NTSB Blames Pilot, Judge Blames Controller
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
NTSB Blames Pilot, Judge Blames Controller
Here we go again...
A Los Angeles Times article this week reports that a US District Court Judge has blamed controllers at Torrance airport (KTOA--a little less than 10 miles or so south of KLAX and home of Robinson Helicopters) for a 2003 collision between an R22 and an R44. The NTSB had previously said:
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: the student pilot in the R22's failure to comply with an ATC clearance.
The Judge found that the controllers acted "negligently and carelessly" in failing to keep "adequate vigilance and positional/situational awareness of the air traffic at and around Torrance Airport," and that one of the controllers "failed to issue clear and concise instructions" to the pilot.
In short, the NTSB said that the student pilot, Gavin Heyworth, was to blame for the collision. The Judge found that Heyworth was blameless and that ATC was to blame.
Note that this is a civil matter destined to get Mr. Heyworth a large cash award. It would be very unusual if any of this has an effect on the career of the controllers involved.
I will endeavor to find the decision and share it. It continues to amaze me that a Judge, whose job is to be a Judge, can second-guess the NTSB, whose job it is to investigate aircraft accidents. Yes, I recall that NTSB reports are not to be used in judicial proceedings, but for crying out loud, it seems absurd that these two opinions could be so diametrically opposed.
Dave
Here's the NTSB Probable Cause determination (same as the link below):
Links:
Los Angeles Times story: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3483774.story
NTSB Probable Cause Determination: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...19X01921&key=1
NTSB Narrative: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...4FA037A&akey=1
AirNav KTOA Page: http://airnav.com/airport/KTOA
A Los Angeles Times article this week reports that a US District Court Judge has blamed controllers at Torrance airport (KTOA--a little less than 10 miles or so south of KLAX and home of Robinson Helicopters) for a 2003 collision between an R22 and an R44. The NTSB had previously said:
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: the student pilot in the R22's failure to comply with an ATC clearance.
The Judge found that the controllers acted "negligently and carelessly" in failing to keep "adequate vigilance and positional/situational awareness of the air traffic at and around Torrance Airport," and that one of the controllers "failed to issue clear and concise instructions" to the pilot.
In short, the NTSB said that the student pilot, Gavin Heyworth, was to blame for the collision. The Judge found that Heyworth was blameless and that ATC was to blame.
Note that this is a civil matter destined to get Mr. Heyworth a large cash award. It would be very unusual if any of this has an effect on the career of the controllers involved.
I will endeavor to find the decision and share it. It continues to amaze me that a Judge, whose job is to be a Judge, can second-guess the NTSB, whose job it is to investigate aircraft accidents. Yes, I recall that NTSB reports are not to be used in judicial proceedings, but for crying out loud, it seems absurd that these two opinions could be so diametrically opposed.
Dave
Here's the NTSB Probable Cause determination (same as the link below):
NTSB Identification: LAX04FA037A
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, November 06, 2003 in Torrance, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/29/2007
Aircraft: Robinson R22 Beta II, registration: N206TV
Injuries: 2 Fatal, 1 Serious.
A Robinson R22 Beta II and a Robinson R44 collided in midair while in the traffic pattern. The R22 pilot did not broadcast that he was a student pilot, and the controller did not think that the R22 pilot was a student pilot based on the quality of his radio transmissions. The R22 pilot had been practicing at a helipad north of runway 29R, and was returning to his parking area on the ramp south of runway 29L. The R44 pilot was departing from runway 29L on a touch-and-go. The R22 was above the R44, and descending to the southwest while the R44 was climbing straight ahead on runway 29L at the time of the collision. A tower controller instructed the R22 pilot to hold when he requested to go from the helipad to parking. After traffic passed, the controller advised him that he could proceed in right traffic flying a downwind traffic pattern for runway 29R to the helipad. The R22 pilot requested takeoff to land at his parking area. The controller instructed him to fly westbound. A few seconds later, the controller cleared the R44 pilot for the touch-and-go option on runway 29L, and in the same transmission cleared the R22 pilot to make a right turn to the downwind on runway 29R. About 45 seconds later, the controller informed the R22 pilot that he could expect a clearance to cross midfield when the controller got a chance. About 20 seconds later, the controller instructed the R22 pilot to turn right. About 30 seconds after that, he cleared the R22 pilot to land on runway 29R; the R22 pilot acknowledged about 5 seconds later with his call sign. The controller immediately transmitted for him to turn right, and cleared him to land on runway 29R. There was no further communication from the R22 pilot. The R22 was still in a position to turn and land on runway 29R. It began a right turn, but then instead of landing on the runway, it crossed 29R and continued descending toward 29L at a continuously reducing angle. The controller had looked away to work other traffic. As he turned to inform the R44 of the R22 landing on the parallel runway, he observed the collision. Reconstruction of the collision geometry placed the R22 above and slightly forward of the R44, and on a similar track. Based on a visibility study, once the R22 pilot turned toward his pad while he was north of runway 29R, he was not in a position to see the R44. During the takeoff, the R44 pilot was not in a position to see the R22 prior to impact.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: the student pilot in the R22's failure to comply with an ATC clearance.
14 CFR Part 91: General Aviation
Accident occurred Thursday, November 06, 2003 in Torrance, CA
Probable Cause Approval Date: 5/29/2007
Aircraft: Robinson R22 Beta II, registration: N206TV
Injuries: 2 Fatal, 1 Serious.
A Robinson R22 Beta II and a Robinson R44 collided in midair while in the traffic pattern. The R22 pilot did not broadcast that he was a student pilot, and the controller did not think that the R22 pilot was a student pilot based on the quality of his radio transmissions. The R22 pilot had been practicing at a helipad north of runway 29R, and was returning to his parking area on the ramp south of runway 29L. The R44 pilot was departing from runway 29L on a touch-and-go. The R22 was above the R44, and descending to the southwest while the R44 was climbing straight ahead on runway 29L at the time of the collision. A tower controller instructed the R22 pilot to hold when he requested to go from the helipad to parking. After traffic passed, the controller advised him that he could proceed in right traffic flying a downwind traffic pattern for runway 29R to the helipad. The R22 pilot requested takeoff to land at his parking area. The controller instructed him to fly westbound. A few seconds later, the controller cleared the R44 pilot for the touch-and-go option on runway 29L, and in the same transmission cleared the R22 pilot to make a right turn to the downwind on runway 29R. About 45 seconds later, the controller informed the R22 pilot that he could expect a clearance to cross midfield when the controller got a chance. About 20 seconds later, the controller instructed the R22 pilot to turn right. About 30 seconds after that, he cleared the R22 pilot to land on runway 29R; the R22 pilot acknowledged about 5 seconds later with his call sign. The controller immediately transmitted for him to turn right, and cleared him to land on runway 29R. There was no further communication from the R22 pilot. The R22 was still in a position to turn and land on runway 29R. It began a right turn, but then instead of landing on the runway, it crossed 29R and continued descending toward 29L at a continuously reducing angle. The controller had looked away to work other traffic. As he turned to inform the R44 of the R22 landing on the parallel runway, he observed the collision. Reconstruction of the collision geometry placed the R22 above and slightly forward of the R44, and on a similar track. Based on a visibility study, once the R22 pilot turned toward his pad while he was north of runway 29R, he was not in a position to see the R44. During the takeoff, the R44 pilot was not in a position to see the R22 prior to impact.
The National Transportation Safety Board determines the probable cause(s) of this accident as follows: the student pilot in the R22's failure to comply with an ATC clearance.
Los Angeles Times story: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...,3483774.story
NTSB Probable Cause Determination: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief.asp?e...19X01921&key=1
NTSB Narrative: http://www.ntsb.gov/ntsb/brief2.asp?...4FA037A&akey=1
AirNav KTOA Page: http://airnav.com/airport/KTOA
niknak
Join Date: Dec 2001
Location: UK
Posts: 2,335
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I suppose that insurance companies are involved, so ineviatebly this will go to appeal.
Given that the insurance companies will have stacks of cash to appeal this into the next century and that its the word of the NTSB v a judge with no avaition experience who is fond of his own opinion, it doesn't take a genius to work out who will come out on top.
That said, it's an extremely unpleasant state of affairs for the families involved who are the only one's who will really suffer.
Given that the insurance companies will have stacks of cash to appeal this into the next century and that its the word of the NTSB v a judge with no avaition experience who is fond of his own opinion, it doesn't take a genius to work out who will come out on top.
That said, it's an extremely unpleasant state of affairs for the families involved who are the only one's who will really suffer.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: California USA
Posts: 719
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
By way of clarification...
These are FAA air traffic controllers, so they were defended by government lawyers. Therefore, on the controller side, there's no insurance company that will draw this thing out.
Dave
These are FAA air traffic controllers, so they were defended by government lawyers. Therefore, on the controller side, there's no insurance company that will draw this thing out.
Dave
