't have changed the outcome.
But he does pick up on the cockpit dynamics on PAT25. He says
"Now, the most important facts to emerge from the hearings this week center on the cockpit exchange between Warrant Officer Eves and Captain Robach that happened just about a minute before the midair. He says to her, "All right, kind of come left for me, ma'am. I think that's why he's asking." And she replies, "Sure." He says, "We're kinda..." And she cuts him off by saying, "Oh-kay, fine." And he finishes his statement “…out toward the middle”, meaning the middle of the river and west of helicopter route 4. So PAT 25 is above and west of where they should have been as the CRJ is properly on final approach for runway 33. Using maritime rules of the road terms, the CRJ was the burden vessel and the Blackhawk was the giveway vessel." He quotes someone (David Cherbonnier) posting:
He's quite clear that he thinks that ATC alerting the CRJ about the presence of the helo (using visual flight separation) probably wouldn't have changed the outcome.
But he does pick up on the cockpit dynamics on PAT25. He says
"Now, the most important facts to emerge from the hearings this week center on the cockpit exchange between Warrant Officer Eves and Captain Robach that happened just about a minute before the midair. He says to her, "All right, kind of come left for me, ma'am. I think that's why he's asking." And she replies, "Sure." He says, "We're kinda..." And she cuts him off by saying, "Oh-kay, fine." And he finishes his statement “…out toward the middle”, meaning the middle of the river and west of helicopter route 4. So PAT 25 is above and west of where they should have been as the CRJ is properly on final approach for runway 33. Using maritime rules of the road terms, the CRJ was the burden vessel and the Blackhawk was the giveway vessel." He quotes someone (David Cherbonnier) posting:
Administrator
Joined: Apr 2015
Aviation Qualifications: Military
Posts: 2,973
Likes: 1,612
From: The Gulf Coast
Thank you for clarifying that, but I think that is the point that he was trying to make. (But as I am not he, I may have misunderstood).
(As neither mod nor admin)
(As neither mod nor admin)
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 1,549
Likes: 63
From: UK
Hopefully he knows more about aircraft rules than maritime rules. In maritime parlance (to adopt his analogy), the CRJ would be the "stand-on" vessel (expected to maintain course and speed); the Blackhawk would be the "burdened vessel", responsible for taking avoiding action (giving way).
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 905
Likes: 321
From: Virginia, USA
This incident was discussed in posts #1506-1527 of this thread.
NTSB Aviation Investigation Preliminary Report - N879RW (RPA), UH-60 (PAT23)
NTSB Aviation Investigation Preliminary Report - N879RW (RPA), UH-60 (PAT23)
…but around this time, PAT23 had checked in with the JPN Heliport Tower (HT) LC controller and was attempting to land on the helipad without a landing clearance. When the JPN HT LC controller queried the crew to ask who had cleared them to land, the crew advised they were executing a go around and that DCA ATCT had cleared them to the helipad.
Joined: Dec 2013
Aviation Qualifications: ATP+Mil
Posts: 990
Likes: 554
From: US
Actually, it's not the exact same scenario.
In the case you quote, Tower reported the traffic had you in sight. In the case in question, AA5342 was not provided traffic by the DCA LC.
In the case you quote, did Tower say that the traffic was going to maintain own separation? Did Tower provide a bearing/direction and distance to this traffic? Did Tower provide the height of the traffic?
In the case you quote, Tower reported the traffic had you in sight. In the case in question, AA5342 was not provided traffic by the DCA LC.
In the case you quote, did Tower say that the traffic was going to maintain own separation? Did Tower provide a bearing/direction and distance to this traffic? Did Tower provide the height of the traffic?
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 678
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
"Lawyer Representing Family In Mid-Air Collision Suit Reveals What American.."
From a Forbes Breaking News YouTube clip in which the Chicago-based aviation attorney, Robert Clifford, answers some questions about the status and expected progress of the lawsuits.
The headline refers to Mr. Clifford attributing to legal counsel for American telling him that the collision is "not our problem", the "helicopter ran into our aircraft" and words to the effect there was no reason for counsel for one of the eventual plaintiffs would want to talk to the airline. There was context also - some questions related to how many lawsuits would be filed and litigated, and in reply, Mr. Clifford related that in the Ethiopian accident litigation, some families settled with the airline prior to litigation commencing in earnest. Not so with American at this juncture, he noted.
Mr. Clifford went on to say that the plaintiffs will "show their [American's] responsibility" although there was no elaboration as to the causal sequence of the accident (not that any lawyer would lurch far ahead of what the NTSB has publicly disclosed to date). He also stated that publicly available information indicates that American Airlines (or perhaps its holding company - this was not clarified) had "drawn down massive reserves" in "London", not difficult to infer that this was in reference to insurance coverage. Unsurprisingly, Counsel drew the further inference that American Airlines would not have done so unless it had liability concerns (in so many words) - as to which reasonable minds certainly can and should differ.
One perhaps interesting bit from the video clip is that Mr. Clifford anticipates that a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee or Executive Committee will be formed and approved by the Court, so that discovery practice will not need to be conducted multiple times (one deposition of a given witness rather than one by each plaintiff, and so on).
Edit: and the first federal court lawsuit has been filed.
The headline refers to Mr. Clifford attributing to legal counsel for American telling him that the collision is "not our problem", the "helicopter ran into our aircraft" and words to the effect there was no reason for counsel for one of the eventual plaintiffs would want to talk to the airline. There was context also - some questions related to how many lawsuits would be filed and litigated, and in reply, Mr. Clifford related that in the Ethiopian accident litigation, some families settled with the airline prior to litigation commencing in earnest. Not so with American at this juncture, he noted.
Mr. Clifford went on to say that the plaintiffs will "show their [American's] responsibility" although there was no elaboration as to the causal sequence of the accident (not that any lawyer would lurch far ahead of what the NTSB has publicly disclosed to date). He also stated that publicly available information indicates that American Airlines (or perhaps its holding company - this was not clarified) had "drawn down massive reserves" in "London", not difficult to infer that this was in reference to insurance coverage. Unsurprisingly, Counsel drew the further inference that American Airlines would not have done so unless it had liability concerns (in so many words) - as to which reasonable minds certainly can and should differ.
One perhaps interesting bit from the video clip is that Mr. Clifford anticipates that a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee or Executive Committee will be formed and approved by the Court, so that discovery practice will not need to be conducted multiple times (one deposition of a given witness rather than one by each plaintiff, and so on).
Edit: and the first federal court lawsuit has been filed.
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 905
Likes: 321
From: Virginia, USA
In video, Clifford claims 110-page lawsuit is publicly available. No luck in locating. Clifford makes following points regarding liability:
American Airlines
- Knowingly operated and expanded operations into an airport (DCA) with “massive congestion”
- Operated in airspace subject to numerous near-miss reports
AA/PSA Pilots
- Failed to respond to traffic alert 19 sec before collision
- Accepted visual approach to runway 33
American Airlines
- Knowingly operated and expanded operations into an airport (DCA) with “massive congestion”
- Operated in airspace subject to numerous near-miss reports
AA/PSA Pilots
- Failed to respond to traffic alert 19 sec before collision
- Accepted visual approach to runway 33
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 678
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
In video, Clifford claims 110-page lawsuit is publicly available. No luck in locating. Clifford makes following points regarding liability:
American Airlines
- Knowingly operated and expanded operations into an airport (DCA) with “massive congestion”
- Operated in airspace subject to numerous near-miss reports
AA/PSA Pilots
- Failed to respond to traffic alert 19 sec before collision
- Accepted visual approach to runway 33
American Airlines
- Knowingly operated and expanded operations into an airport (DCA) with “massive congestion”
- Operated in airspace subject to numerous near-miss reports
AA/PSA Pilots
- Failed to respond to traffic alert 19 sec before collision
- Accepted visual approach to runway 33
Perhaps this SLF/attorney should "do the reading" ...... I am quite curious whether, and if so how, these preeminent aviation accident litigators have dealt with the discretionary function exception to the statutory waiver of federal government sovereign immunity.
Edit: case number is 1:25 -cv-03382 (United States District Court for the District of Columbia)
Last edited by WillowRun 6-3; 25th September 2025 at 02:49.
Joined: Oct 2019
Posts: 19
Likes: 8
From: New Jersey
Website of the Clifford Law Office in connection with the press event today has posted the Complaint. Notably, the Kreindler & Kreindler law firm also is on the Complaint (these two firms are massive heavy hitters - nobody asked for my view I realize - I'm not familiar with a third firm also listed).
Perhaps this SLF/attorney should "do the reading" ...... I am quite curious whether, and if so how, these preeminent aviation accident litigators have dealt with the discretionary function exception to the statutory waiver of federal government sovereign immunity.
Edit: case number is 1:25 -cv-03382 (United States District Court for the District of Columbia)
Perhaps this SLF/attorney should "do the reading" ...... I am quite curious whether, and if so how, these preeminent aviation accident litigators have dealt with the discretionary function exception to the statutory waiver of federal government sovereign immunity.
Edit: case number is 1:25 -cv-03382 (United States District Court for the District of Columbia)
The best (in my view) argument against the airlines is that it was PSA policy that their pilots should not accept a diversion from runway 1 to runway 33 if they had not already briefed this approach (in addition to briefing the approach to runway 1). The pilot in charge hadn't done this but nevertheless accepted the diversion. This looks bad of course but there is little reason to believe that the omission of the briefing made any difference. It is also argued that the response to the TCAS conflict alert was inadequate which seems only clear in hindsight. Finally there were also insinuations to the effect that airlines should not serve busy airports because they are dangerous that I didn't find convincing.
The argument against the FAA is that the ATCs had actually violated various regulations starting with having one controller handle both helicopters and airplanes and continuing with the specific instructions and information provided to the helicopter and airplane. I suspect these purported violations are not as clear cut as claimed. In any case it is unclear they made any difference.
The argument against the army is that the blackhawk crew violated specific regulations and rules that they were required to observe. Most seriously that they were too high, knew they were too high but didn't correct this in a timely way. This clearly did make a difference and in my view if proven would be sufficient to establish liability.
I didn't notice any references to the discretionary function exception. In general the arguments against the government are based on purported specific violations of established rules and regulations by low level personnel and not on debatable broad policy decisions. The case that an army pilot doesn't have discretion to violate altitude limits seems easy to make to me. Any more than an army driver has discretion to ignore stop signs.
Last edited by layman54; 27th September 2025 at 06:09. Reason: fix formatting, fix word order
Joined: Mar 2015
Posts: 905
Likes: 321
From: Virginia, USA
The best (in my view) argument against the airlines is that it was PSA policy that their pilots should not accept a diversion from runway 1 to runway 33 if they had not already briefed this approach (in addition to briefing the approach to runway 1). The pilot in charge hadn't done this but nevertheless accepted the diversion. This looks bad of course but there is little reason to believe that the omission of the briefing made any difference.
Reviewing the 5342 CVR, runway 33 was not included in the CA/PF’s approach briefing about 35 minutes prior to the expected landing time. The CA/PF did do an abbreviated briefing for 33 after the circle 33 option was accepted.
Joined: Sep 2001
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 2,787
Likes: 208
From: Toronto
I think the point here is that, had the 5342 pilots followed PSA procedures (i.e., not accepting an approach that wasn’t previously briefed), they would have refused the circle 33 offer by ATC, thereby avoiding the accident.
The plaintiff lawyers would have a better argument against the airline if they had deviated from the approach.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 678
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
On layman54's summary of the Complaint;
Sorry to return to law prof mode for a moment. The Federal Tort Claims Act waives, that is it removes, federal sovereign immunity. The statute also provides for continued sovereign immunity for federal government "discretionary functions", hence the "exception" is to the waiver of immunity. But the standard for whether a particular allegedly negligent act or omission was, or was not, within the meaning of "discretionary function" is something of a binary statement: if the action was a "ministerial action", then it did not involve the exercise of discretion as meant by the statute. Ministerial actions (though perhaps over-simplifying) are actions applying or following regulations or rules, or perhaps standardized procedures.
If my recollection of federal procedure is accurate, the federal defendants (FAA, and its statutory parent entity, Department of Transportation, and the Army) will need to assert sovereign immunity in motion practice of some sort, or possibly as an affirmative defense that needs to be pled in their (presumably) respective Answers to the Complaint - tbh I'm not certain which (but I'm not re-engaging the yoke of billable hours where I can avoid it).
My prior post thus was imprecise (apologies). The words "discretionary function exception" would not be expected to appear in this Complaint. But the several references to specific FAA rules and other written procedural-type stuff - I see these as carrying two loads. The first is the obvious one of making a strong case that this accident was caused, in major part, by FAA's negligence. FAA and the DOT can argue all they want about the several actually discretionary decisions which are implicated in the structure and operation of that airspace on the night of 29 January (federal legislation about capacity, being a headline among them, perhaps paired with the often-decried FAA basic idea of moving traffic over most other factors). But all those arguments will not bar the plaintiffs from arguing that in additionto discretionary policy decisions, FAA also violated its own rules and procedures. Which would be a serious argument that insofar as those rules and procedures are concerned, FAA was taking ministerial action, i.e., negligent ministerial action.
The Army's situation is more straightforward imo. Certainly a good number of discretionary functions are involved, or were involved, in the operation of the type of helicopter flights involved in this accident, in general, and specifically as training missions. But the altitude deviation and related operational factors do not fit within the scope of the discretiionary function exception to the waiver of immunity.
I recall some poster months ago stating that during the last leg of the approach, the PSA pilots "owned that airspace" or words to that effect. At a perhaps monkey-brain level, I agree with what the airline legal counsel is reported to have said: the helicopter flew into our airplane. But realizing I'm not objective (plus the fact this being a pilots' forum....) it is sickening to see those pilots alleged to have been negligent.
Sorry to return to law prof mode for a moment. The Federal Tort Claims Act waives, that is it removes, federal sovereign immunity. The statute also provides for continued sovereign immunity for federal government "discretionary functions", hence the "exception" is to the waiver of immunity. But the standard for whether a particular allegedly negligent act or omission was, or was not, within the meaning of "discretionary function" is something of a binary statement: if the action was a "ministerial action", then it did not involve the exercise of discretion as meant by the statute. Ministerial actions (though perhaps over-simplifying) are actions applying or following regulations or rules, or perhaps standardized procedures.
If my recollection of federal procedure is accurate, the federal defendants (FAA, and its statutory parent entity, Department of Transportation, and the Army) will need to assert sovereign immunity in motion practice of some sort, or possibly as an affirmative defense that needs to be pled in their (presumably) respective Answers to the Complaint - tbh I'm not certain which (but I'm not re-engaging the yoke of billable hours where I can avoid it).
My prior post thus was imprecise (apologies). The words "discretionary function exception" would not be expected to appear in this Complaint. But the several references to specific FAA rules and other written procedural-type stuff - I see these as carrying two loads. The first is the obvious one of making a strong case that this accident was caused, in major part, by FAA's negligence. FAA and the DOT can argue all they want about the several actually discretionary decisions which are implicated in the structure and operation of that airspace on the night of 29 January (federal legislation about capacity, being a headline among them, perhaps paired with the often-decried FAA basic idea of moving traffic over most other factors). But all those arguments will not bar the plaintiffs from arguing that in additionto discretionary policy decisions, FAA also violated its own rules and procedures. Which would be a serious argument that insofar as those rules and procedures are concerned, FAA was taking ministerial action, i.e., negligent ministerial action.
The Army's situation is more straightforward imo. Certainly a good number of discretionary functions are involved, or were involved, in the operation of the type of helicopter flights involved in this accident, in general, and specifically as training missions. But the altitude deviation and related operational factors do not fit within the scope of the discretiionary function exception to the waiver of immunity.
I recall some poster months ago stating that during the last leg of the approach, the PSA pilots "owned that airspace" or words to that effect. At a perhaps monkey-brain level, I agree with what the airline legal counsel is reported to have said: the helicopter flew into our airplane. But realizing I'm not objective (plus the fact this being a pilots' forum....) it is sickening to see those pilots alleged to have been negligent.
Joined: Sep 2017
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 1,065
From: Bremen
The airline lawyers will point to the many ignored near miss reports in arguing that this accident was waiting to happen and that it was just luck that this accident didn't happen sooner.
The plaintiff lawyers would have a better argument against the airline if they had deviated from the approach.
The plaintiff lawyers would have a better argument against the airline if they had deviated from the approach.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 678
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Joined: Sep 2001
Aviation Qualifications: CPL
Posts: 2,787
Likes: 208
From: Toronto
I understand the plaintiff's argument to be, if this was "an accident waiting to happen", it was negligent/reckless of the airline to expose passengers to that risk.
It's more difficult to argue that the airlines should have been doing FAA's job for them.
Joined: Sep 2017
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,037
Likes: 1,065
From: Bremen
The argument would rely upon the defendant knowing or ought to have known that the accident was waiting to happen. The FAA had the database, but failed to act upon the accumulation of near miss reports.
It's more difficult to argue that the airlines should have been doing FAA's job for them.
It's more difficult to argue that the airlines should have been doing FAA's job for them.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 860
From: Here 'n' there!
The argument would rely upon the defendant knowing or ought to have known that the accident was waiting to happen. The FAA had the database, but failed to act upon the accumulation of near miss reports.
It's more difficult to argue that the airlines should have been doing FAA's job for them.
It's more difficult to argue that the airlines should have been doing FAA's job for them.
Sure, the FAA have that same responsibility in ensuring their airspace is safe and operates safely. However, that does not absolve the airline of their own Safety responsibilities. Just to say "Well, the FAA say it's OK so it's fine!" is not enough. Aviation is littered by 1000's of cases where the National rules say one thing but an airline will be even more restrictive. For eg, the ILS minima for an approach to R/W 24 at ABC may be, let's say, 100ft, but Airline XYZ itself says only Captains may fly down to that on this particular approach - their 1st Officers can't even fly the approach at all (for whatever reason)! Obviously, you can't go less restrictive than the Regs but you can go more restrictive.
The data in the various databases is freely available (I've used them myself for research back in the day) so the airline should be doing it's own "due diligence" around their operation rather than blindly accepting what the FAA say. However, and there always is one of these, the "downside" is that it may well be more expensive to operate within the more restrictive case which will upset the Finance Department who will cite the regs.....
And so it goes on......... The only certainty is that the lawyers will do well out of this (appols to Willow-Run!).......
Joined: Mar 2002
Aviation Qualifications: ATPL
Posts: 9,225
Likes: 992
From: Seat 1A
HNH, I can't agree with any of that. The ONLY reason federal regs are written is to set a standard that anybody can operate to/in/with and be safe. This idea that a major US carrier shouldn't have operated into DCA because it might be dangerous, depending on how the airline assesses it, and is therefore sue-able, when the FAA itself allows it, doesn't gel IMO. The sole job of the regulator is to ensure the airspace and it's procedures will allow a safe operation. In any case, I think what you are suggesting, that AA have worked out, by itself, that operating into DCA is unsafe, won't happen these day because the almighty dollar rules. The minimum standard, set by the FAA, will more often that not, be complied-with. Most company restrictions of the type you mention don't involve simply not doing it, which is what is being suggested here.
Joined: Jul 2013
Aviation Qualifications: Non-Aircrew
Posts: 1,391
Likes: 678
From: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Ordinarily I have no objection to lawyer bashing (and I've been known (in non-anonymous mode) to tell one or more good lawyer jokes).
Before stating why I object to the aspersion you've cast on legal types in the context of the DCA mid-air collision and the litigation arising from it, I'll suggest that probably most all forum posters (and readers), if not literally all, have heard either an ex-husband or ex-wife relate their unrequited frustration and anger at how the other spouse "got everything", "ripped me off", "took me to the cleaners" and so on. And then someone else will say, "yeah, and the lawyers are the only ones who profit in a divorce." The contradiction is rarely called out, but it is no less a contradiction.
But as to this case. The passenger manifest of the PSA flight isn't necessary to make this point, but I'm sure the estimable Mr. Clifford would consume hours of argument and pages of supporting documents making it clear that 64 lives were cut short, and many were people in the prime of their adult lives - not that one life should be worth more than any other life in compensation in court proceedings, but taking for example the relatively early career attorneys who perished in the accident, their earnings potential over the course of their careers is less speculative than, say, projections about one of the youthful skaters (although I'm pretty sure there are standards which have been worked out in the mine run of personal injury and wrongful death cases). My point is, this case will yield quite significant damage awards in the end. Yes, I realize that issues of immunity of federal agencies will have to be surmounted; having posted a lot about theses issues I realize they exist. Yet the citations of FAA orders, procedures, and rules in the Complaint does suggest that plaintiffs are ready to overcome the immunity argument. And I'm leaving for another day and place the consideration, how do you think it would affect the FAA in the long run to argue that "na na you can't get me" because of "legal technicalities" when it is pretty predictable at this point that NTSB in its final report will be, shall we say, either unkind or unsparing to FAA, or both, in assessing causes and effects.
So the case is likely, if not certain, to pay out big. The lawyers will get - unless legal counsel are using very different formulas than are typical in cases of this type - about one-third.
How is it then that only the lawyers do well? The argument is not about whether big-ticket damage awards can replace a lost loved one. The argument is about whether only the lawyers do well. "Grief" begins with the same four letters as "Grievance" and the crash victims' families certainly are individuals aggrieved by the negligence of some or all of the defendants. Maybe we can split semantic fibers over whether having their grievance abated by significant financial compensation is within the meaning of "doing well" - but under the facts of this case and their tragic losses, I think they will be at least "doing better". And so not only the lawyers.
This all having been said, apologies accepted, naturally.
WR 6-3
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 1,484
Likes: 860
From: Here 'n' there!
HNH, I can't agree with any of that. The ONLY reason federal regs are written is to set a standard that anybody can operate to/in/with and be safe. This idea that a major US carrier shouldn't have operated into DCA because it might be dangerous, depending on how the airline assesses it, and is therefore sue-able, when the FAA itself allows it, doesn't gel IMO. The sole job of the regulator is to ensure the airspace and it's procedures will allow a safe operation. ...............
This is where a SMS needs to look again at things and then decide what else, if anything, needs to be done. Part of my background is from Safety Engineering (where I was put through a SE MSc in the 1990's by my then employer) and processes such as Hazard Analysis takes into account both material failure as well as operational failure - and here we have "airspace design" and then the "operation of that airspace". When designing a bit of kit you apply the Regs as part of the design hazard analysis. But that is the minimum (tick VG) - after that we then ask "And is it actually safe?". Regs generally provide for a "minimum safe standard" which, all being well, will see us through - 100%. If not, we'd have aircraft falling out the sky with regular abandon! But that's assuming that those who write the Regs have got it right (or, in this case "designed the airspace" and then created the "operational rules" for that design). They can make mistakes as much as anyone else. One would hope for rigorous QA checks and so on ......... but this is where even organisations such as the FAA can, over time, become institutionalized with poor practices/cost cutting/etc/etc.
On an operational side of things, I've often, as an Engineer, reduced servicing intervals to less than those recommended where I've had issues with a bit of kit on a particular airframe*. I've released the aircraft back into service with an Engineering Limitation which has called for more frequent inspections than the Rules ask for while we try and ascertain what the issue is and if there really is a trend starting. If as an operator you believe something to be unsafe, you must address it. How did I know to reduce the servicing intervals? Sometimes it was a Maintenance Engineer calling me over and saying "Hey, Boss, have you seen this? What do you think?". Other times it's because trawling through Stats, a trend has started to show which, in the noise of day-to-day operations, was invisible - but look back over 6 months in a Spreadsheet and, hey, what have we here? We used to get regular print-outs from our Maintenance databases for just this reason - in the 1980's!
The FAA, in the wake of this accident I suspect, has issued this on the considerable extension of SMS's - but only in Apr 2024. But this is not new stuff - SMS's have been around for years. My first brush with it all was way back in 1980 - we called it something different then but that's what it was! Here in the UK, the CAA published CAP 795 - Safety Management Systems - Guidance to Organizations back in 2015, the purpose of which ".......... is to provide guidance on the implementation of Safety Management Systems (SMS). It has been developed to give sufficient understanding of SMS concepts and the development of management policies and processes to implement and maintain an effective SMS. It applies to Air Operator’s Certificate (AOC) holders, continuing airworthiness management organisations, maintenance organisations, air navigation service providers, aerodromes and approved training organisations.".
........ I think what you are suggesting, that AA have worked out, by itself, that operating into DCA is unsafe, won't happen these day because the almighty dollar rules. The minimum standard, set by the FAA, will more often that not, be complied-with. Most company restrictions of the type you mention don't involve simply not doing it, which is what is being suggested here.
Anyway, that's my take FWIW and hopefully it explains why I said what I did! Cheers, H 'n' H
H 'n' H.
Ordinarily I have no objection to lawyer bashing (and I've been known (in non-anonymous mode) to tell one or more good lawyer jokes)........... How is it then that only the lawyers do well? The argument is not about whether big-ticket damage awards can replace a lost loved one. The argument is about whether only the lawyers do well. "Grief" begins with the same four letters as "Grievance" and the crash victims' families certainly are individuals aggrieved by the negligence of some or all of the defendants. Maybe we can split semantic fibers over whether having their grievance abated by significant financial compensation is within the meaning of "doing well" - but under the facts of this case and their tragic losses, I think they will be at least "doing better". And so not only the lawyers.
This all having been said, apologies accepted, naturally.
WR 6-3
Ordinarily I have no objection to lawyer bashing (and I've been known (in non-anonymous mode) to tell one or more good lawyer jokes)........... How is it then that only the lawyers do well? The argument is not about whether big-ticket damage awards can replace a lost loved one. The argument is about whether only the lawyers do well. "Grief" begins with the same four letters as "Grievance" and the crash victims' families certainly are individuals aggrieved by the negligence of some or all of the defendants. Maybe we can split semantic fibers over whether having their grievance abated by significant financial compensation is within the meaning of "doing well" - but under the facts of this case and their tragic losses, I think they will be at least "doing better". And so not only the lawyers.
This all having been said, apologies accepted, naturally.
WR 6-3
* Re increased servicing, even that has to be approached with care. In the late 1970's, we lost a helo when someone applied more grease then they should have as "....... well, a bit more will be even better!". Murphy's Law can be a right bu&&er!