Category Archives: Aviation

The Claims are Paid, Now What? Subrogation!

The Claims are Paid, Now What? Subrogation!

by Scott Brooksby

“Sir, it is wrong to stir up law-suits; but when once it is certain that a law-suit is to go on, there is nothing wrong in a lawyer’s endeavoring that he shall have the benefit, rather than another.” –Samuel Johnson

Introduction

Subrogation is defined for present purposes as the substitution of one person in the place of another with respect to a lawful claim or right. Subrogation is the right that every insurance company reserves in all insurance policies to recover losses from a third-party who contributed to or caused the loss.  It is one of the oldest concepts in jurisprudence.  However, the doctrine is not well understood, even by lawyers and judges who may not deal with subrogation issues on a regular basis.

Webster’s defines subrogation as:

The assumption by a third party (such as a second creditor or an insurance company) of another’s legal right to collect a debt or damages

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/subrogation

Subrogation in the aviation context has important implications for insurers and insureds. When markets are rising, most carriers make money on their investments.  When markets are down, and especially when they crash, as they did in 2008 and 2009, carriers may lose money, in part because margins are somewhat limited by market performance.  However, subrogation claims, when carefully evaluated and handled, provide carriers a right to recover dollars that may be easier to collect than premium dollars.  Successful collection on subrogation claims may have significant impact on insurer financial performance.  Insureds also benefit from effective subrogation claims because ever-increasing deductibles can be recovered and result in better loss history and lower rates.

Brief Historical Overview: Roman Origins

Subrogation, as a legal concept, dates back to Roman times. Under the reign of Emperor Hadrian (AD 117-AD 138) Roman law began to shape the building blocks of subrogation.  The relation of suretyship could be created by stipulation.  Gary L. Wickert, The Societal Benefits of Subrogation https://www.mwl-law.com/defending-subrogation/. For broad historical perspective, see Saul Litvinoff, Subrogation, 50 La. L. Rev. (1990) http://digitalcommons.law.lsu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=5249&context=lalrev.

Although modern subrogation may have had its roots in Roman suretyship, scholars have generally noted that the Roman law required a more positive act to transfer rights before subrogation could occur. Therefore, many have raised the possibility that the modern doctrine arose somewhat independently of Roman and French antecedents as a purely English theory that seems to have had its origins in the courts of Equity.  M.L. Marasinghe, An Historical Introduction to the Doctrine of Subrogation: The Early History of the Doctrine I, 10 Val U.L. Rev. 45 (1975).

Commenting on Roman equity, one scholar expressed a view that subrogation was unknown to the Romans in the context in which it appears in the common law today. In Roman law, “subrogate” was a well-known term of constitutional law, providing for the replacement of one official by another or replacing one official’s actions with another’s action. Id., at 46, citing W.W. Buckland, Equity in Roman Law, 47-54 (1911).

Of subrogation, Buckland further reasoned that

“The corresponding right in English law, at least in case of a surety, amounts to actual subrogation, and is declared to be based on natural justice, no attempt being made to deduce it from any defined principle.” Id., citing Buckland at 54.

Therefore, under English common law, no express transference of rights has been required. Marasinghe, supra, at 46.

Brief History: Anglo-American Subrogation

“I do think that Magna Carta and international law are worth paying some attention to”

–Noam Chomsky

Despite its ancient roots, modern subrogation is a distinct concept, bearing little resemblance to the Roman version. It appears that the concept of subrogation was formally incorporated into the English common law in the Magna Carta, which provides:

Neither We nor Our bailiffs shall seize any land or rent for any debt so long as the debtor’s chattels are sufficient to discharge the same; nor shall the debtor’s sureties be distrained so long as the debtor is able to pay the debt. If the debtor fails to pay, not having the means to pay, then the sureties shall answer the debt, and, if they desire, they shall hold the debtor’s lands and rents until they have received satisfaction of the debt which they have paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has discharged his obligation to them.  A.E. Dick Howard, Magna Carta, Text & Commentary 39 (rev. ed. 1998).

Although a complete historical analysis is far beyond the scope of this paper, the English judges linked subrogation to the equitable principle of contribution. Id., citing Pothier, Treatise on Obligation 259 (3d Amer. Ed. 1853).  By 1782 the common law courts had recognized the doctrine of subrogation and were using it “as if it had always been part of the common law of England.”  Marasinghe, at 49.  In Mason v Sainsbury, 3 Doug. 61, 64, 99 Eng. Rep. 525 (1782),  Lord Chief Justice Mansfield stated:   “Every day, the insurer is put in the place of the insured.  The insurer uses the name of the insured.” Id.

However, subrogation in the modern Anglo-American context has different meanings in different contexts. Modern subrogation can be generally categorized into three types:

Contractual subrogation, which is based on the contract between the parties such as subrogation language in an insurance policy. This is sometimes called “conventional subrogation”.

Equitable subrogation, sometimes called “legal subrogation,” is a product of equity. Equitable subrogation is not dependent on the existence of any contract assignment or privity.  It arises by operation of law out of the fairness doctrine.

Statutory subrogation is a mechanism that gives a carrier a right to recover certain benefits. Statutory subrogation may arise in areas such as workers compensation, hospital liens, and Medicare among other things.

Subrogation Waivers

A typical subrogation clause in an aviation insurance contract may read: “If we pay a claim under your policy, we will take over your right to recover that amount from any other person or organization.  You agree to cooperate with us and not to do anything that will interfere with our chances of recovery.”

The aviation industry is contract-intensive. Aviation-related contracts very often contain subrogation waivers in which each of the parties to the contract agrees to maintain its own insurance and also agrees to waive subrogation rights that may otherwise exist or arise with respect to insured losses. Waivers of subrogation most often apply to hull claims, but may sometimes be requested in product liability, airplane, airport, and hangar leases and pilot training.

A representative sample of a contractual subrogation waiver typically reads as follows:

“To the extent that any loss of any kind is covered or paid by any insurer, the contracting parties hereby waive subrogation or contribution rights against each other and their respective officers, agents and employees, and the contracting parties shall notify their respective insurers of this waiver of subrogation agreement and shall cause this waiver of subrogation agreement to be included in the insurance policies secured by each of the contracting parties.

A waiver of subrogation will result in the insurance carrier waiving the right to recover amounts paid under the policy from the person or entity that caused the loss. For example, a regional operator may contract with an FBO for pilot service.  Before a flight, the FBO requires execution of a subrogation waiver against the FBO related to the pilot service.  Assume further that the insurance company agrees to the waiver.  On the flight, the pilot fails to lower the landing gear, causing significant damage.  Without the waiver, the insurance company would have paid to repair the loss and then pursued a subrogation claim  against the FBO’s insurance.

As a practical matter, failure to provide a requested waiver may result in a failure to obtain the desired contract. However, before executing a waiver, insureds should recognize that there are significant downsides:

  • The insured could void the policy if the waiver is provided without receiving approval and endorsement from the insurer.
  • Losses that could have been subrogated may be fully charged against the policy loss record.
  • There may be a premium charge involved in providing the waiver.

The validity of waivers in aviation contracts has long been recognized. In Continental Manufacturing Corp. v. Underwriters at Lloyd’s of London, 185 Cal. App. 2d 545 (1960), the court held that an aviation insurer was not obligated to make a hull loss payment to its insured.  The insured had executed an earlier lease agreement that had released the party responsible, and therefore improperly defeated the insurer’s right of subrogation.

Aircraft Financing and Subrogation Waivers

Aircraft financiers typically require a waiver of subrogation to protect themselves from any action by the airline’s insurers who, at common law, are subrogated to all rights which the insured may have against third-parties, including financiers. Rod D. Margo, Aspects of Insurance in Aviation Finance, 62 J. Air L. & Com. 423, 455 (1996).  http://scholar.smu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1428&context=jalc

Under English law, a waiver of subrogation clause cannot be relied on by a person who is not a party to the insurance contract. Id., at 456, citing National Oilwell (U.K.) Ltd. v Davy Offhsore Ltd., (1993) 2 Lloyd’s rep. 582, 602-04 (Eng. Q.B.); Enimont Supply SA v. Chesapeake Shipping Inc. (the “Surf City”), (1995) 2 Lloyd’s Rep. 242 (Eng. Q.B.).  Therefore, unless the financier has also been endorsed as an additional insured under the airline’s policy, a waiver of subrogation will likely be unenforceable for lack of privity of contract.

A waiver of subrogation is probably unnecessary where the financier is endorsed as an additional insured under the airline’s policy because the policies make it clear that an insurer cannot exercise any such rights of subrogation against their own insureds. Margo, supra, at 456.

Subrogation and the Non-Owner Pilot

Whether it is the owner or a lessor, some broad form of all-loss insurance is generally carried by the party that has the care, custody and control of the aircraft, and is responsible for maintaining the airworthiness of the aircraft and has dispatch authority. A non-owner pilot is the pilot named under the policy other than the owner, a pilot using the aircraft under the open pilot warranty or “permissive pilot” provision ,or a renter.

The insurance contract is an agreement between the insurer and the purchaser of the policy. Unless the pilot is an employee of the owner, he may be subject to a subrogation action.  For this reason, as discussed above, many contract pilots and pilot service companies usually demand that the aircraft owner or named insured provide the contract pilot with a waiver of subrogation and status as an “additional insured” under the policy.

The Importance of Spoliation Considerations in Aviation Subrogation

Complex issues arise when the insurer elects to undertake a spoliation investigation. For example, physical evidence which may be critical to insured and uninsured losses may need to be collectively preserved.  It may not even be clear which components or evidence in a subrogation claim relate to insured and uninsured losses for some time.  At the outset, it is necessary to determine who is responsible for preservation of any relevant evidence.  In most subrogation cases the plaintiff must preserve the evidence, but in aviation cases that responsibility generally falls to a potential defendant.

In aviation cases, preservation of evidence in subrogation cases is more complicated because the NTSB has complete authority to assume custody of evidence relevant to its investigation. .  Pursuant to 49 U.S.C. § 1901 et. seq., the NTSB also has the ability to limit party participation status.  See 49 C.F.R. § 831.11(a)(1).

Since the regulations also exclude persons who represent claimants or insurers from party status under 49 C.F.R. 831.11(a)(3), the NTSB and potential defendants typically have control of the investigation and the evidence during the important period between the time of the accident and the time the evidence is released to the owing party, often the hull insurer. The NTSB also prohibits lawyers or insurers or anyone whose role is the pursuit or defense of claims from participating in the process.

If the NTSB destroys, loses or otherwise is responsible for spoliation of the evidence, a lawsuit against the NTSB is precluded by the discretionary function exception to the Federal Tort Claims Act. See Black Hills Aviation Inc. v. United States, 34 F.3d 968, 976 (10th Cir. 1994).

The potential defendant manufacturers or other party participants to an NTSB accident investigation do not share the same protections or immunities. In Lowe v. TDU Industries, Inc., 2005 WL 1983750 (Cal. App 2d Dist. Aug. 18, 2005), an engine manufacturer lost the engine cylinders.  The court ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to an inference instruction that the cylinders would have supported plaintiff’s theory.  California, in particular, has created affirmative liability for spoliation of evidence.  See, e.g., Johnson v. United Services Automobile Association, 79 Cal. Rptr. 2d 234 (1998).

The Made Whole Doctrine

Among the many subrogation doctrines which is not well understood, and which takes many different state-specific forms, is the made whole doctrine. A complete discussion of the made whole doctrine is far beyond the scope of this article.

Because subrogation may lead to adverse consequences for insureds, the common law developed the made whole doctrine which limits the use of subrogation before an insured party receives full compensation for damages. As one scholar notes, the made whole doctrine is the “principal weapon used by contemporary courts to curb the harsh effect of contractual subrogation on the rights of the insured.”  Parker, Johnny C., The Made Whole Doctrine: Unraveling the Enigma Wrapped in the Mystery of Insurance Subrogation. Missouri Law Review, Vol. 70, 723, 723-775 (October, 2005) http://law.missouri.edu/lawreview/files/2012/11/Parker.pdf.

As originally developed, the made whole doctrine applied to subrogation, whether legal or conventional. Therefore, even where the insurer had paid all of the policy proceeds and included an expressed subrogation provision in the policy, the right to subrogation was stayed until the insured received complete compensation. Id., at 773.

However, many states have adopted a modified application of the made whole doctrine and have concluded that since the doctrine is of equitable origins and conventional subrogation is grounded upon a legal contract, the parties are free to agree that the rule does not apply. At least 14 jurisdictions have adopted a view that parties are free to agree that the made whole rule is inapplicable. Id.

The Anti-Subrogation Doctrine

Simply defined, the anti-subrogation doctrine provides that subrogation rights exist only as to third-parties.  The doctrine is a defense which provides that since the insurance company is standing in the shoes of its insured, it cannot sue its own insured, in whose shoes it stands.  The doctrine also prevents an insurer from pursuing a subrogation action against a third-party who qualifies as an additional insured.  The rule implicates public policy considerations, including the prevention of suits by insurers against insureds to recover for the very losses for which they have paid for coverage in the form of premiums and the avoidance of conflicts of interest.

Aviation insurance is a specialty line of coverage, often involving very large risks and more complex underwriting issues than most types of insurance. As a result, there are fewer aviation insurers, and the anti-subrogation doctrine may come into play more often.

If the potential defendant in a subrogation action is an insured or an additional insured on the same policy of insurance, a carrier paying a property damage claim cannot subrogate against an insured or additional insured on the same policy.

If the potential target of a subrogation action and the party sustaining the loss are both insured under different policies with the same insurer, there is a split of authority.

If a plaintiff property insurance carrier and a separate liability insurance carrier have both provided policies of insurance to the defendant, the anti-subrogation rule generally does not apply and subrogation is generally permitted if the companies are both members of the same family or group of companies.

Warranty Limitations That May Affect Subrogation Claims

Few lawyers enjoy working through situations that require analysis of the application of the economic loss rule. Although a complete discussion of the rule is far beyond the scope of this paper, it can be defined simply as the prohibition of the recovery of damages under tort theories such as negligence or strict liability when a product defect results in only economic loss, but does not cause personal injury or damage to any other property other than the product.  For a detailed explanation of the economic loss rule see Jamie Mayrose, “A “Simple” Explanation of the Economic Loss Rule”, Under Construction, Vol. 17, No. 3, Winter, 2016.  https://www.americanbar.org/publications/under_construction/2016/winter2016/economic_loss_rule.html

In its application, the economic loss rule precludes contracting parties from asserting tort causes of action as a means to recover economic or commercial losses arising out of a contract, and precludes a purchaser of a product from recovering from a manufacturer on a tort theory for damages that are solely economic.

The economic loss doctrine has implications in the context of aviation subrogation. In general, the economic loss doctrine applies to bar recovery if an allegedly defective part is part of the original bargain when an aircraft was purchased.  However, if the replacement part is not part of the original sale, the economic loss rule does not bar tort claims.  This is important in the context of aviation where contractual defenses such as warranty disclaimers and limitations of liability may severely restrict the ability to recover under contract theories.

The following warranty limitation is representative of the type of clause typically contained in many types of aviation-related contracts such as overhaul facilities:

Limited Warranty for Services and Components: _________ warrants that the services performed hereunder will comply with applicable FAA regulations in effect as of the date the work is performed (as interpreted by the FAA office having jurisdiction over the facility at which the work is performed) and will be free from defects in workmanship and material, including new components manufactured by ________, under normal use for one (1) year and for ninety (90) days on used components refurbished by ________ from date of installation. The warranty on all other new and used components shall be limited to the warranty provided by the supplying manufacturer or vendor, if any. This warranty does not apply to (i) normal wear and tear, (ii) the consequences of accident, negligence, abuse or misuse, or of repair, removal, reinstallation or alteration other than by ___________ and (iii) to Customer furnished parts or equipment or to work which, at Customers direction, was not performed in accordance with ____________ standard operating procedures. The sole and exclusive remedy of Customer, and ___________ sole and exclusive liability, with respect to this warranty is limited to repair or replacement (at _____________ option) of the nonconforming or defective work or component. Such repair or replacement shall be performed at a ___________ facility and Customer shall be responsible for transportation costs. THE FOREGOING WARRANTY IS IN LIEU OF, AND THE CUSTOMER HEREBY WAIVES, ALL OTHER WARRANTIES, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY OR FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR USE.

Limitation of Liability: In no event shall ___________ be liable for any special, incidental, consequential and/or punitive damages, including, without limitation, loss of profits, loss of goodwill, loss of use, loss of time, diminution of value, or inconvenience, even if informed of the possibility of such damages. In the event _________ physically damages Customer’s property, Customer’s sole and exclusive remedy, and ____________ sole and exclusive liability, is limited to the repair or replacement (at ______________ option) of the damaged portion of the property.

As the representative limited warranty and limitations of liability provisions above make clear, pursuit of subrogation claims for the full award of damages which would be recoverable in the absence of such limitation provisions becomes much more questionable.

Conclusion

In addition to many other important subrogation principles, subrogation in the aviation context requires particularly careful economic evaluation, and budgeting.  Both pursuing and defending aviation subrogation cases in an economically rational manner requires careful adherence to litigation budgets.

The economics of aviation subrogation and the efficient pursuit of the intended economic offset or recovery, or the successful defense of a subrogation claim both require careful assessment of the potential recovery, the technical issues associated with proving causation, the impact of NTSB investigations and the other logistics of the potential claim, such as location of the wreckage, discovery, and witnesses.

In addition, the economics which may drive whether or not to pursue or defend a subrogation claim in the aviation context will be influenced by factors such as subrogation waivers, aircraft financing contracts, the made whole doctrine, complex conflict and ethical issues, and even the variations on policies covering pilots.

Scott Brooksby will speak about aviation subrogation at the 2017 Aviation Insurance Claims Conference

Birds, pets, stowaways, lasers, and other hot topics in aviation
Scott Brooksby will be a featured speaker at a prominent aviation conference in Baltimore, Maryland.

Scott Brooksby will be a featured speaker at the Aviation Insurance Claims Conference (AViCON) held in Baltimore, Maryland on September 14-15, 2017.

AViCON is an annual conference focused on aviation industry accident investigation, and conflict and claim resolution.  This unique, two day format centers around a fictional case study and features discussions lead by legal and insurance experts.  Together, the group will explore considerations and complexities of the case from accident investigation, legal discovery, multi-party litigation, and resolution. This conference is designed for professionals involved in aviation insurance, including underwriters, claims managers, lawyers, risk managers, insurance brokers, airline flight safety directors, airline board members with flight safety responsibility, claims investigators, and aircraft product manufacturers.

AViCON case studies are set within an environment that includes many possible choices of forum and law.  The accident scenario is presented with state-of-the-art interactive animation prepared by RTI’s Imaging Sciences Studios, and highlights a fresh set of issues of current concern and debate within the aviation market. This event presents a unique opportunity to gain a fuller understanding of the entire range of complexities involved in aviation safety, in a concise and effective format.

For more information, please visit: Aviation Insurance Claims Conference 2017

Pennsylvania Court Takes New Approach in Forum Non Conveniens Dispute

On December 5, 2016, the Superior Court of Pennsylvania denied the appeal of a trial court decision to grant a forum non conveniens motion to dismiss claims brought by European family members following a fatal plane crash. The court rejected the idea that plaintiffs’ choice of forum should be given “overwhelming deference.” The court also appears to have adopted an approach favoring the qualitative comparison of categories of evidence available in the U.S. and in the alternative foreign forum. Bochetto, et al., v Dimeling, Schreiver & Park, et al., 2016 PA Super 272, Lexis 729 (Dec. 5, 2016).

The case arose from the crash of a twin-engine Piper PA-34-220T Seneca V on September 15, 2009 near Castro Verde, Portugal. The aircraft, which was manufactured by Piper Aircraft in Florida, crashed during a nighttime training exercise, killing the three occupants including a Spanish flight instructor, a student pilot who was a Dutch citizen, and a student pilot with dual Dutch-Australian citizenship. The case was initially filed in the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia. The plaintiffs alleged claims based on strict products liability, negligence, breach of express and implied warranties, fraud and civil conspiracy against 14 defendants, all of whom were located in the United States.

The manufacturer and some defendants filed a motion to dismiss pursuant to a Pennsylvania statute recognizing the doctrine of forum non conveniens, Pa.C.S. § 5322(e). Defendants argued that the aircraft was maintained in Portugal, the pilot was trained in Portugal, the underlying accident occurred in Portugal, the Portuguese government conducted the accident investigation, and all of the non-party witnesses and relevant documents were in Portugal, all of the decedents were from Europe, and the real parties in interest were from Europe.  The plaintiffs opposed the motion, countering that all the evidence related to the design and manufacture of the aircraft was located in the United States, the negligence claims against the foreign defendants were untenable, and the flight school had a strong presence in the United States.

The trial court granted the motion, and the plaintiffs appealed. Citing Pennsylvania law and Piper Aircraft Co. v. Reyno, 454 U.S. 235, 257–58 (1981), The Superior Court of Pennsylvania held that the trial court erred when it limited its discussion to those forum non conveniens factors that were specific to Pennsylvania, and did not address the network of connections to the United States as a whole. 2016 PA Super 272, Lexis 729 at *6.

The plaintiffs argued that they were due greater deference in their choice of forum in this case because “the choice was between Portugal, where no defendant or plaintiff is located, and the United States where all of the defendants reside, where the evidence supporting plaintiffs’ claims is maintained, and where the misconduct causing the accident occurred.” 2016 PA Super 272, Lexis 729 at *17.

The appellate court reasoned that although the plaintiffs were correct that their home countries of Spain, the Netherlands, and Australia may not present the most convenient forums, that did not mean that plaintiffs had “free choice” of any other forum since in a global case such as this, no one jurisdiction may stand out as convenient. The trial court was required to give some deference but not overwhelming deference to plaintiffs’ choice of forum.

The court analyzed the trial court’s methodology in balancing public and private interests, and noted that the trial court did conclude that some items weighed in favor of an American forum.  For example, evidence relating to aircraft design, original and subsequent American owners, and maintenance before the plane was sold to a European company were all located in the United States. The appellate court looked approvingly on the trial court’s comparison of the availability of other categories of evidence, such as the location of evidence related to more recent aircraft maintenance and pilot error in Portugal. The more relevant evidence was the documentation of maintenance and upkeep after the aircraft was sold to the Belgian company that leased it to the Portuguese flight school. By engaging in such a qualitative assessment of the evidence and its importance, rather than merely counting up items in a list, the appellate court found that the district court did not abuse its discretion and affirmed the dismissal of plaintiffs’ case.  2016 PA Super 272, Lexis 729 at * 22.

Pilot Mental Fitness in the Context of the International Mental Health Crisis

Aviation lawyer
Scott Brooksby, Portland product liability and aviation lawyer

Pilot Mental Fitness in the Context of the International Mental Health Crisis

by Scott Brooksby, Olson Brooksby PC

“But nobody ever thought about having to protect the passengers from the pilots”

David Neeleman, founder and former CEO, Jet Blue

Introduction

The importance of pilot mental fitness is not a new concept.  However, pilot mental health has been the subject of ferocious scrutiny in the wake of Germanwings 9525 and MH370.  Perspectives on detecting, reporting, treating, and monitoring pilot mental health, and the associated regulatory framework may be different for various groups of interested parties including:  (1) the flying public; (2) the airlines; (3) the regulators; and (4) pilots and crew.  Some knowledgeable observers, including the first TSA Administrator John Magaw, have been quoted raising questions about whether or not reinforced cockpit doors are too secure, and should provide a way back in the cockpit.  http://www.popularmechanics.com/flight/a10270/in-light-of-mh370-evidence-could-plane-cockpits-be-too-secure-16611747/

Overview of Germanwings 9525

  • On March 24, 2015, the A320 aircraft was on a scheduled flight en route from Barcelona to Dusseldorf, with 144 passengers and a crew of six.
  • The 27 year-old co-pilot, Andreas Lubitz, had been flying for Germanwings since June, 2014.
  • Lubitz’s First Class Medical Certificate was issued in April 2008, and had been renewed yearly.
  • Since July, 2009, the medical certificate had contained a waiver due to a prior major depressive episode without psychotic symptoms that lasted from 8/08-7/09.
  • The waiver in the medical certificate provided that the certificate would be revoked if there was a relapse into depression.
  • In December, 2014, Lubitz experienced symptoms consistent with the onset of a psychotic depressive episode.
  • Lubitz then consulted with several doctors, including a psychiatrist, who prescribed an anti-depressant.
  • None of the doctors notified the authorities or Germanwings.
  • Lubitz waited until he was alone in cockpit at cruise altitude, and then he changed the selected altitude from 38,000 feet to 100 feet, leading to a steady descent into terrain.
  • He also increased and decreased the airspeed inputs multiple times.
  • Lubitz ignored the PIC pounding on the cockpit door, and calls from civilian and military air traffic controllers and from other aircraft and kept cockpit door locked.
  • Lubitz had practiced similar inputs on a flight earlier that day.
  • The official BEA investigation concluded that the crash was intentional.

The crash in the French Alps was investigated by French Authorities, with assistance from their German counterpart, the Federal Bureau of Aircraft Accident Investigation (“BFU”), with assistance from the F.B.I.  The Bureau d’Enquêtes et d’ Analyses (“BEA”) released its preliminary report on May 6, 2015 and its final report on March 13, 2016.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiGgKbt7u7NAhUY_WMKHVF7ApUQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.bea.aero%2Fuploads%2Ftx_elydbrapports%2FBEA2015-0125.en-LR.pdf&usg=AFQjCNE7DAUyu78jJpgHb8wZt8yKS9yjhw

On March 27, 2015, just three days after the crash, the European Aviation Safety Agency (“EASA”) issued a temporary recommendation that air carriers insure that at least two flight crew members, including one pilot, occupy the flight deck at all times during a flight.

The Mental Health Landscape

It is not a secret that there is a mental health crisis in the United States.  According to the CDC, a staggering 25% of the U.S. adult population has some form of mental illness. https://www.cdc.gov/mentalhealthsurveillance/

According to the CDC, suicide is the ninth leading cause of death, with more than 42,000 suicides in 2014.  http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/fastats/leading-causes-of-death.htm  Alarmingly, suicide is the second leading cause of death for the age group 25-34 and the fourth leading cause of death for those 35-54.  http://www.cdc.gov/violenceprevention/suicide/statistics/

An estimated 9.3 million adults in the U.S. reported having suicidal thoughts in 2013.  Females are more likely to have suicidal thoughts than males, but males take their own lives at nearly four times the rate of females, and account for 77.9% of all suicides.  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwi7_pyX–vNAhXHLmMKHSVMDzQQFgglMAE&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cdc.gov%2Fviolenceprevention%2Fpdf%2Fsuicide-datasheet-a.PDF&usg=AFQjCNGVGU8yBJOrXug-MxYn58gTllTr3Q

All of the commercial aviation disasters attributed to pilot mental health issues have involved male pilots. There have been no commercial disasters attributed to mental health involving U.S. Carriers.  A 2006 study by the FAA notes that between 1993 and 2002, there were 3648 fatal aviation accidents.  The NTSB concluded that there were 16 aircraft-assisted suicides, and one incident involving a flight student who intentionally exited a plane.  All 16 incidents involved general aviation.  The median age range for pilots in those incidents was 40 (15-67).  https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=7&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwj8k5S-muzNAhUWS2MKHboVDHkQFghGMAY&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.faa.gov%2Fdata_research%2Fresearch%2Fmed_humanfacs%2Foamtechreports%2F2000s%2Fmedia%2F200605.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGjEu9KMnh2nG0vyiCuvYoRD1Dqbg

Another study examined statistics on aircraft assisted suicide in the context of general aviation, and concluded that there were 37 cases in which pilots either committed or attempted to commit suicide between 1983 and 2012.  38% of the pilots had psychiatric problems, 40% of the pilots in suicides or attempts had legal problems, and 46% of the pilots had domestic or social problems.  http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asma/asem/2005/00000076/00000008/art00001?crawler=true&mimetype=application/pdf http://time.com/3760132/germanwings-plane-crash-pilot-suicide-andreas-lubitz/

Pilot mental fitness did not emerge as an issue with the advent of Germanwings 9525.  In 2007, the Airline Pilots Association (“ALPA”) reported that 25% of the ALPA Aeromedical Office calls were mental health-related.  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwiMs5TrgP7NAhVO5mMKHU1xAY4QFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.alpa.org%2Fportals%2Falpa%2Fpresidentscorner%2FAug2007_MentalState.pdf&usg=AFQjCNFpDSzRrIDQBMx1wZT9rOY-OJmxeQ&bvm=bv.127178174,d.cGc

Despite an apparent recognition among their own ranks that pilot mental fitness is an important issue, the pilot unions in most of the commercial crashes of the last three decades reacted skeptically, or even disputed, at least initially, claims by investigators that the crashes were intentional.

A 2014 study examined aircraft-assisted suicides in the United States, United Kingdom, German and Finland between 1956 and 2012.  The study concluded that in the United States, for the 20 year period 1993-2012, the aircraft assisted suicide rate was 0.33%.

http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/asma/asem/2014/00000085/00000008/art00010

Despite the horrifying circumstances surrounding flights such as Germanwings 9525, mental health issues arise with statistical irregularity in commercial aviation, and investigators do not always agree on the role played by mental health.  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwicxab4nOzNAhVN4mMKHTdxCyAQFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fflightsafety.org%2Ffiles%2FASWarticles%2FStatesofmind.pdf&usg=AFQjCNG567O-toF4PIsxFhGicPbpvDt3BQ&bvm=bv.126130881,d.cGc

Overview of Medical Certificate Requirements

FAA regulations require airline pilots to undergo a medical examination with an FAA-approved physician called an Aviation Medical Examiner (“AME”) every six to twelve months depending on the pilot’s age. http://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=20455

According to the Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners, “The FAA does not expect the Examiner to perform a formal psychiatric examination.  However, the Examiner should form a general impression of the emotional stability and mental state of the applicant.”  FAA Guide for Aviation Medical Examiners, 137 (2015).

The Guide also explains how the Examiner may become informed about possible mental health concerns based on questions and answers an applicant provides about background, occupation, and reasons for seeking a certificate.  Id. at 138-39.  If the AME believes there may be mental health concerns, the Examiner is instructed to either deny the certificate or defer issuing the medical certificate and note the mental health issues on the examination report.  If the medical certificate application is deferred, the Examiner is to report the findings to the FAA, which will then request further evaluation and information from the applicant.  Id. at 139.

In the United States, there are three types of medical certificates.  14 C.F.R. Part 61.  A first-class medical certificate, which is required for airline pilots, expires twelve months after the date of the medical examination for pilots under age 40, or six months after the date of the examination for pilots over age 40 at the time of the most recent medical examination.

According to 14 C.F.R. § 67.107,

  • Mental standards for a first-class airman medical certificate are:
  • (a) No established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any of the following:
  • (1) A personality disorder that is severe enough to have repeatedly manifested itself by overt acts.
  • (2) A psychosis. As used in this section, “psychosis” refers to a mental disorder in which:
  • (i) The individual has manifested delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition; or
  • (ii) The individual may reasonably be expected to manifest delusions, hallucinations, grossly bizarre or disorganized behavior, or other commonly accepted symptoms of this condition.
  • (3) A bipolar disorder.
  • (4) Substance dependence, except where there is established clinical evidence, satisfactory to the Federal Air Surgeon, of recovery, including sustained total abstinence from the substance(s) for not less than the preceding 2 years. As used in this section –
  • (i) “Substance” includes: Alcohol; other sedatives and hypnotics; anxiolytics; opioids; central nervous system stimulants such as cocaine, amphetamines, and similarly acting sympathomimetics; hallucinogens; phencyclidine or similarly acting arylcyclohexylamines; cannabis; inhalants; and other psychoactive drugs and chemicals; and
  • (ii) “Substance dependence” means a condition in which a person is dependent on a substance, other than tobacco or ordinary xanthine-containing (e.g., caffeine) beverages, as evidenced by –
  • (A) Increased tolerance;
  • (B) Manifestation of withdrawal symptoms;
  • (C) Impaired control of use; or
  • (D) Continued use despite damage to physical health or impairment of social, personal, or occupational functioning.
  • (b) No substance abuse within the preceding 2 years defined as:
  • (1) Use of a substance in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous, if there has been at any other time an instance of the use of a substance also in a situation in which that use was physically hazardous;
  • (2) A verified positive drug test result, an alcohol test result of 0.04 or greater alcohol concentration, or a refusal to submit to a drug or alcohol test required by the U.S. Department of Transportation or an agency of the U.S. Department of Transportation; or
  • (3) Misuse of a substance that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the substance involved, finds –
  • (i) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
  • (ii) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.
  • (c) No other personality disorder, neurosis, or other mental condition that the Federal Air Surgeon, based on the case history and appropriate, qualified medical judgment relating to the condition involved, finds –
  • (1) Makes the person unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held; or
  • (2) May reasonably be expected, for the maximum duration of the airman medical certificate applied for or held, to make the person unable to perform those duties or exercise those privileges.

The same standard applies to second-class and third-class airman medical certificates in 14 C.F.R. § 67.207 and 14 C.F.R. § 67.307, respectively.

Europe

Medical regulations associated with obtaining a medical certificate in Europe are arguably less specific than those in the United States.  The European Aviation Safety Agency (“EASA”), headquartered in Cologne, Germany has oversight responsibility for aviation safety in the European Union.  Commission Regulation (EU) 1178/2011 technical requirements pursuant to Regulation (EC) 216/2008, 2011 O.J. (L311) 175 (EASA Piloting Regulations), MED.A.015

The EASA regulations provide in part:

  • Applicants shall have no established medical history or clinical diagnosis of any psychiatric disease or disability, condition or disorder, acute or chronic, congenital or acquired, which is likely to interfere with the safe exercise of the privileges of the applicable licence(s).

Interestingly, the EASA regulations contain a specific provision addressing self-harm, and provide that “[a]pplicants with a history of a single or repeated acts of deliberate self-harm shall be assessed as unfit.”  MED.B.055.

The European regulations related to alcohol and drug use are also much more abbreviated than those applicable in the United States, and provide that “[a]pplicants with a mental or behavioral disorder due to alcohol or other use or abuse of psychotropic substances shall be assessed as unfit pending recovery and freedom from substance use and subject to satisfactory psychiatric evaluation after successful treatment.  Id.

Recent Regulatory Action

In response to Germanwings 9525 and MH 370, the FAA chartered the Pilot Fitness Aviation Rulemaking Committee (“ARC”) on May 11, 2015.  http://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwjZta_TuOzNAhVmHGMKHamWAX0QFggcMAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.faa.gov%2Fregulations_policies%2Frulemaking%2Fcommittees%2Fdocuments%2Fmedia%2Fpfarc-51115.pdf&usg=AFQjCNEkKMDyQJHjWUO8XlKwQYbzihamQw&bvm=bv.126130881,d.cGc

The ARC released its report on November 18, 2015.  The report generally concluded that the best strategy for minimizing the risk associated with pilot mental health is to create an environment that encourages and is supportive to voluntary self-disclosure.  The report recognized, however, that even when symptoms are recognized, pilot mental fitness issue self-reporting may be perceived as a high risk situation, with financial, and even career-ending implications.  The report contained eight recommendations:

  1. Enhance AME Training. The FAA should ensure all Aviation Medical Examiners demonstrate knowledge in assessing basic mental health concerns, and enhance AME training on this topic.
  2. Psychological Testing. The ARC does not recommend mandating formal psychological testing during the pilot hiring process nor as part of routine FAA aviation medical examination beyond those which already exist.
  3. Pilot Assistance Programs. Air carriers should develop effective pilot assistance programs.
  4. Air Carrier Education. Air carrier operators should be encouraged to implement mental health education programs…improve awareness and recognition of mental health issues, reduce stigmas, and promote available resources to assist with resolving mental health problems.
  5. Informational Material on Pilot Support Programs. The FAA should assemble and disseminate information on benchmark pilot support programs…to serve as a resource for air carriers to develop new or improve existing programs.
  6. Medical Professional Reporting. Encourage advocacy for a uniform national policy on mandatory reporting of medical issues that affect public safety.
  7. Two Persons on Flightdeck and Flightdeck Access. The ARC recommends no changes to the guidance found in applicable FAA orders.
  8. Aircraft Design Standards. The ARC believes existing aircraft and flightdeck door design standards are adequate and no changes are required by the FAA.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwino7KiuOzNAhVjF2MKHebTBakQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.eurocockpit.be%2Fsites%2Fdefault%2Ffiles%2Ffaa_pilot_fitness_arc_report_2016.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGsAkE7pif54krzJ9kCdngKa1dH5g&bvm=bv.126130881,d.cGc

Many of the recommendations contained in the report tracked issues that the  Aerospace Medical Association (“AsMA”) had been addressing just prior to the Germanwings crash.  In fact, the AsMA Coordinating Chair had just discussed the issues at the 2014 European Society of Aerospace Medicine conference in Bucharest, Romania in September, 2014, a few months before the crash of Germanwings 9505.

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0ahUKEwigz6HGu-zNAhUD6mMKHbxGCdYQFggcMAA&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.asma.org%2Fasma%2Fmedia%2FAsMA%2Fpdf-policy%2F2015%2FMental-Health-Screening-in-Aviators.pdf&usg=AFQjCNGwTH690mwDtqz8ChLiqeFU8cKnGA&bvm=bv.126130881,d.cGc

IATA and ICAO have both expressed concern about the importance in stepped up coordinated approaches to monitoring pilot mental health.

http://airlines.iata.org/agenda/monitoring-the-mental-health-of-pilots

The BEA investigation into Germanwings 9525 and the ARC report both conclude that pilot perceptions about the potentially career-ending consequences of self-reporting a mental fitness problem and the financial repercussions are serious impediments to effective self-reporting.  The BEA report noted that in December, 2014, emails created by Lubitz reflect a financial anxiety associated with his inability to obtain additional loss-of-license insurance because of the waiver in his medical certificate.

Major Commercial Crashes Involving Mental Fitness

The BEA’s preliminary report on Germanwings 9505 noted that there were only six instances of commercial flight crews intentionally crashing planes since 1980 were found in a search of ICAO and BEA databases.  It is worth noting than in two of the instances, JAL 350 and Egypt Air 990, the pilot or co-pilot were not alone in the cockpits, but other flight crew members were not able to regain control of the plane.

  • February 9, 1982. Japan Air Lines Flight 350.  35-yer-old captain, who had just returned to work a few months earlier after a year-long medical leave for psychiatric reasons.  Despite history of psychosomatic disorder, doctors deemed him fit to fly.  McDonnel Douglas DC-8 from Fukuoka to Tokyo Haneda.  Either engaged thrust reverser or cancelled auto-pilot and threw throttles forward.  First officer and flight engineer tried to restrain him but could not.  Among 166 passengers and eight crew, 24 died.
  • August 21, 1994. Royal Air Maroc Flight 630.  Scheduled flight from Agadir, Morocco to Casablanca.  About ten minutes after takeoff, while climbing through 16,000 feet, plane (ATR-42) entered steep dive and crashed into Atlas Mountains, killing all 40 passengers and four crew members.  Investigation revealed the 32 year-old pilot intentionally turned off autopilot.  The Moroccan pilots’ union disputed any conclusion that the crash was intentional.
  • December 19, 1997. Silk Air Flight 185.  The 41 year-old captain was flying a ten month-old Boeing 737-300 with a crew of 97 passengers and a crew of seven from Jakarta to Singapore.  The captain was also a pilot in the Singaporean air force and a member of the Black Knights air force flight demonstration team.  He had 7,173 flight hours.  In July, 1997, the captain had been demoted as a line-instructor pilot after he pulled a CVR circuit-breaker for non-technical reasons to preserve a conversation.  The plane dove from an altitude of 35,000 feet in one minute, diving almost vertically into the Musi River.  The crash was independently investigated by the NTSB and the Indonesian National Transportation Committee (“NTSC”).  The NTSB concluded that the pilot deliberately caused the crash. The NTSC could not determine the cause of the crash.
  • October 11, 1999. Air Botswana.  A Botswanan pilot commandeered an ATR 42-320 and circled the airport at Gaborone, Botswana for two hours.  The pilot repeatedly threatened to crash into the Air Botswana Terminal and kill himself.  After the plane ran out of fuel, it crashed into two other ATR 42s on the tarmac, destroying all three planes and killing the pilot.   The pilot had been grounded after failing a medical exam.
  • October 31, 1999. Egypt Air Flight 990.  The scheduled passenger flight to Cairo, Egypt originated in Los Angeles and had a scheduled stopover at JFK.  The Boeing 767-300 crashed into the Atlantic Ocean about 60 miles south of Nantucket, killing all 203 passengers and 17 crew members.  At the request of the Egyptian government, the NTSB investigated the accident and concluded that the 59 year-old relief co-pilot, who had more than 12,500 flight hours, intentionally crashed the plane.  As the evidence of an intentional crash grew, the Egyptian government launched its own investigation, and attempted to revoke the request made to the NTSB to lead the investigation.  The co-pilot, a married father of five, was under stress because his youngest daughter, age 10, was undergoing medical treatment in Los Angeles.  Egypt Air had attempted to defray medical expenses on both a company and employee level.
  • November 29, 2013. LAM Mozambique Airlines Flight 470.  Embraer 190, which had just been delivered in November, 2012.  Scheduled passenger flight from Maputo, Mozambique, to Luanda, Angola.  Halfway through the route, plane crashed in Namibia.  The Republic of Namibia, Ministry of Works and Transport, Directorate of Aircraft Accident Investigation (“DAAI”) investigated.  They determined (as did the Mozambican Civil Aviation Institute) that the 49 year-old captain intentionally crashed the plane by repeatedly changing the intended altitude settings from 38,000 feet to 592 feet, deploying speed brakes and repeatedly slowing the manual speed settings.  27 passengers and six crew members were killed.  The investigation revealed that the captain’s son had been killed in a car accident, which was a suspected suicide one year earlier.  The captain was also in the process of a contentious divorce after ten years of separation, and his youngest daughter had gone through heart surgery in South Africa recently.

In addition to the six passenger flights, one incident in 1976 involved a single pilot crashing an empty plane into homes on the ground, killing 11 on the ground.

  • September 26, 1976. Aeroflot, Antonov 2. The pilot directed the plane into the block of flats in Novosibirsk, Western Siberia where his ex-wife lived, killing himself and 11 occupants.

http://news.aviation-safety.net/2015/03/26/list-of-aircraft-accidents-and-incidents-deliberately-caused-by-pilots/  http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2015/03/26/world/history-plane-crashes-pilots.html?_r=0

Other Notable Non-Crash Events

On January 28, 2008. A London-bound Air Canada Boeing 767 was over the Atlantic when the co-pilot suffered a mental breakdown.  The experienced co-pilot became belligerent and uncooperative, “invoking God”, and refusing to fasten his seatbelt.  Other members of the crew forcibly removed the co-pilot and restrained him.  The plane diverted to Shannon, Ireland with 146 passengers and a crew of nine.  https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/jan/30/transport.world

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/air-canada-flight-attendant-helped-land-plane-after-co-pilot-breakdown-report-1.734832

On March 27, 2012, Jet Blue captain Clayton Osbon, who was then 49 years-old, and who had been flying for Jet Blue for 12 years, was flying from New York’s John F. Kennedy Airport to Las Vegas’s McCarran airport.  During the flight, Osbon began making comments about “taking a leap of faith” and reportedly saying “things just don’t matter”.  Osbon also began complaining about noise and began randomly flipping cockpit controls.  He also starting ranting incoherently about Jesus, Iran, terrorists, Al Qaeda and a bomb on board.  The co-pilot had the foresight to lock Osbon out of the cabin, and he was tackled by law enforcement officers who happened to be on board and en route to a security conference in Las Vegas.  The flight was diverted to Amarillo, and an off-duty pilot who was on board assisted with the landing.  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2121240/JetBlue-pilot-Clayton-Osbon-restrained-PASSENGERS-going-berserk-mid-flight.html

https://www.theguardian.com/world/2012/mar/28/jetblue-passengers-pilot-breakdown-osbon

Osbon was criminally charged with interfering with a flight crew in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Texas, and found not guilty by reason of insanity.  In a strange twist, three days after the Germanwings crash, Osbon sued Jet Blue for more than 14 million dollars, alleging the airline was negligent in permitting him to fly despite signs of mental illness.  http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/former-jetblue-pilot-sues-16m-2012-midflight-meltdown/

Employment Considerations

The FARs and federal preemption generally provide the airlines with significant discretion regarding the development, implementation and enforcement of operational safety programs, including the mental fitness of flight crew members.  Federal law sets what are only minimum standards for airlines to use in the formation of safety policies.  Under the applicable statutes, “[t]he Administrator may prescribe minimum safety standards for…an air carrier to whom a certificate is issued under section 44705 of this title…”

Federal courts have generally given the airlines wide discretion to address safety.  In Johnson v American Airlines, Inc., 745 F.2d 988 (5th Cir. 1984), the court addressed American’s overhaul of the cockpit crew training, certification and promotional system following a large number of crashes in the early 1960s.  Part of the overhaul involved an “up or out” certification system requiring flight crew to train for the next highest cockpit position.  Plaintiffs sued, alleging violation of the Age Discrimination in Employment Act.  The Fifth Circuit affirmed, holding that “the airline industry must be accorded great leeway and discretion in determining the manner in which it may be operated most safely”.  Id. at 993, quoting Murnane v. American Airlines, Inc., 667 F.2d 98, 101 (D.C. Cir. 1981).

However, preemption is not without limits, even in the context of flight crew employment, and airlines are still subject to the laws of general applicability.  In the context of pilot mental health, this may include the implications of the Americans With Disabilities Act (“ADA” 42 U.S.C. § 12112).  Under the ADA, a person is considered disabled if he or she: (1) suffers from a mental or physical impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities; (2) has a record of such impairment; or (3) is regarded as having such an impairment.  42 U.S.C. § 12102(2).

In Witter v Delta Airlines, 966 F. Supp. 1193, 1195-1197 (N.D. Ga. 1997), the court addressed pilot mental health in the context of an ADA claim.  Plaintiff had been employed by Delta as a pilot since 1967.  In February, 1992 plaintiff was involved in a domestic dispute with his wife, and threatened to commit suicide.  As a result, plaintiff was incarcerated, and sent for a psychiatric evaluation, after which he was transferred to another psychiatric facility at Delta’s request.  Plaintiff alleged that Delta told him that if he did not consent to psychiatric evaluation, he would be fired.  Plaintiff then voluntarily grounded himself because he believed that he was not medically fit to fly.

Plaintiff’s FAA Class I Medical Certification was set to expire in June, 1992.  Plaintiff found an AME who agreed to “help Plaintiff with this situation”.  Relying on the report of a psychiatrist to which the AME had referred plaintiff, the AME diagnosed plaintiff as suffering from bi-polar disorder, and found him unfit to fly.  Subsequently, plaintiff examined by an FAA psychiatrist who concluded that plaintiff had a “characterological problem that might be considered a personality disorder”.  The FAA psychiatrist also concluded that plaintiff should be issued a Class I Medical Certificate on the condition that he submit to semi-annual psychiatric reports.

Plaintiff was issued the Class I Medical Certification in February, 1993, and presented the certificate to Delta on March 1, 1993.  When plaintiff presented the Certificate to Delta’s chief pilot, Delta decided that plaintiff should be further evaluated by a senior AME who was also board certified in aerospace medicine.  Delta’s decision was made at least in part on the basis of the felony charge pending against plaintiff from the 1992 domestic dispute.  The senior AME concluded that plaintiff suffered from an Adjustment Disorder with Mixed Emotional Features but was qualified to fly.  The Senior AME noted in his report:

In returning Capt. Witter to the cockpit, the major concern is the possibility of a recurrence of this type of behavior reaction, especially while flying…. If it did occur again, even in the cockpit, I do not believe that it would be incapacitating from a safety point of view. Capt. Witter’s basic personality may make him a difficult person with whom to work. However, he does not have a psychiatric disorder at the present time. If any future unusual behavior indicates the occurrence of another adjustment disorder, Capt. Witter should be grounded permanently. Until then, he is qualified to fly.

Based on the report, Witter returned to line flying status in August, 2003.  In November, 1993, plaintiff flew a European rotation, during which he had a conflict with two other crew members which resulted in the crew refusing to follow his instructions.  After further evaluation, the Senior AME diagnosed plaintiff with Narcissistic Personality Disorder and possible Cyclothymia, and memorialized the findings in an April, 1994 report.  In response, Delta grounded plaintiff.  The FAA then convened a panel of six psychiatrists, who reviewed the case and concluded that plaintiff should not be returned to flight status.  The NTSB then overturned the FAA and restored plaintiff’s Class I Medical Certification.  Delta refused to reinstate plaintiff to flight status without further medical evaluation.

Plaintiff filed suit, alleging violation of the ADA.  In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792 (1973) the Court ruled that for claims of discriminatory treatment in employment, a plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing: (1) that he or she has a disability; (2) that he or she is a qualified individual; and (3) that he or she was subjected to unlawful discrimination because of the disability.  The burden then shifts to the employer to articulate a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the employment action.

The court granted Delta’s motion for summary judgment, and, without ever shifting the burden under McDonnell Douglas, concluded that plaintiff was not disabled.  The court noted that the regulations under 29 C.F.R. § 1630.2(j) (2) provided guidance on the factors for determination of whether a condition is substantially limiting, which include the nature and severity of the impairment, the duration or expected duration of the impairment, and the long-term impact of the impairment. Witter, 966 F. Supp. 1198

The court found that since plaintiff’s psychological condition did not appear to be exceptionally severe, and only manifested itself while plaintiff was under stress, it did not substantially impair the life activity of working.  The court also noted that the impact of the emotional disturbance was not long-term, since the NTSB had concluded that the First Class Medical Certification should be returned.  The court also noted that plaintiff was a resident of the Atlanta area, a large metropolitan area with substantial job opportunities.  The court also reasoned that there were many other pilots in management, training and administration, and while plaintiff may not be able to fly commercially, he did not even argue that he was impaired from holding any other job.  Witter, 966 F. Supp. 1199.

As discussed above, McDonnell Douglas requires the establishment of three conditions to move forward with a case of discrimination.  If the plaintiff in Witter had established that his mental condition was a disability for purposes of the first element, he still would have had to establish that he was a qualified individual, and that he was subject to unlawful discrimination for purposes of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA.  Although he was subjected to testing after the domestic incident and European rotation, it is unlike that those actions constitute unlawful discrimination.  Under the ADA, an employer is prohibited from conducting a medical examination after the commencement of employment unless such an examination is job-related and consistent with business necessity.  42 U.S.C.  § 12112(d)(4)(A).

Moreover, pursuant to 14 C.F.R. 67.113(c)(1), the FAA requires that in order to receive a first-class airman medical certificate, a person must not have any medical condition which renders that person “unable to safely perform the duties or exercise the privileges of the airman certificate applied for or held”.

In Martin v Lennox Intern. Inc., a pilot suffered a heart attack and was grounded during the six-month recovery period, after which he sought re-certification from the FAA.  342 Fed. Appx. 15 (5th Cir. 2009).  After informing his employer that there would be a delay in the re-certification process while he awaited his medical certificate he was fired.  He then brought several claims, including discrimination under the ADA.  The court granted the defendant employer’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that plaintiff could not hold a medical certificate.  Therefore, it is highly unlikely that a pilot with a mental illness that would not allow him or her to hold a medical certificate would not be able to satisfy the qualification element of a prima facie case of discrimination under the ADA.

Courts have generally ruled that an employer’s request for a medical examination when the request is grounded in good faith, and where the specific facts show that an employee may not be able to perform the essential functions of his or her job.  Sullivan v. River Valley Sch. Dist., 197 F.3d 804, 808 (6th Cir. 1999).

Plaintiff in Witter also brought state tort claims for intentional infliction of emotional distress and negligent hiring and retention, which were dismissed.  Plaintiff’s defamation claims against both the Sr. AME and Delta were also dismissed.  Plaintiff’s libel claims against Delta, and his claim against the Sr. AME for tortious interference with Witter’s contractual relationship with Delta were also dismissed.

Confidentiality Considerations

The BEA and ARC reports both recommend the development and implementation of a unified, coordinated system of national mental health reporting.  However, the confidentiality of medical records arises through a complicated morass of federal and state statute and common law.

Privacy Considerations Under Federal Law:

  • Although the ADA contains confidentiality provisions, the ADA generally insulates air carriers from liability in cases where pilots have a mental disability.
  • Family Medical Leave Act of 1993 (FMLA). Unique eligibility requirements apply to pilots, flight attendants and other crewmembers under the Airline Flight Crew Technical corrections Act of 2009.  Eligible if (1) worked at least 60% of the minimum number of hours scheduled to work in any given month during prior 12 month period and (2) at least 60% of the minimum number of hours that the employee was scheduled to work in any given month.
  • Aviation and Transportation Security Act (ATSA). Provides immunity for air carrier or any employee of an air carrier who makes a voluntary disclosure related to a threat to aircraft of passenger safety.  49 U.S.C.A. § 44941(b).  See, Air Wisconsin Airlines Corp. v. Hoeper, 134 S. Ct. 852 (2014).
  • Health Insurance and Portability Accountability Act (HIPAA). Contains an exception  for “uses and disclosure to avert a serious threat to health or safety.  45 C.F.R. § 164.512.

Privacy Considerations Under State Law:

  • State Constitutions
  • Common Law Actions
    • Invasion of privacy
    • Breach of Duty of Confidentiality
  • State Statutes
    • Mental Health Information Statutes
    • Medical records statutes
    • Right to privacy statutes
    • Duty to protect or warn statutes

Scott Brooksby to speak on pilot accidents and to serve on the Oregon Aviation Industries Board of Directors

The Oregon Aviation Industries Board of Directors voted unanimously on August 26, 2016, to approve Scott Brooksby’s nomination to serve on the Oregon Aviation Industries Board of Directors.

Scott’s aviation law knowledge includes pilot mental conditions that may lead to accidents.  He will be speaking on this subject at the Columbia Aviation Association, www.caapilots.com, on Thursday September 1, 2016, with a focus on Germanwings Flight 9525 that impacted a mountain in March 2015.

Scott’s many years of experience in aviation litigation, his industry connections and his wide range of talents will be a huge asset to ORAVI.

ORAVI is comprised of 400+ companies in aviation and related businesses.  These include aircraft and part manufacturers, flying services, heavy lift helicopter services, unmanned aerial vehicle systems, airports, maintenance and suppliers to these industries.

The Columbia Aviation Association, where Scott is speaking on September 1,  is located at the Aurora State, Oregon Airport (UAO).  CAA was founded in 1949 as a private organization devoted to flying.  After being located at the Portland International Airport (PDX) for forty five years, members completed the beautiful new Aurora clubhouse in 1996.  Membership is by invitation only and requirements include possession of a private pilots certificate.  Most of the club’s 260 members have advanced ratings and are aircraft owners who fly on a regular basis for business and pleasure.

Pilot mental fitness is a critical aspect of aviation safety.  As Jet Blue Founder and former CEO David Neeleman recently suggested, “nobody ever thought about having to protect the passengers from the pilots”.  In the wake of the tragic circumstances surrounding Germanwings 9525 and MH370, the FAA chartered the Pilot Mental Fitness Aviation Rulemaking Committee, which released its report in November, 2015.  But mental health issues are complex, and no system of detection, voluntary, or outside reporting is perfect.  Scott will discuss the circumstances in Germanwings 9525 and other notable incidents, which have spiked in the last two decades.  Scott will discuss the findings and recommendations in the FAA ARC final report.  He will also explore the issues surrounding the current system of pilot mental health from the perspective of the flying public, the airlines, the regulators, and pilots.

The MMTJA and the Battle to Establish General Personal Jurisdiction in Foreign Aviation Disasters

Scott Brooksby wrote the following article, which was published in the American Bar Association’s Mass Torts Summer newsletter:

The MMTJA and the Battle to Establish General Personal Jurisdiction in Foreign Aviation Disasters

By Scott Brooksby – June 21, 2016

Foreign aviation disasters very often result in litigation in the United States. Many cases arising from foreign crashes brought by foreign plaintiffs against foreign defendants are dismissed based on forum non conveniens. However, a recent case decided under the Multiparty, Multiforum Trial Jurisdiction Act (MMTJA), 28 U.S.C. § 1369, illustrates the exacting standard for establishing general personal jurisdiction in foreign aviation disasters when plaintiffs seek to litigate in the United States, even when national service of process is permitted. Siswanto v. Airbus S.A.S., 2015 WL 9489952 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 30, 2015).

The Montreal Convention
Before considering the MMTJA in the context of an aviation disaster, it is important to recall that claims against air carriers, in contrast to claims against manufacturers, are governed by the Montreal Convention. The Montreal Convention of 1999 was ratified by the United States in September 2003 and went into effect in November 2003. It limits the forums in which foreign plaintiffs can file lawsuits against air carriers. The Montreal Convention is a successor to the Warsaw Convention of 1929 and, in addition to important new provisions, consolidates and clarifies prior provisions of the Warsaw Convention. Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air, opened for Signature at Montreal on 28 May 1999, ICAO Doc. No. 4698 [hereinafter Montreal Convention].

The Montreal Convention applies to “all international carriage of persons, baggage or cargo performed by aircraft for reward.” Montreal Convention, supra, art. 1 § 1. When the Montreal Convention governs, damages provided under the convention are the only remedy available to foreign plaintiffs against a carrier. In El Al Israel Airlines v. Tseng, 525 U.S. 155 (1999), the Court held that personal injury claims arising from aircraft operations within the scope of the convention are not allowed unless permitted under the terms of the convention. Id. at 176. In light of the holding in Tseng, other federal courts have held that the damages available under the convention are the sole cause of action. See, e.g., Ugaz v. Am. Airlines, 576 F. Supp. 2d 1354 (S.D. Fla. 2008).

For purposes of forum non conveniens motions, Article 33 of the Montreal Convention provides that there are five forums in which a plaintiff may bring claims against a carrier:

1. the domicile of the carrier;

2. the principal place of business of the carrier;

3. the place where the airline ticket was purchased;

4. the place of destination; and,

5. in personal injury cases, the principal and permanent place of residence of the plaintiff

The so-called fifth jurisdiction, the plaintiff’s principal and permanent place of residence, was added by the Montreal Convention and expanded on the Warsaw Convention provisions governing proper forums. Under the Montreal Convention, the principal and permanent residence is the “one fixed and permanent abode of the passenger at the time of the accident.” Montreal Convention, supra, art. 33 § 3(b).

Under the fifth jurisdiction principle, a plaintiff may bring the lawsuit for personal injuries in the forum in which he or she has his or her principal and permanent place of residence, and to or from which the carrier operates flights, and in which the carrier leases or owns commercial premises by itself or by another carrier with which it has a commercial agreement. A “commercial agreement” means an agreement made between carriers and related to joint service of passengers by air. Montreal Convention, supra, art. 33 § 3(a).

The MMTJA and Foreign Aviation Disasters
Although the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions addressed many aspect of air crash litigation, they did not specifically address U.S. federal court handling of mass disaster litigation, and they addressed only aviation-related cases against carriers. In 2002, the MMTJA was enacted to create greater efficiency in disaster cases in the federal system. The MMTJA grants district courts original jurisdiction where minimal jurisdictional requirements are met and where the cases arise out of a “single accident, where at least 75 natural persons have died in the accident at a discrete location[.]” 28 U.S.C. § 1369(a). The permissible lawsuits include both wrongful death and personal injury.

The first case arising under the MMTJA was the Station nightclub fire in West Warwick, Rhode Island, on November 20, 2003, in which 100 people were killed and 230 injured. Lawsuits were filed throughout New England in state and federal courts. Passa v. Derderian, 308 F. Supp. 2d 43 (D.R.I. 2004).

The MMTJA widely broadens federal jurisdiction in mass disaster cases and provides that the district courts will have original jurisdiction wher

(1) a defendant resides in a State and a substantial part of the accident took place in another State or other location, regardless of whether that defendant is also a resident of the State where a substantial part of the accident took place;

(2) any two defendants reside in different States, regardless of whether such defendants are also residents of the same State or States; or

(3) substantial parts of the accident took place in different States.

28 U.S.C. § 1369(a)(1)–(3).

Under the MMTJA, “minimal diversity” exists between adverse parties if any party is a citizen of a state and any adverse party is a citizen of another state or a foreign state. Corporations are deemed to be a citizen of any state in which it is incorporated, or has its principal place of business, and is deemed to be a resident of any state in which it is licensed to do business or is doing business. 28 U.S.C. § 1369(c)(1)–(2). The district courts must abstain from hearing any action in which the “substantial majority” of all plaintiffs are citizens of a single state in which the primary defendants are also citizens, and from hearing any claims that are governed primarily by state law. 28 U.S.C. § 1369 (b)(1)–(2). Therefore, the MMTJA provisions providing for removal are much broader than the diversity jurisdiction requirements under 28 U.S.C. § 1332.

Siswanto v. Airbus S.A.S., 2015 WL 9489952 (N.D. Ill. Dec. 30, 2015), arose from the December 28, 2014, crash of Air Asia Flight No. 8501, an Airbus A320-216 flying from Indonesia to Singapore. During flight, a rudder system malfunctioned. Subsequent miscommunication between the pilots and a crew member’s removal of a circuit breaker disengaged the autopilot and caused the plane to roll and enter a prolonged stall before crashing into the Java Sea. All 155 passengers and 7 crewmembers were killed. The investigation was handled by the Indonesia National Transportation Safety Committee, which released its final report on December 1, 2015. Komite Nasional Keselamatan Transportasi, Republic of Indonesia, Final Aircraft Accident Investigative Report (2015).

The heirs and personal representatives of the deceased brought product liability and negligence claims against several defendants, including Airbus. Airbus moved to dismiss for lack of minimum contacts under the Fifth Amendment Due Process Clause. The plaintiffs proceeded only under a theory of general personal jurisdiction arising from Airbus’s extensive contacts with the United States as a whole.

The court reasoned that because the case was brought under the MMTJA, Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(l)(C) and the MMTJA enabled the court to consider Airbus’s contacts with the United States as a whole, and not just with the state of Illinois. However, nothing in the statutes overrode Airbus’s constitutional due process protections governing the court’s exercise of personal jurisdiction. Siswanto, 2015 WL 9489952, at *1.

Early in its jurisdictional analysis, the court noted that despite the geographic expansion of service and, in turn, the initial scope of personal jurisdiction, Rule 4(k)(1)(C) and section 1697 do not override the controlling constitutional limitations of the court’s exercise of general or specific personal jurisdiction imposed by the Fifth Amendment’s Due Process Clause. Siswanto, 2015 WL 9489952, at *2 (citing KM Enters., Inc. v. Global Traffic Techs., Inc., 725 F.3d 718, 723, 730–31 (7th Cir. 2013)). The court noted that the traditional “minimum contacts” test from International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310, 316 (1945),still governs even when the basis of personal jurisdiction involves a statute providing for nationwide service of process. Siswanto, 2015 WL 9489952, at *2.

Judge Blakey reasoned that when defendants are domiciled in the United States, the due process analysis under a nationwide service of process is straightforward. Because domestic companies and individuals “almost by definition” have minimum contacts with the United States, there may be general personal jurisdiction in any federal court in the country.Id. at *3.

The court noted that because Airbus is not a domestic company, the plaintiffs must show its contacts with the United States are sufficient to support either general or specific jurisdiction, and that general personal jurisdiction required “continuous and systematic general business contacts” such that Airbus is “essentially at home in the forum,” here, the United States as a whole, and not just the state of Illinois. Id. at *4 (citing Abelesz v. OTP Bank, 692 F.3d 638, 654, 656 (7th Cir. 2012)). The court concluded that, under Abelesz, the court’s inquiry is not whether Airbus’s contacts with the forum are simply “extensive in the aggregate.” Id. at *3 (internal citations omitted).

There was no dispute that Airbus was incorporated and had its principal place of business in France. For at least the five previous years, Airbus had not maintained any offices or employees or owned or rented property in the United States. All manufacturing on the aircraft occurred in Europe, and none of Airbus’s subsidiaries in the United States undertook this work. The A320-216 had been issued a type certificate by the European Safety Agency but not by the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA). The aircraft was sold to Air Asia Berhad, a Malaysian airline carrier that did not operate in the United States, and the aircraft had never been flown in the United States. Id. at *2.

The plaintiffs argued that four categories of contacts between Airbus and the United States warranted the court’s exercise of general personal jurisdiction. First, the plaintiffs pointed to aircraft sales in the United States, which amounted to 811 aircraft, or 6.73 percent of Airbus’s sales. The court rejected this argument, ruling that none of the sales gave rise to the crash, and noted that the Supreme Court has instructed that imputing general personal jurisdiction from a defendant’s sales in the forum, even if sizable, would stretch general personal jurisdiction beyond its reach. Id. at *4 (citing Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. 746, 760–62 (2014)).

Second, the plaintiffs argued that Airbus spends 42 percent of its aircraft-related procurement in the United States. The court also rejected this argument, stating that mere purchases, “even if occurring at regular intervals,” do not establish general personal jurisdiction when the underlying cause of action is not related to those purchases. Id. (citingHelicopteros Nacionales de Colombia, S.A. v. Hall, 466 U.S. 408, 418 (1984)); accordDaimler, 134 S. Ct. at 757.

Third, the plaintiffs argued that contacts from Airbus’s “separately incorporated” subsidiaries should be imputed to Airbus because they maintained a physical presence in the United States. The court rejected this argument on the basis that the general rule is that jurisdiction contacts of a subsidiary are not imputed to the parent. Id. (citing Abelesz, 692 F.3d at 658–59 (internal citations omitted)).

Fourth, the plaintiffs cited a 2006 article showing that the FAA certified another aircraft model, the Airbus A380. The court also rejected this argument, finding that the isolated fact of the certification of another model aircraft had no special significance as far as personal jurisdiction is concerned. Id.

Having rejected the plaintiffs’ jurisdictional arguments, Judge Blakey turned to the plaintiffs’ alternative argument that venue in the Northern District of Illinois was proper because at least one other defendant, Motorola, resided in that district. The court rejected that argument, noting that establishing venue does not establish jurisdiction and that there was no legal basis for the court to conflate jurisdiction and venue. Id. at *6.

Thus, on December 30, 2015, the court granted Airbus S.A.S.’s Rule 12(b)(2) motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. In doing so, the court rejected the plaintiffs’ argument that dismissing Airbus would set the dangerous precedent of effectively exempting Airbus from the MMTJA. The court reasoned that “[a]lthough Airbus’ contacts with the United States may have been extensive, plaintiffs have fallen far short of showing the de factorelocation that the Supreme Court has required for a foreign corporate defendant to satisfy general personal jurisdiction.” Id. at *5 (emphasis in original).

Conclusion
The significance of Siswanto and the MMTJA is that jurisdiction is analyzed on a nationwide basis, and not merely on a state-by-state basis or by looking at any particular state. Airbus’s contacts with Illinois or any other individual state are not discussed. Therefore, under the MMTJA, the court could have found that if Airbus was subject to jurisdiction in any state, jurisdiction would have been proper in Illinois as the state where the MMTJA case against Airbus was pending. Even under the statute’s broad jurisdictional sweep, encompassing the United States as a whole, a major non-American aircraft manufacturer was not in Siswanto, and may well not be in future cases, subject to personal jurisdiction anywhere in the country

Birds, Pets, Lasers, Stowaways, and Other Hot Topics in Aviation

Hot topics in aviation litigation include birds, pets, lasers, and stowaways.  Each pose the danger of catastrophic mass torts.

Bird and animal strikes pose an increasing danger to commercial, military and general aviation.  Strikes result in death and serious injury to passengers and crew, and soaring costs for aircraft damage.  Bird strikes are the second leading cause of death in aviation accidents.

According to Boeing, the first bird strike was recorded by the Wright Brothers in 1905.  The greatest loss of life directly linked to a bird strike occurred on October 4, 1960, when a Lockheed L-188 flying as Eastern Air Lines Flight 375, flew through a flock of common starlings during take-off from Logan Airport, damaging all four engines. The plane crashed into Boston harbor killing 62 of the 72 passengers on board. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q3/4/.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

Other major bird strike incidents include:

  • United Airlines Flight 297. On November 23, 1962, a Vickers Viscount 745D crashed near Columbia, Maryland after striking a flock of whistling swans while cruising at 6,000 feet.  The impact caused the horizontal stabilizer to separate, leading to loss of control.  All seventeen people on board were killed.
  • Ethiopian Airlines Flight 604. On September 15, 1988, a Boeing 737-200 ingested a flock of speckled pigeons as it took off from Bahir Dar, Ethiopia.  Both engines failed immediately, and the ensuing belly landing caused a fire that killed 35 passengers.
  • Leadair UniJet. On January 20, 1995, a Dassault Falcon 20 sucked lapwings into the No. 1 engine on takeoff, which caused an uncontrolled engine failure and a fire in the airplane’s fuselage; all 10 people on board were killed.
  • S. Air Force Boeing E-3. On September 22, 1995 the AWACS aircraft crashed shortly after takeoff from Elmendorf AFB. The aircraft lost power in both port side engines after the engines ingested several Canada geese during takeoff.  The geese had been disturbed during the takeoff of a Hercules transport moments earlier.  After reaching 250 feet, the plane crashed about two miles from the runway, killing all 24 crew members on board.
  • Ryanair Flight 4102. On November 10, 2008 a Boeing 737-8AS on final approach to Rome Ciampino Airport sustained 90 bird strikes, all from starlings.  After one engine was damaged, and the other engine ingested birds, the crew managed an emergency landing.  There were 10 injuries.  The plane, which was only eight months old, was a total loss.
  • US Airways Flight 1549. On January 15, 2009 an Airbus A320-214 lost power in both engines after multiple strikes with Canada geese shortly after takeoff from LaGuardia Airport.  About three minutes after the loss of all power, the flight crew conducted a water landing on the Hudson River.  150 passengers and five crew members sustained a total of 95 minor and five serious injuries.
  • PHI Inc., Charter. On January 4, 2009, a Sikorsky S-76C crashed into marshland about seven minutes after takeoff near Amelie, Louisiana, killing two pilots and six of the seven passengers. The helicopter’s impact with a red-tailed hawk jarred the fire suppression handles loose, which pushed the engine controls to idle, depriving the engines of fuel.

Boeing has compiled extensive data on bird strikes:

  • More than 219 people have been killed as a result of bird strikes since 1988.
  • Between 1990 and 2009, bird and mammal strikes cost the U.S. civil aviation complex $650 million per year.
  • The U.S. Air Force sustains approximately $333 million dollars in damage per year due to bird strikes.
  • About 5,000 bird strikes were reported by the Air Force in 2012.
  • About 9,000 bird and other wildlife strikes were reported for U.S civil aircraft in 2009.
  • The FAA has identified 482 species of birds involved in strikes from 1990-2012.
  • Between 2001 and 2011, 4066 engines were damaged in 3,935 bird strikes. This resulted in a wide range of outcomes including aborted takeoffs, engine shutdowns, and crashes.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q3/4/.  (Last visited 4/19/16).  http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2013/10/131108-aircraft-bird-strikes-faa-radar.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

Factors Contributing to the Rise in Bird Strikes

  • The North American non-migratory Canada goose population increased from 1 million birds in 1990 to 4 million birds in 2009. Concentrations are particularly high at JFK airport and surrounding regions, with the ample grass and wetlands, but populations of various sizes are found near airports across the country.
  • A twelve pound Canada goose struck by an airplane moving at 150 miles per hour during takeoff generates the kinetic energy of a 1000 pound weight dropped from a height of ten feet.
  • Nesting populations of bald eagles increased from 400 pairs in 1970 to 13,000 pairs in 2010. Between 1990 and 2009, 125 bald eagle strikes were reported.  The body mass of a bald eagle is 9.1 pounds for males and 11.8 pounds for females.
  • Finally, the population of European starlings is now the second most prevalent bird species in America, numbering over 150 million. Often called “silver bullets,” they fly at high speed and have a body density that is 27 percent greater than gulls. http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q3/4.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

Population Management Techniques

In January, 2009, U.S. Airways Flight 1549 landed on the Hudson River after both engines ingested Canada geese.  New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg declared war on geese.  Suzanne Goldenberg, New York Declares War on Geese to Prevent Airport Bird Strikes, The Guardian (June 12, 2009) http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2009/jun/12/new-york-geese-cull.  (Last visited 4/19/16). A mayoral steering committee gave approval to the USDA to cull geese in a 450 mile area encompassing JFK, LaGuardia and Newark airports.  Principal methods of population control include:

  • Each summer teams of USDA goose catchers capture geese which, in the molting condition cannot fly, including offspring which are then take to slaughterhouses and killed. Between 2009 and 2010, 2911 geese were killed.
  • The USDA reports that 80 percent of Canada geese are resident, and remain in place, rather than migrate. The government and airport operators strongly advocate for the culling of non-migratory birds.
  • Discouraging nesting and grazing.
  • Letting grass grow taller, planting unpalatable grasses, reducing standing rainwater, and oiling eggs to prevent hatching.
  • Firing pyrotechnics and propane cannons.
  • Use of chemical repellants.
  • Population exclusion.
  • Use of visual repellants.
  • Tactile repellants.

http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/2011_q3/4/.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

Potential Liability for Airport Operators

Airport managers must exercise due diligence in managing wildlife hazards to avoid serious liability issues.  The U.S. Code of Federal Regulations requires Part 139-certificated airports experiencing hazardous wildlife conditions as defined in 14 C.F.R. Section 139.337 to conduct formal Wildlife Hazard Assessments.  The certificated airports must develop Wildlife Hazard Management Plans as part of the certification standards.  Airports are required to employ professional biologists trained in wildlife hazard management. 14 C.F.R. Section 139.337 and FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-36.  Failure to comply with the regulations can give rise to liability for airport operators. https://www.aphis.usda.gov/wildlife_damage/airline_safety/pdfs/Summary%20Report%20WS%20Airport%20Wildlife%20Hazards%20Program%20FY%2008.pdf.  (Comprehensive overview of applicable regulations and methods, last visited 4/19/16).

The USDA’s Airport Wildlife Hazards Program plays a leading role in the supervision and management of wildlife strikes with aircraft.  Wildlife challenges are by no means limited to birds.  Airports across the country are struggling with wildlife management.  http://www.post-gazette.com/sports/hunting-fishing/2016/01/17/Keeping-wildlife-off-tarmac-is-big-job-at-Pittsburgh-International-Airport/stories/201601170140.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

In addition to reports of aircraft strikes involving nearly 500 bird species, other wildlife strikes reported during the last decade involved nearly 100 terrestrial animals including mongoose, bears, badgers, moose, pigs, burros, horses, and even camels, in addition to 137 reptile strikes.

For additional background information, see “Wildlife Strikes to Civil Aircraft in the United States, 1990-2001”, United States Department of Agriculture, Federal Aviation Administration, United States Department of Agriculture, July, 2012.  Report published for the Federal Aviation Administration Office of Airport Safety and Standards.    https://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_safety/wildlife/resources/media/bash90-11.pdf.  (Last visited 4/19/16).  http://www.fws.gov/migratorybirds/pdf/bird-enthusiasts/birdstrikes.pdf.  (Alternate link, last visited 4/19/16).

Regulations for Aircraft and Engine Manufacturers

In response to the Eastern Airlines crash in Boston in 1960 mentioned above, The FAA issued Advisory Circular 33-1 “Turbine Engine Foreign Object Ingestion and Rotor Blade Containment Type Certification Procedures,” which provided guidance for compliance with FAA regulations §3313 and §3319 requiring that engine design minimize unsafe condition.  For additional information on the scope of required fan and engine construction, see Christopher Demers, “Large Air Transport Jet Engine Design Considerations for Large and for Flocking Bird Encounters”, DigitalCommons@University of Nebraska-Lincoln (2009). http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1005&context=birdstrike2009.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

Aircraft Wheel Well Stowaways and Potential Mass Torts

In recent years, wheel well stowaways have received increasing media attention and public interest.  Statistics on the manner of death and the factors that keep stowaways alive are not precise, and there are differing standards for investigation internationally.

Many, if not most, of these incidents arise from the unfortunate political, social, economic or family circumstance of the stowaway.  However, assuming the physiological obstacles of hypothermia and hypoxia are overcome, one major question remains: What legal implications are raised if a stowaway with destructive intent caused a major tragedy?

Usually a stowaway jumps into an aircraft by hanging on to the airliner’s landing gear as the plane takes off, or climbs into the gear compartment before takeoff.  The force of the wind can easily make a stowaway fall to his or her death.  Alternatively, many stowaways are crushed in the confined space of the compartment when the gear is retracted.  Others appear to have died from the heat produced by the engines of the aircraft, or fallen while unconscious when the gear is extended.  The overwhelming majority of stowaways are young males.

According to the FAA, the first recorded case of an aircraft stowaway occurred on June 13, 1929. The Bernard monoplane Oiseau Canari, piloted by Frenchmen Assollant Lefevre, had trouble taking off in spite of its powerful Hispano Suiza engine. The crew later discovered the cause of the problem: a stowaway on board. Despite the overload, the plane landed in Spain after 22 hours of flight. http://www.faa.gov/about/office_org/headquarters_offices/ang/offices/tc/about/campus/faa_host/rdm/media/pdf/fy2011rdannualreview.pdf.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

Physiological threats for a stowaway are minimal at altitudes up to 8,000 feet, but at higher altitudes reduced atmospheric pressure and partial pressure of oxygen may have deleterious effects.  At all cruising altitudes, the partial pressure of oxygen in a wheel well cannot sustain consciousness.  Additionally, at altitudes of about 20,000 feet, stowaways may develop decompression sickness.  Id.

All of the scientific research suggests that, after takeoff, a stowaway faces two life-threatening conditions during flight: hypoxia and hypothermia.  In 1993, the fatality of a 19-year old who stowed away in the wheel-well of a plane bound from Colombia to JFK was one of the 13 wheel-well stowaway flights documented in a report by the U.S. FAA, Civil Aeromedical Institute (CAMI), and Flight Safety Foundation as having frozen to death. (FSF). https://www.faa.gov/data_research/research/med_humanfacs/oamtechreports/1990s/media/AM96-25.pdfhttp://flightsafety.org/hf/hf_may-jun97.pdf .  (Last visited 4/19/16).

Some experts suggest that survival rates in young people may be higher because their brains more readily approach to a “virtual hibernative state,” where their bodies become temporarily more adaptable to trauma.  http://time.com/70441/how-the-teen-stowaway-survived-his-trans-pacific-flight-in-a-wheel-well/.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

According to the FAA, from 1947-2014 there have been 94 flights involving 105 people who stowed away worldwide.  Of those 105 people, 80 died and twenty-five survived.  The twenty-five people who survived represent a 23.8 percent survival rate.

In 2014 a sixteen-year-old California boy jumped a fence at San Jose International Airport and squeezed into the wheel-well of a flight bound for Maui, where he emerged 5 hours later, in good health.  Experts surmised that the teen’s youth could be an advantage, as the brains of young people adapt more easily to hypothermia and hypoxia, for reasons that are not completely understood.  http://khon2.com/2014/04/20/fbi-investigating-stowaway-of-hawaiian-airlines-flight/.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

Similarly, in June, 2015, a 21-year old Indonesian man hid in the wheel well of a Garuda Indonesia flight from Sumatra to Jakarta. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/04/08/stowaway-survives-flight-indonesia_n_7023396.html(Last visited 4/19/16).

Possible Liability

There may be a number of consequences of security breaches by aircraft wheel well stowaways and their on-board actions, despite the present physiological obstacles.  Among these include:

  • In the event of a crash, mass tort litigation by innocent passengers against airlines, airports, governments and contractors arising from security breaches.
  • Widespread concern about security at public, airline, security provider, airport, and government levels which leads to additional legislation, regulation, or policy.
  • Other terrorist acts such as ransom demands or extortion of other conditions by extremists determined to cause a catastrophe through a stowaway with destructive or disruptive capability.
  • Government levied fines for airlines, airports, private security companies, local police, and federal agents based on security breaches.
  • Increased security measures imposed on airport, airline, local, state and federal authorities.
  • Lawsuits by agencies, airlines or security agents against the indigent stowaways are unlikely, although deportation is possible.

Wheel well stowaway events appear to be on the rise, and each event is highly publicized.  However, these events have not resulted in widespread litigation.  The only litigated case brought by the family of a stowaway involved sixteen-year-old Delvonte Tisdale.  Tisdale ran away from home on November 14th, 2010.  A day later his body was found mangled in a Boston suburb.  Authorities determined that Tisdale likely sneaked onto the tarmac of Charlotte-Douglas International Airport and climbed into the wheel well of US Airways Flight 1176, bound for Boston.

Tisdale’s family sued US Airways, The airport, and the City of Charlotte alleging that the defendants negligently failed to ensure people could not access restricted areas.  Among the failure to warn claims was an allegation that the defendants failed to warn of the dangers of entering an aircraft as a passenger through the wheel well.

http://www.greensboro.com/news/local_news/family-of-teen-stowaway-who-fell-from-plane-s-wheel/article_3e969954-8528-5211-99c8-88cc77529794.html.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

The judge ultimately disagreed with Tisdale’s family and dismissed the case.  Siding with Charlotte City Attorney Robert Hagemann, the judge ruled in July, 2013 that Tisdale was negligent in his actions and that the city is not responsible for people who breach security.  http://boston.cbslocal.com/2013/03/07/judge-dismisses-suit-filed-by-family-of-airplane-stowaway-delvonte-tisdale/.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

The breach of security in the Tisdale case raised questions about airport security.  If a 16-year-old, who had never flown before could evade airport security measures, then why not a terrorist?  With the proliferation of wheel well stowaways, it is likely only a matter of time until a tragic mass tort occurs.

Aircraft Laser Strikes

Reports of aircraft targeting with handheld ground lasers have been rising sharply.  In 2006, there were 384 reported incidents.  By 2014, there were 3,894 reported incidents.  In 2015, there were 7,702 reported incidents.  The FAA has recorded approximately 22 aircraft laser strikes per day in 2016.  https://www.faa.gov/news/fact_sheets/news_story.cfm?newsId=15774  (Last visited 4/19/16).  https://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/lasers/laws/.  (Last visited 4/19/16).  https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/bakersfield-man-sentenced-striking-sheriff-s-helicopter-laser   (Last visited 4/19/16).  https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/bakersfield-resident-sentenced-pointing-laser-kern-county-sheriff-helicopter.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

In a widely publicized recent incident, a Virgin Atlantic flight originating at Heathrow bound for New York with 252 passengers on board was forced to turn back after a flight crew “medical issue” was caused by a laser strike shortly after takeoff.  http://.bbc.com/news/uk-35575861.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

Exposure to laser illumination may cause hazardous effects such as pain, watery eyes, headaches, flash-blindness, distraction or disorientation, loss of depth perception, and aborted takeoffs or landings, in addition to danger during lower level flight.

In the United States, an area with high numbers of laser strikes is the 34 counties encompassed within the United States Judicial District for the Eastern District of California, a judicial district which has been vigorously prosecuting laser strike offenders and securing a large number of convictions resulting in prison sentences and fines. (Albuquerque, Chicago, Cleveland, Houston, Los Angeles, New York City, Philadelphia, Phoenix, Sacramento, San Antonio, and San Juan all have high incidence of laser strikes.)  As recently as March 7, 2016, that office secured a guilty plea from a thirty-five year-old man with a powerful green laser, about the size of a flashlight in his pocket.  The man pleaded guilty to multiple strikes on a California State Highway Patrol airplane.  https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/clovis-man-pleads-guilty-laser-strikes-chp-plane (Last visited 4/19/16).

The increase in reports of ground based lasers targeting flying aircraft may be due to a number of factors, including the increased availability of inexpensive laser devices on the internet, higher power lasers which can strike aircraft at higher altitudes, and increased reporting by flight crews.  Regulatory power for laser light products is delegated to the FDA, and its regulations are found at 21 C.F.R. § 1010.

While some jurisdictions have made interdiction efforts using helicopters and other improved tracking methods, catching laser offenders is difficult.  The devices are small, and when extinguished can be easily concealed and the location of the user can be in sparsely populated areas.  To respond to the increasing attacks, the FAA launched the Laser Safety Initiative, which provides education on laser hazards and events, news, law and civil penalties, and encourages reporting.

The latest reports indicate that aircraft illuminations by handheld lasers involve green lasers rather than red.  This is significant because green lasers are 35 times brighter than red, and the wavelength of green lasers is close to the eye’s peak sensitivity when they are dark-adapted.  FAA flight simulation studies have shown that the adverse visual effects from laser exposure are especially debilitating when the eyes are adapted to the low-light level of a cockpit at night. http://www.faa.gov/pilots/safety/pilotsafetybrochures/media/laser_hazards_web.pdf.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

Restricted airspace surrounding commercial airports, in particular, can provide federal, state and/or local criminal penalties for violation with a laser, even if the operator is not operating the laser within the space, but merely causes the beam to intersect the controlled airspace to target an aircraft.  In the United States, laser airspace guidelines can be found in FAA Order JO 7400.2 (Revision “G” as of April 2008).  Chapter 29 of the Order provides a comprehensive overview of the FAA’s laser guidelines.

In 2011, the FAA announced plans to impose civil penalties against people, including the parents of juveniles, who point a laser into the cockpit of an aircraft.  http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=12765.  (Last visited 4/19/16).  The maximum administrative penalty is a fine of $11,000.

The FAA released a legal interpretation which concluded that directing a laser bean into an aircraft cockpit could interfere with a flight crew performing its duties while operating an aircraft, a violation of FAA regulations.  http://www.faa.gov/news/media/Laser%20Memorandum%20Final%20060111.pdf.  (Last visited 4/19/16).  The FAA conducted an analysis of 14 C.F.R. § 91.11 which provides that, “[n]o person may assault, threaten, intimidate, or interfere with a crewmember in the performance of the crewmember’s duties aboard an aircraft being operated.”  However, the FAA standard for liability is higher than the standard for criminal liability under 18 U.S.C. §§ 32 and 39A.

Federal regulations prohibiting interference with a crewmember in the performance of their duties had initially been adopted in response to hijackings.  However, the FAA legal interpretation concluded that nothing in the regulation specified that the person interfering must be on the airplane.  Previously, the FAA had taken enforcement action only against passengers on-board the aircraft that interfere with crewmembers.  The maximum civil penalty is $11,000.  By June, 2012, the FAA had initiated 28 enforcement actions.  http://www.faa.gov/news/press_releases/news_story.cfm?newsId=13555.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

On February 14, 2012, President Obama signed Public Law 112-95.  The FAA Modernization and Reform Act of 2012, Section 311 amended Title 18 of the United States Code (U.S.C) Chapter 2 § 39, by adding § 39A, which makes it a federal crime to aim a laser pointer at an aircraft.  http://www.faa.gov/about/initiatives/lasers/laws/.  (Last visited 4/19/16).  Prior to 2012, federal prosecutions of laser illuminations of aircraft were initiated pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 32(a)(5), which prohibits interference with the safe operation of an aircraft.  Aiming a laser at an aircraft is also prohibited by many state laws.

Between 2005 and 2013, there were 17,725 reported laser strikes in the United States, resulting in 134 arrests.  This data suggests that even when limiting the calculation to reported incidents, there is only a 0.75 percent chance of getting caught; a percentage that would decrease if unreported incidents were also considered.  There were 80 convictions among the 134 arrests. One reason for the conviction rate of 60 percent is that some who were arrested were minors who were never formally charged.  http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2014/05/blinding-light-the-us-crackdown-on-not-so-harmless-laser-strikes/3/.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

One high-profile case involved Sergio Rodriguez, who received a 14-year prison sentence after he was convicted of lasing police and medical helicopters in August, 2012.  Karen Escobar, the Assistant United States Attorney for the Eastern District of California who prosecuted the Escobar case, has pursued more cases against laser perpetrators than any other federal prosecutor.  Escobar was quoted as saying:

“At sentencing, [Rodriguez] did not accept responsibility for his actions; he blamed his 2- and 3- year-old children. I believe the evidence showed the laser was a dangerous weapon, and there was intention, supporting a guideline sentence of 168 months. I would not call it harsh. I would say it is a penalty that fits the crime, but I believe that it will have a deterrent effect, and I hope it will.”  Id.

The Ninth Circuit has since reversed Rodriguez’ conviction for violation of 18 U.S.C. § 32 and remanded for resentencing for the Section 39A violation.  The Ninth Circuit found that the evidence did not support proof of the willfulness requirement for a Section 32 violation, noting that Section 32 was intended to apply to the bin Ladens of the world, not knuckleheads like Rodriguez.  On remand, the district court imposed the maximum penalty of five years for the Section 32 violation.

Much of the current focus on laser strikes focuses on interdiction and criminal prosecution.  The potential for a laser beam disabling a flight crew, and resulting in a mass tort, creates civil liability questions which have yet to be resolved.

Animal Passengers: Is it a Pet, a Service Animal, an Emotional Support Animal, Or Something Else, and Does It Get a Ride?

Walking through any large airport in 2016, it is likely that departing and arriving passengers will see any number of animals and a wide variety of species, shapes, and sizes.  Dogs, cats, birds, rodents, reptiles, pigs and even miniature horses are all found in airports waiting to board.  The distinction between service animals, companion animals, emotional support animals, and pets may not always be clear.

Transport of service animals, including emotional support animals is governed by the Air Carrier Access Act (“ACAA”), 49 U.S.C. § 41705 (1986), which incorporates provisions consistent with the Americans With Disabilities Act, 42 USC § 126 (1990).  In contrast to service animals, transport of pets is generally done for an additional fee, which can be significant.  Transportation of pets is generally governed by airline and airport policy, so long as policy is consistent with FAA, TSA, USDA and DOT rules and regulations.  This can lead to arguably conflicting policies and practices by airports and carriers.

Animals and the Air Carrier Access Act

The ACAA prohibits discrimination by U.S. and foreign air carriers on the basis of physical or mental disability.  In 1990, the U.S. Department of Transportation promulgated the official regulations implementing the ACAA.  Those rules mandate nondiscrimination on the basis of disability in air travel.  14 CFR Part 382.

The implementation regulations in Part 832, and guidance publications prepared by DOT provide guidance for airline employees and people with disabilities in understanding and applying the ACAA and the provisions of Part 382 with respect to service animals in determining:

(1) whether an animal is a service animal and its user a qualified individual with a disability;

(2) how to accommodate a qualified person with a disability with a service animal in the aircraft cabin; and

(3) when a service animal legally can be refused carriage in the cabin.

The 1996 DOT ACAA guidance manual defines a service animal as “any guide dog, signal dog, or other animal individually trained to provide assistance to an individual with a disability. If the animal meets this definition, it is considered a service animal regardless of whether it has been licensed or certified by a state or local government.” “Guidance Concerning Service Animals in Air Transportation,” (61 FR 56420-56422, (November 1, 1996)).

In 2003, DOT clarified the previous definition of service animal by making it clear that animals that assist persons with disabilities by providing emotional or psychiatric support qualify as service animals.  The definition of service animal was modified to clarify that airlines had authority to require that passengers provide documentation of the individual’s disability and the medical necessity of the passenger’s travel with the animal in cases involving emotional support animals and psychiatric service animals

The DOT has continued to update the guidance materials.  Nondiscrimination on the Basis of Disability in Air Travel, 73 FR 27614, May 13, 2008 as modified by: Correction Notice of 74 FR 11469, March 18, 2009, Correction Notice of 75 FR 44885, July 30, 20010.  http://airconsumer.ost.dot.gov/rules/Part%20382-2008.pdf.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

Also of note in the DOT guidance materials:

  • Pets are not service animals.
  • Some unusual service animals, including snakes, other reptiles, ferrets, rodents and spiders pose unavoidable safety and/or public health concerns and airlines are not required to transport them in the cabin.
  • Other unusual service animals such as miniature horses, pigs and donkeys should be evaluated on a case by case basis.
  • When Part 382 was first promulgated, most service animals were guide or hearing dogs. Since then, a wider variety of animal (g., cats, monkeys, etc.) have been individually trained to assist people with disabilities. Service animals also perform a wider variety of functions than ever before (e.g., alerting a person with epilepsy of imminent seizure onset, pulling a wheelchair, assisting persons with mobility impairments with balance) which can make it difficult for airline employees to distinguish service animals from pets, especially when a passenger does not appear to be disabled, or the animal has no obvious indicators that it is a service animal.
  • People with disabilities use many different terms to identify animals that can meet the legal definition of “service animal.” These range from umbrella terms such as “assistance animal” to specific labels such as “hearing,” “signal,” “seizure alert,” “psychiatric service,” “emotional support” animal, etc. that describe how the animal assists a person with a disability.
  • In a nutshell, the main requirements of Part 382 regarding service animals are:
    • Carriers shall permit dogs and other service animals used by persons with disabilities to accompany the persons on a flight. § 382.117(a).
    • Carriers shall accept as evidence that an animal is a service animal identifiers such as identification cards, other written documentation, presence of harnesses, tags or the credible verbal assurances of a qualified individual with a disability using the animal.
    • Carriers shall permit a service animal to accompany a qualified individual with a disability in any seat in which the person sits, unless the animal obstructs an aisle or other area that must remain unobstructed in order to facilitate an emergency evacuation or to comply with FAA regulations.
  • If a service animal cannot be accommodated at the seat location of the qualified individual with a disability whom the animal is accompanying, the carrier shall offer the passenger the opportunity to move with the animal to a seat location in the same class of service, if present on the aircraft, where the animal can be accommodated, as an alternative to requiring that the animal travel in the cargo hold § 382.117(c).
  • Carriers shall not impose charges for providing facilities, equipment, or services that are required by this Part to be provided to qualified individuals with a disability § 382.31.

In one recent case, a Washington State trial court analyzed the requirements of the ACAA as applied to an injury to a passenger caused by a Rottweiler service dog.  Sullivan v. Alaska Air Group, Inc., et al., Spokane County Case No. 15-02-00227-3, February 29, 2016.  Defendant owner of the Rottweiler was initially seated in back of the plane, but moved to row one to accommodate the size of the dog.  Plaintiff was seated in row two.  On arrival in Spokane, the dog allegedly bit plaintiff’s hand as she disembarked.

Plaintiff contended the airline had a duty to protect her and that the animal posed a foreseeable risk.  The airline argued that the ACAA preempted, either through conflict or field preemption, the plaintiff’s claims.  In conducting a preemption analysis, the court noted that airline passenger safety in regards to service animal is pervasively regulated by the ACAA sufficient to find that federal law expressly preempts and state standards of care.

The court granted the airline’s motion for summary judgement based on ACAA preemption.  The court noted that the requirements of 14 C.F.R. § 382.117 did not preclude the Rottweiler from riding on the plane.  The airline established, in satisfaction of the statutory requirements that the animal was, in fact, a service animal and they also determined that the animal did not present either a direct threat to the health and safety of others or a significant threat to the disruption of airline service.  Evidence was presented that the dog flew on the carrier or its partners twelve times previously without incident. Finally, there were harness markings or other credible assurances provided to establish that the dog was a service animal.

Animals present airlines and airports with a minefield of compliance, liability, public relations and customer service issues which range from fundamental flight safety, to combating abuses of the ACAA in order to obtain free plane tickets for pets.  In many cases, it may come down to a judgment call about whether the animal can safely be accommodated, or whether it will disrupt, or even endanger the flight.  Airlines also face very high fines for failing to accommodate legitimate service animal accommodation requests.

In January, 2016, a passenger brought a live turkey onto a Delta Airlines flight, claiming the animal was needed for emotional support.  Delta noted that the passenger had complied with the rigorous requirements of the ACAA which included providing documentation from a mental health professional that the animal’s companionship was necessary for travel.

Delta’s spokesperson noted that any therapist can sign off on any kind of animal, however, snakes, spiders and farm poultry are not acceptable.  Animals allowed to board as service or emotional support animals under the ACAA are accommodated free of charge, and are not allowed to block emergency exits or occupy seats designed for passengers. https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/01/15/someone-just-used-a-federal-law-to-bring-a-live-turkey-on-a-delta-flight/.  (Last visited 4/19/16).  http://www.nydailynews.com/news/national/turkeys-sitting-planes-emotional-support-animals-article-1.2496248.  (Last visited 4/19/16).

Scott Brooksby featured as speaker and moderator regarding birds, pets, lasers, and other hot topics in aviation

On June 1, 2016, Scott Brooksby was featured as a speaker and moderator on a panel entitled “Birds, Pets, Lasers, Stowaways, and Other Hot Topics in Aviation”, at the American Bar Association’s 22nd Annual National Institute on Aviation Litigation, at the University Club of New York in New York, New York.

Scott and the other distinguished panelists provided an overview of emerging security issues for airlines, airports, manufacturers, and governments with respect to bird and animal strikes, laser strikes, and wheel well stowaways. Each pose the danger of catastrophic mass torts.  The topics discussed included the following issues:

• Bird strikes are the second-leading cause of death in aviation, with more than 400 deaths globally. Learn about required airport wildlife management plans and mitigation techniques, and how airports and the government can address liability risks.
• Flight crews are increasingly targets of inexpensive, and increasingly powerful hand-held green lasers. More than 7,000 laser strikes were reported to the FAA in 2015. This panel will discuss efforts by prosecutors pursuing criminal charges, and liability issues arising from laser strikes.
• Pigs, snakes and turkeys are just some of the pets, or emotional support animals, that airlines are confronting. The safety of other passengers, who may be the victims of physical injury of property damage, present liability issues for airports and airlines.
• The number of wheel well stowaway incidents are rising which poses security risks for airports and airlines, and it is not inconceivable that the stowaway with destructive intent could cause a catastrophic mass tort.

Scott Brooksby featured as speaker on the Germanwings crash.

Scott Brooksby spoke on a panel in New York, NY at the  American Conference Institute’s 8th Annual Forum on Defending and Managing Aviation Claims and Litigation.  His panel was entitled “SPOTLIGHT ON FLIGHT CREW MENTAL HEALTH ISSUES Post-Germanwings: An In Depth Discussion of the Legal, Regulatory, Public Safety and Ethical Considerations”.   On June 27, 2016, Scott and other distinguished panelists spoke on the following topics:
• An in depth discussion of aeromedical
issues and developments following last year’s
Germanwings crash
• What procedures are currently in place
to identify mental health issues in pilots,
crew-members, air traffic controllers? —
Are they enough?
• Who should be in possession of a
crew-member’s mental health information?
• Who has what responsibilities to make reports
of other crew-members’ mental health info?
• Who regulates this?
• Assessing considerations of confidentiality
with considerations of public safety
• Under what circumstances can medical data
be shared and with whom?
• What strides is the FAA taking in response to
the Germanwings tragedy? (ARC and Amsis)
• Addressing current issues and challenges related to:
– Awareness and reporting of emotional
and mental health issues
– Methods used to evaluate pilot emotional
and mental health
– Barriers to reporting such issues
– Surveillance and oversight of designees and
aviation industry substance-abuse programs
• A discussion of the ethical challenges and
considerations, and how to best navigate them

Scott Brooksby featured as a speaker regarding Air France 447

Scott Brooksby was a featured speaker on a panel discussing District Litigation after Air France 447.   Scott was invited to speak at the 3rd Annual Western Regional CLE Program on Class Actions and Mass Torts for the Bar Association of San Francisco.  The conference took place in San Francisco, California on May 27, 2016.

Scott and other distinguished panelists discussed the interesting substantive, procedural, and strategic considerations for airlines and other types of manufacturers seeking dismissal in forum non conveniens motions, and for passengers and other plaintiffs seeking to defeat FNC motions in multi-district litigation. Using examples from aviation-related MDLs, and specifically after the groundbreaking MDL involving Air France 447, the panel discussed key aspects of establishing personal jurisdiction over foreign corporate defendants. The panel discussed the complex issues associated with international treaties, choice-of-law, the meaning of an “unavailable forum” and challenging jurisdiction and venue considerations that arise when both U.S. and foreign individuals
are involved.

Moderator: Ann C. Taylor, Locke Lord LLP, Chicago, IL
Panelists: Scott Brooksby, Olson Brooksby, Portland, OR              Thad Dameris, Arnold & Porter, Houston, TX
Steve Koh, Perkins Coie LLP, Seattle, WA
Steve Marks, Podhurst Orseck, P.A., Miami, FL