Atlas Crash - Pilot's Family Files Lawsuit

[Airbubba]

According to an earlier Wall Street Journal article Aska was the pilot flying when the mishap occurred.

The family of a pilot who died in this year's Amazon Air fatal crash is suing Amazon and cargo contractors claiming poor safety standardsRachel Premack (https://www.businessinsider.com/author/rachel-premack)

On Feb. 23, Atlas Air (https://www.businessinsider.com/category/atlas-air) Flight 3591 crashed in Texas, killing all three onboard. The plane was contracted to move Amazon cargo by the e-commerce giant's growing logistics arm.

Atlas Air pilots Capt. Ricky Blakely and First Officer Conrad Jules Aska, as well as Mesa Airlines Capt. Sean Archuleta, who was riding in the jump seat, died in the crash. And, in the weeks before the accident, pilots who were contracted for Amazon Air told Business Insider that an accident was likely.

The surviving family of Aska, who died at 44, claims in a new lawsuit that negligence from Atlas Air and Amazon, as well as Florida-based companies F&E Aircraft Maintenance and Flightstar Aircraft Services, "directly and proximately caused the death" of the pilot. The family is suing the four companies in a lawsuit filed on Sept. 19 in the 11th Circuit Court for the State of Florida.

"Conrad was the leader of the family," Elliot Aska, who is the late pilot's brother, told Business Insider. "We looked to him. He was a strong, vibrant person."

Conrad is survived by several family members including his daughter Kayla Aska, who is 19 and in college. "That's something now she has to experience in a whole different way," Elliot said. "She won't have the privilege of his guidance." What the lawsuit allegesAtlas Air, which is contracted to fly Amazon Air's planes along with air cargo company ATSG, employed Aska. The company, according to the federal suit, "owed a duty to the decedent to maintain and use the subject aircraft with the highest degree of care, including a nondelegable duty to ensure its airworthiness, and to exercise the highest degree of care to prevent injury of any kind."

The airline also failed to ensure pilots were well-trained or well-rested, the suit states. The lawsuit claims that Amazon also played a role in those actions.

"Amazon knew or should have known that its history of overworking pilots and forcing them to fly under fatiguing conditions and with little rest time would create an unreasonable risk of harm or death to persons, like decedent, aboard the aircraft," the suit states.

The NTSB said on March 5 that the Boeing 767-300 cargo jet entered some turbulence shortly before the plane's crash landing. Then, the engines increased to maximum thrust, after which the airplane pitch turned slightly up. That "startled the cockpit crew," The Journal reported (left=https://www.wsj.com/articles/pilot-error-suspected-in-fatal-atlas-air-cargo-crash-11552680411), citing several sources familiar with the details.

The crew then tried to push the nose of the plane down. At a 49-degree angle, this caused an unusually steep descent, The Journal reported.

Pilots previously told Business Insider that the actions taken during the flight were "perplexing" and not akin to typical flight maneuvers.

"I can't imagine," a pilot and former aviation-safety officer in the US military told Business Insider. "It sounds so off to me — totally counter to my instincts and training. I'd kick the autopilot and auto throttles off pretty darn fast."



https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-atlas-air-fatal-crash-pilots-sue-2019-9 (https://www.businessinsider.com/amazon-atlas-air-fatal-crash-pilots-sue-2019-9)

[AerocatS2A]

I don't think suing like that is particularly helpful.

[deeceethree]

I don't think suing like that is particularly helpful.
But the lawyers will think it is, whatever the rights and wrongs of this accident happen to be.

[ironbutt57]

I don't think suing like that is particularly helpful.

helpful or not to whom?

[aterpster]

helpful or not to whom?

Perhaps the best defense is an offense.

[Ian W]

I don't think suing like that is particularly helpful.

On the face of it this appears to be a straight forward LOC and crash. The extended delay in reporting anything of substance purely because ICAO agreements allow such delays do appear to be a way of obfuscating the issues and hoping that interest will be lost in the event. A legal action may be the only way of getting the NTSB to actually finish what should have been a simple investigation.

[Meester proach]

Perhaps the best defense is an offense.

exactly what I thought if the rumours are correct.

[Sailvi767]

I wonder what exactly their case will be based on. Will they sue claiming the pilot in question was not qualified and capable in the aircraft and based on his training history should have been removed from flight status?

[tdracer]

I wonder what exactly their case will be based on. Will they sue claiming the pilot in question was not qualified and capable in the aircraft and based on his training history should have been removed from flight status?

I wonder the same thing - reportedly the pilot flying at the time is the one whose family is suing - are they going to claim he was a lousy pilot and shouldn't have been allowed to fly?

[Capt Scribble]

Sail & TD, .... looks to me that they are claiming that he was pushed over the edge by fatigue. I expect that they know what is in the report.

[Lonewolf_50]

Is the Captain's family also suing? It would seem that the concerns that the FO's suit raises would apply to the Captain as well.
Atlas Air, which is contracted to fly Amazon Air's planes along with air cargo company ATSG, employed Aska. The company, according to the federal suit, "owed a duty to the decedent to maintain and use the subject aircraft with the highest degree of care, including a nondelegable duty to ensure its airworthiness, and to exercise the highest degree of care to prevent injury of any kind."
The airline also failed to ensure pilots were well-trained or well-rested, the suit states. The lawsuit claims that Amazon also played a role in those actions.

[tdracer]

Sail & TD, .... looks to me that they are claiming that he was pushed over the edge by fatigue. I expect that they know what is in the report.

Capt, I''m specifically referring to this statement - more specifically the 'well trained' bit:
The airline also failed to ensure pilots were well-trained or well-rested, the suit states.

As to what's in the report, I may be wrong, but my suspicion is that the NTSB is going to say 'pilot error' and point to a sub-par pilot. The delay in releasing the report is that they want to make damn sure they've properly crossed all the t's and dotted all the i's before they hang the guy out to dry. I doubt they would be sharing that with the family ahead of time.

[filejw]

On the face of it this appears to be a straight forward LOC and crash. The extended delay in reporting anything of substance purely because ICAO agreements allow such delays do appear to be a way of obfuscating the issues and hoping that interest will be lost in the event. A legal action may be the only way of getting the NTSB to actually finish what should have been a simple investigation.

NTSB investigations generally take a minimum of 12 months and that time is normally mentioned in press releases or news conferences at the time of the accident. If pressing safety issues arise they make announcements and seek remedy thru the FAA . The fact that someone filed a lawsuit means nothing to them and will have no effect on the final report timeline. 12 to 18 months is the norm .

[ironbutt57]

I get a warm fuzzy feeling there is something on the CVR we are not being told about...other than that it's hard to really PROVE who made which control inputs, we can "surmise, guesstimate, build a circumstantial case" based on who was making radio transmissions, and the past history of the pilots, but proving it is another matter...the lawsuit may serve to force the company/NTSB whomever to reveal details inconvenient to the family members that are best kept private, in order to defend themselves..

[AerocatS2A]

helpful or not to whom?
Anyone. I don't think the family will feel better and I don't think any meaningful change will be made to the way the company operates that wouldn't have been made anyway.

[wrench1]

helpful or not to whom?
It doesn't matter. Welcome to the world of US Tort Law where logic and common sense are sometimes left at the door. It would be interesting to read the actual claimant doc filed. Before all said and done there will probably be a few more filings.
the lawsuit may serve to force the company/NTSB whomever to reveal details
The investigation is protected by regulation/law and the CVR recordings/transcripts are protected by Congressional mandate where even the NTSB are not allowed to disclose them. There have been rare disclosures in the past but I doubt seriously this will be one. Once the final report is released I'm sure we'll have an idea what happened.

[jack11111]

Quote from NTSB:
" A cockpit voice recorder (CVR) group was convened and will complete a transcript of the entire event. The CVR transcript will be released when the public docket is opened."

When will the public docket be opened?

[Airbubba]

The investigation is protected by regulation/law and the CVR recordings/transcripts are protected by Congressional mandate where even the NTSB are not allowed to disclose them. There have been rare disclosures in the past but I doubt seriously this will be one.

Actually, CVR transcripts are normally published by the NTSB at a hearing or when the accident docket is made public online.

From the NTSB website:

...under federal law, transcripts of pertinent portions of cockpit voice recordings are released at a Safety Board public hearing on the accident or, if no hearing is held, when a majority of the factual reports are made public.

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/pages/cvr_fdr.aspx

From the NTSB CVR Handbook:

14.3. Per 49 USC Section1114(c), a factual report with a transcript is released to the public only under the following circumstances (see 49 USC Section 1114(c)–Disclosure, availability, and use of information).

14.3.1. In the event that a public hearing is held, the CVR factual report with the attached transcript shall be released into the public docket at the time of the public hearing. The general public, including parties to the investigation, may not receive the CVR transcript prior to the time of the public hearing.

14.3.2. In the event that a public hearing is not held, the CVR factual report is released into the public docket only when the majority of the factual reports are placed into the docket. The general public, including parties to the investigation, may not receive the CVR transcript prior to the time the transcript is placed into the public docket.

https://www.ntsb.gov/news/pages/cvr_fdr.aspx

Much of what in the past would be transcribed as 'non-pertinent conversation' is now included verbatim in the published transcript. Expletives may be deleted from the transcript as deemed necessary according to the CVR Handbook.

[aterpster]

The investigation is protected by regulation/law and the CVR recordings/transcripts are protected by Congressional mandate where even the NTSB are not allowed to disclose them. There have been rare disclosures in the past but I doubt seriously this will be one. Once the final report is released I'm sure we'll have an idea what happened.
The audio of the CVR is protected but not a transcript. If the CVR recording is readable a transcript will be made and included in both the docket and the final report.

[Airbubba]

There are purported CVR recordings posted online on YouTube and elsewhere. Some, like the widely circulated Air Florida 90 tape seem to be authentic. Others appear to be dramatizations from the published transcripts done for documentaries or airline training. A few appear to be outright hoaxes like some of the MH370 stuff being passed around.

Airline urban legends and crew bus stories often seem to claim missing details from the published transcripts like the 'shut up gringo!' line before pulling the GPWS circuit breaker on a 1980's Avianca CFIT accident. In the aftermath of the 2013 Southwest hard landing mishap at LaGuardia the captain supposedly said 'I just don't know what happened.' 'You just crashed the plane is what happened' was the FO's alleged reply. None of these quotes appear in the officially published transcripts.

[BewareOfTheSharklets]

exactly what I thought if the rumours are correct.

For those of us out of the loop, what are the rumours?

[wrench1]

Actually, CVR transcripts are normally published by the NTSB at a hearing or when the accident docket is made public online.
Originally posted by aterpster; The audio of the CVR is protected but not a transcript
Yes you both are correct as the transcripts are released but the actual recordings are protected. I combined two replies and didn't properly proof the result. My original intent was to reply to the "other than that it's hard to really PROVE who made which control inputs" comment above as in my experience the cockpit audio recording can be very telling in who was doing what at what time. Having compared recordings to transcripts on several occasions the raw audio can have different effect on the "facts" as presented in the transcripts.

[CaptainMongo]

When the FAR 117 Duty time limits bill was written cargo operations were included. When the bill was signed into law, cargo operations were excluded.

Apparently our DC politicians believe cargo pilots are not susceptible to the same circadian rhythm issues as commercial air carrier pilots. If unreasonable scheduling (and unreasonable in my mind is anything contrary to FAR 117) is exposed in this lawsuit, it will have been a worthy endeavor. A lawsuit exposing that will create a far more powerful incentive to include cargo pilots under 117, than an NTSB report.

[Sailvi767]

The DC politicians got paid a lot of money to exclude cargo operations and there was no fear of voter blowback as with passenger operations.

[Euclideanplane]

When the FAR 117 Duty time limits bill was written cargo operations were included. When the bill was signed into law, cargo operations were excluded.
(and unreasonable in my mind is anything contrary to FAR 117)

You mean, anything contrary to FAR 117, as it would have applied to passenger operation, which in this case it wouldn't have. Obviously the lawmakers already did decide that it is fine and dandy that a few more cargo drivers collide with the planet. It is hard to see what has changed.

[fox niner]

But is a 49 degree push-over going to be caused by fatigue?
Or a 37 degree?
Or how many degrees are going to be caused by the exclusion of FAR 117?

don’t answer. My point is, that all the aforementioned arguments will never cause such an agressive move. There must be something else. And it is actively being withheld.

[fdr]

A duty of care argument that is predicated on the respondents having not taking action to terminate or suspend the claimants party from undertaking the occupation would take some tortuous argument to not run afoul of laches.

"...ahem, the unicycle rider was unable to ride the unicycle, but wanted to still do so. The rider fell off and hit his head, which would not have occurred had the unicycle owner had stopped the rider from continuing to ride...., thereby the injury was caused by [insert name]"

v

"... did the rider know he was not cut out for riding the unicycle? Was the rider forced or coerced to ride the unicycle against his/her will? Was the unicycle rider given opportunity to sort out his riding skills if the owner knew of the problem?"

If competency was a known issue, then it was known to all parties involved, unless it was a surprise pregnancy... How do you make the elements of the claim without acknowledging that the claimant was aware and thereby has accountability that mitigates the claim, it is essentially a waiver defence.

[FIRESYSOK]

The truth will emerge. The lawyers don’t actually care who crashed the plane; they see an opportunity and have sold it to the family as an alternate reality. Perception and posturing are everything in our amazing new world .

[Maninthebar]

The truth will emerge. The lawyers don’t actually care who crashed the plane; they see an opportunity and have sold it to the family as an alternate reality. Perception and posturing are everything in our amazing new world .

Do you know any lawyers? The ones I know care about their jobs, certainly, but care more for doing their jobs WELL and in so doing getting the best results for their clients.

We should not be content with an arrangement that could permit corporations (manufacturers, airlines, freight companies) to come to arrangements with regulators about liability without scrutiny from the individuals affected. As this scrutiny must have a legal framework (i.e. not simple journalism or vengeance) then we must have lawyers to help all parties through to a just solution.

If we must have lawyers then let us have the best lawyers possible and not treat them as if they were pariahs.

[aterpster]

Yes you both are correct as the transcripts are released but the actual recordings are protected. I combined two replies and didn't properly proof the result. My original intent was to reply to the "other than that it's hard to really PROVE who made which control inputs" comment above as in my experience the cockpit audio recording can be very telling in who was doing what at what time. Having compared recordings to transcripts on several occasions the raw audio can have different effect on the "facts" as presented in the transcripts.
Nonetheless, each certified party to the NTSB investigation gathers in the NTSB's Washington, DC CVR room and listen to the audio along with the NTSB's CVR team member. All of them sign off on the transcript before it is final.

[wrench1]

Do you know any lawyers? The ones I know care about their jobs,
I guess you haven't encountered too many US Tort plaintiff attorneys then. While there are some that are above board, in my experience most are concerned only for the out-right win or settlement regardless of the circumstances. And this becomes quite obvious when you read their initial court filings and present the list of wrongful acts committed. It would be interesting to read the actual claimant filed on this accident.

[Airbubba]

It would be interesting to read the actual claimant filed on this accident.

I haven't been able to find the actual lawsuit online but here are more details from an article posted today. As with some other recent widebody freighter crashes (e.g. FDX at NRT, UPS at BHM) there may not have been any mechanical problems with the aircraft.

The Wrongful Death Act case was filed last week by Elliott Aska, a family member of first officer Conrad Aska, against Atlas, Amazon and the carrier’s maintenance suppliers, F&E Aircraft Maintenance Miami and Flightstar Aircraft Services.

Mr Aska claims Atlas Air, as the operator, “breached its duty of care to occupants of the subject aircraft, including the decedent, in some or all of the following ways: failing to ensure the airworthiness of the subject aircraft; failing to properly maintain the subject aircraft; failing to make necessary upgrades to the subject aircraft; failing to ensure proper use of the subject aircraft; and failing to protect against known or foreseeable risks and to take precautionary measures”.

He claims: “Due to Atlas Air’s negligent actions and omissions, the subject aircraft failed to perform in the manner reasonably expected in light of its nature and intended purpose.”

Amazon and the maintenance companies face similar claims of negligence. The aircraft was also carrying items for the US Postal Service, which was not named in the lawsuit.

The case also references claims by Atlas pilots weeks before the crash that the chance of an accident was a “ticking time bomb”, owing to pilot overwork and fatigue.

It added that the FAA had warned ABX Air, another Amazon supplier, over creating “a disruptive and confrontational atmosphere” during pilot training. The filing also outlined other recent Atlas Air incidents, including a hard landing in July 2018 and an aircraft which veered off a runway in October 2018.

https://theloadstar.com/atlas-air-and-amazon-facing-wrongful-death-lawsuit-after-767-tragedy/


The 'disruptive atmosphere' at ABX seems to be the only training issue mentioned in this synopsis of the lawsuit.

[ironbutt57]

I haven't been able to find the actual lawsuit online but here are more details from an article posted today. As with some other recent widebody freighter crashes (e.g. FDX at NRT, UPS at BHM) there may not have been any mechanical problems with the aircraft.



https://theloadstar.com/atlas-air-and-amazon-facing-wrongful-death-lawsuit-after-767-tragedy/


The 'disruptive atmosphere' at ABX seems to be the only training issue mentioned in this synopsis of the lawsuit.

well...if the stories were accurate, another training issue might surface, allegedly those of the FO at his previous employer..

[etudiant]

But is a 49 degree push-over going to be caused by fatigue?
Or a 37 degree?
Or how many degrees are going to be caused by the exclusion of FAR 117?

don’t answer. My point is, that all the aforementioned arguments will never cause such an agressive move. There must be something else. And it is actively being withheld.

Surely that is the heart of the matter.
Was the aircraft destroyed by inadvertence, deliberately or by some unfortunate accident.
The steep dive is way outside of any normal control input. what brought it about?

[Airbubba]

The lawsuit filed by Elliott Aska in Miami-Dade Circuit Court is attached to this post. Is it a placeholder document that will be amended as details emerge from the investigation? Is it a fishing expedition to put new material into the public domain during the discovery process? Or is it a shakedown attempt hoping that the defendants don't want questionable operational or employment decisions made public and they will settle?

[ironbutt57]

The lawsuit filed by Elliott Aska in Miami-Dade Circuit Court is attached to this post. Is it a placeholder document that will be amended as details emerge from the investigation? Is it a fishing expedition to put new material into the public domain during the discovery process? Or is it a shakedown attempt hoping that the defendants don't want questionable operational or employment decisions made public and they will settle?

bingo!!!!! to the latter.....

[wrench1]

Is it a placeholder document that will be amended as details emerge from the investigation?
What I find interesting is they (Aska) include his employer Atlas in the filing. In most (all?) states an employee/surviving family can not sue the employer due to state workman's compensation laws as the work comp will pay out on the death claim. Was the crew considered "contractors" to Atlas or Amazon?? Then no workman's comp. I'm no expert on this side but something is amiss here. As the rotor turns...as they say on my end of the business.

[Airbubba]

Was the crew considered "contractors" to Atlas or Amazon??

From the civil complaint:

18. At the time of the subject crash, Aska was an employee working for Atlas.

[MarkerInbound]

When the FAR 117 Duty time limits bill was written cargo operations were included. When the bill was signed into law, cargo operations were excluded.

Apparently our DC politicians believe cargo pilots are not susceptible to the same circadian rhythm issues as commercial air carrier pilots. If unreasonable scheduling (and unreasonable in my mind is anything contrary to FAR 117) is exposed in this lawsuit, it will have been a worthy endeavor. A lawsuit exposing that will create a far more powerful incentive to include cargo pilots under 117, than an NTSB report.

The DC politicians got paid a lot of money to exclude cargo operations and there was no fear of voter blowback as with passenger operations.
In the eyes of the government a person is worth ~11 million dollars. At the time of the proposed rule there had been one Part 121 cargo fatal accident in the last ten years if I recall correctly. It was argued by UPS management and others that the cost of applying Part 117 to cargo would be in the hundreds of millions of dollars. It was better for business to accept a 22 million dollar write-off once a decade. Totally ignoring the cost of the aircraft and cargo and the fact that in about a third of airline accidents someone on the ground is killed too.

[wrmiles]

It seems they are alleging everything possible (fatigue, maintenance, airworthiness, etc) against every entity possibly involved. There is no hint of which allegations actually caused the accident, evidence of which would presumably come later.

[OldnGrounded]

What I find interesting is they (Aska) include his employer Atlas in the filing. In most (all?) states an employee/surviving family can not sue the employer due to state workman's compensation laws as the work comp will pay out on the death claim. Was the crew considered "contractors" to Atlas or Amazon?? Then no workman's comp. I'm no expert on this side but something is amiss here. As the rotor turns...as they say on my end of the business.

One of the exceptions that permits employees to sue outside of workers' comp is when an employer has inadequate coverage to compensate for the loss. Also, whether it works or not, it's always easier to name all the defendants you can think of in the original claim. If some or all counts are dismissed as to some defendants, you've lost nothing. And, just maybe, they won't be dismissed.

Our legal system is deliberately adversarial. Plaintiffs' attorneys in cases like this know that the defendants are going to have high-powered counsel with killer instinct, so there's no advantage to being "reasonable" from the outset.

[tdracer]

It seems they are alleging everything possible (fatigue, maintenance, airworthiness, etc) against every entity possibly involved. There is no hint of which allegations actually caused the accident, evidence of which would presumably come later.

That's SOP when filing a lawsuit - allege everything against everybody. It's relatively easy to drop something out of the suit once filed, much harder to add if it turns out you missed someone or something.
Maninthebar - yes I've known and dealt with a number of lawyers over the years. A few came across as fine, outstanding people and good lawyers, I wish I could say they were in the majority. But I can't - far too many were at the opposite end of the spectrum.

[wrench1]

One of the exceptions that permits employees to sue outside of workers' comp is when an employer has inadequate coverage to compensate for the loss.
I believe that is true for an employee. But for the surviving family to bring suit there are 2 qualifiers that must be satisfied: there is actual harm to the survivors and the employee was not negligent in his death. If in fact the FO was pilot flying then might be hard to pass the latter test. However, each state has different work comp laws.

[fox niner]

If you need a lawyer, watch out. They will always tell you what YOU want to hear. Not whether the legal path you want him go down, is even possible, wise, smart or desireable.