|
Atlas Crash - Pilot's Family Files Lawsuit
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 On Feb. 23, 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, 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 |
I don't think suing like that is particularly helpful.
|
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
(Post 10574309)
I don't think suing like that is particularly helpful.
|
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
(Post 10574309)
I don't think suing like that is particularly helpful.
|
Originally Posted by ironbutt57
(Post 10574316)
helpful or not to whom?
|
Originally Posted by AerocatS2A
(Post 10574309)
I don't think suing like that is particularly helpful.
|
Originally Posted by aterpster
(Post 10574492)
Perhaps the best defense is an offense.
|
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? |
Originally Posted by Sailvi767
(Post 10574726)
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? |
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. |
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.
Originally Posted by the article that Airbubba linked
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. |
Originally Posted by Capt Scribble
(Post 10574739)
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. The airline also failed to ensure pilots were well-trained or well-rested, the suit states. |
Originally Posted by Ian W
(Post 10574494)
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.
|
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..
|
Originally Posted by ironbutt57
(Post 10574316)
helpful or not to whom?
|
Originally Posted by ironbutt57
(Post 10574316)
helpful or not to whom?
the lawsuit may serve to force the company/NTSB whomever to reveal details |
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? |
Originally Posted by wrench1
(Post 10575645)
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.
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. 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. |
Originally Posted by wrench1
(Post 10575645)
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.
|
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. |
Originally Posted by Meester proach
(Post 10574505)
exactly what I thought if the rumours are correct. |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10575693)
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 |
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. |
Originally Posted by CaptainMongo
(Post 10576139)
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) |
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. |
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. |
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 . |
Originally Posted by FIRESYSOK
(Post 10576770)
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. |
Originally Posted by wrench1
(Post 10576116)
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.
|
Originally Posted by Maninthebar
(Post 10576915)
Do you know any lawyers? The ones I know care about their jobs,
|
Originally Posted by wrench1
(Post 10577380)
It would be interesting to read the actual claimant filed on this accident.
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-an...r-767-tragedy/ The 'disruptive atmosphere' at ABX seems to be the only training issue mentioned in this synopsis of the lawsuit. |
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10577506)
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. |
Originally Posted by fox niner
(Post 10576314)
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. 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? |
1 Attachment(s)
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?
|
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10577764)
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?
|
Originally Posted by Airbubba
(Post 10577764)
Is it a placeholder document that will be amended as details emerge from the investigation?
|
Originally Posted by wrench1
(Post 10577791)
Was the crew considered "contractors" to Atlas or Amazon??
18. At the time of the subject crash, Aska was an employee working for Atlas. |
Originally Posted by CaptainMongo
(Post 10576139)
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. |
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.
|
| All times are GMT. The time now is 20:07. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.