![]() |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3178539)
If it was solely stupid pilot tricks, they'd have laid all the blame by now.
So I'd guess there's a systemic problem, either with navaids or the airplane. They have to tread carefully and methodically before handing down verdicts which could significantly impact entire fleets or navigation systems. The 145 is known to have an issue with LOC tracking... But still, make sure you have the required visual refs before descending below 100'. I am very surprised that the report is not out yet as well. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3178539)
If it was solely stupid pilot tricks, they'd have laid all the blame by now.
So I'd guess there's a systemic problem, either with navaids or the airplane. They have to tread carefully and methodically before handing down verdicts which could significantly impact entire fleets or navigation systems. The 145 is known to have an issue with LOC tracking... There reaches a point where due diligence REQUIRES a safety agency, you know, like the National Transportation SAFETY Board, to report issues, ESPECIALLY those which could significantly impact fleets or navigation systems. Saying ‘we didn’t think you needed to know and we didn’t want you to worry your silly heads over the matter’ didn’t work for the FAA and Boeing with MCAS and it won’t work with the general public if there is another mishap involving the same problem. Yeah, the government has sovereign immunity but qualified immunity for government employees? Well, Colorado has already removed it under their state laws. I would hate to be the NTSB guy who knew about a systemic airline safety problem and was sitting on that knowledge to keep from rocking the boat, when the next mishap happened. They might find themselves open to civil damages AND criminal charges. It’s time for the NTSB to get the report out. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3192241)
There reaches a point where due diligence REQUIRES a safety agency, you know, like the National Transportation SAFETY Board, to report issues, ESPECIALLY those which could significantly impact fleets or navigation systems. Saying ‘we didn’t think you needed to know and we didn’t want you to worry your silly heads over the matter’ didn’t work for the FAA and Boeing with MCAS and it won’t work with the general public if there is another mishap involving the same problem.
Yeah, the government has sovereign immunity but qualified immunity for government employees? Well, Colorado has already removed it under their state laws. I would hate to be the NTSB guy who knew about a systemic airline safety problem and was sitting on that knowledge to keep from rocking the boat, when the next mishap happened. They might find themselves open to civil damages AND criminal charges. It’s time for the NTSB to get the report out. They pretty much have to know it before they slap down recommendations (NTSB) or directives (FAA). In an emergency they don't have to prove it first but suspecting isn't good enough. Industry groups and aviation associations tend to push back hard legally and politically against edicts like the half-baked AD's that we see from time to time. Also the NTSB does have to maintain credibility, in the interest of the big-picture, and shooting from the hip is counter-productive to that. |
Originally Posted by rickair7777
(Post 3192273)
Also the NTSB does have to maintain credibility, in the interest of the big-picture, and shooting from the hip is counter-productive to that. There was a 30 day suspense on Class A mishap reports in the USAF. It’s been damn near two years. The flying public has a right and a need to know what the NTSB does know, including any uncertainties and inadequacies of that data. In the post MCAS world, government agencies electing to just not tell the public about potential safety issues is not a viable plan. |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3192241)
Yeah, the government has sovereign immunity but qualified immunity for government employees? Well, Colorado has already removed it under their state laws.
I would hate to be the NTSB guy who knew about a systemic airline safety problem and was sitting on that knowledge to keep from rocking the boat, when the next mishap happened. They might find themselves open to civil damages AND criminal charges. It’s time for the NTSB to get the report out. |
Originally Posted by WhistlePig
(Post 3192360)
Federal Government employees have absolute immunity. You can reasonably rely on incorrect information form a federal government employee to your detriment, and there is no recourse. The Supreme Court held long ago, and The Court continues to affirm this principle in the interest of government and judicial efficiency. The NTSB is not worried about being sued for damages. At some point however, a FOIA request to the NTSB might be appropriate.
The general rule at common law was that in order for a government official to be protected by absolute immunity for common law torts, not only did the official have to be acting within the outer perimeter of his/her official duties, but the conduct at issue also had to be discretionary in nature. Westfall v. Irwin, 484 U.S. 292, 297-298 (1988). In enacting the Federal Employees Liability Reform and Tort Compensation Act of 1988 (FELRTCA), Congress abrogated this common law rule and extended absolute immunity for common law torts to all federal employees regardless of whether the conduct at issue was discretionary. See United States v. Smith, 499 U.S. 160 (1991). FELRTCA confers such immunity by making the Federal Tort Claims Act the exclusive remedy for all common law torts committed by federal employees while acting within the scope of their office or employment. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(1). However, the immunity conferred by FELRTCA does not extend or apply to suits against federal employees for violation of the Constitution or federal statutes. Thus, government officials sued for constitutional torts continue to be protected only by qualified immunity. 28 U.S.C. § 2679(b)(2). See Harlow v. Fitzgerald, 457 U.S. 800, 807 (1982); Butz v. Economou, 438 U.S. 478 (1978). Where applicable, qualified immunity protects an official from trial and the burdens of litigation. See Mitchell v. Forsyth, 472 U.S. 511, 526 (1985). https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-res...ed-individuals |
Originally Posted by Excargodog
(Post 3192364)
Not exactly:
A smart lawyer can find seams in that zone defense. https://www.justice.gov/jm/civil-res...ed-individuals |
Originally Posted by WhistlePig
(Post 3192372)
A smart lawyer would only look if someone else is paying and paying in advance.
You'd have to prove some sort of intentional conspiracy to break the law. |
So now - over 3 years into this - is there EVER going to be an NTSB report on this mishap?
|
FWIW a few months ago in KBRO the ATIS had a notam saying the LOC was giving erroneous indications to emb145 aircraft, but e170/175 and other types were not affected. Still waiting for the report though...
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 06:06 AM. |
Website Copyright © 2026 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands