Atlas Crash - Pilot's Family Files Lawsuit
Originally posted by aterpster; The audio of the CVR is protected but not a transcript
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: 43N
Posts: 264
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Korea
Posts: 126
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
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.
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.
"...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.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: Zone of Alienation
Age: 79
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 .
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.
Guest
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: On the Beach
Posts: 3,336
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Last edited by wrench1; 24th Sep 2019 at 00:56.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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-an...r-767-tragedy/
The 'disruptive atmosphere' at ABX seems to be the only training issue mentioned in this synopsis of the lawsuit.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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-an...r-767-tragedy/
The 'disruptive atmosphere' at ABX seems to be the only training issue mentioned in this synopsis of the lawsuit.
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.
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.
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?
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Surrounded by aluminum, and the great outdoors
Posts: 3,780
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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?
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.
Last edited by wrench1; 24th Sep 2019 at 09:55.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Rockytop, Tennessee, USA
Posts: 5,898
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
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.
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.
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: Hailey, ID
Posts: 14
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.