READ OUR BLOG

03

Oct,2017

The FAA Issued an Emergency Revocation for My Airman Certificate, What Should I Do

“The FAA issued an Emergency Revocation for my airman certificate, what should I do?” No airman wants to ask this question; however, more often the FAA is issuing Emergency Revocations (because they have the authority to do so per the FARs) for airman and medical certificate for issues of unreported DUI convictions, unreported driver’s license suspensions, and failed DOT drug tests. If your airman certificate is subject to an Emergency Revocation, what should you do? Well, the first thing you should do is note the timeframe you have to file a Notice of Appeal. From the date of the Emergency Order (the date on the top of the document) you will have only 10 days to file your appeal with the National Transportation Safety Board (and carbon copied to the FAA attorney). If you don’t file your appeal in a timely fashion (within 10 days), your appeal will be considered stale. So, there is no room for procrastination when you receive an emergency order.

 

Next, you should consult with an aviation attorney. Perhaps this seems like a plug for our services here at The Ison Law Firm; however, the FAA will couch the Emergency Revocation in such a way that it will look like there is no way out. Do not fall for this trap. It is possible that a competent aviation attorney can review the EIR (the numerous evidentiary documents the FAA sends with the Emergency Revocation) and develop a defense in your case. There are lots of defenses available in an Emergency Revocation situation, so please consult with an aviation attorney and allow him or her to review your potential defenses.

 

If you are facing an Emergency Order of Revocation for your airman certificate, do not despair! Call an aviation attorney as soon as you receive your Emergency Revocation- at least before the 10 day Notice of Appeal deadline. Your aviation attorney at The Ison Law Firm is standing by to vector you through your legal turbulence; call today at 1-855-FAA-1215.

25

May,2017

The FAA Is Revoking My License

Have you recently said those words: “the FAA is revoking my license?” Unfortunately, what with the FAA’s new “compliance philosophy,” the majority of the enforcement actions coming from the FAA are emergency revocations…which means that instead of giving you an opportunity to respond to the allegations prior to issuing a revocation order, the FAA is immediately revoking your pilot license. Make no mistake, however, when the FAA revokes your certificate immediately (or pursuant to an “emergency,”) you still have an opportunity to appeal such an order to the National Transportation Safety Board.

 

Currently, there seems to be an influx of such “emergency” orders – a lot of people are saying “the FAA is revoking my license.” The reason for that is likely that the FAA’s “compliance philosophy” seemingly thwarts enforcement actions where there are actions or behavior that is for the most part not intentional or reckless. As such, when an airman violates the FARs intentionally (although perhaps unknowingly in some cases) or recklessly, the FAA does not have to comply with their new “kinder, gentler” policies. For example, when an airman fails to report a DUI conviction or administrative action to the FAA via 14 C.F.R. §61.15 or DUI conviction, DUI arrest, or administrative action via the FAA medical application, the FAA deems those actions “intentional” and outside the scope of the “compliance philosophy.” So, if your question is “why is the FAA revoking my license,” the answer is that likely you’ve taken an action which is intentional or reckless and is otherwise in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations.

 

If you are saying “the FAA is revoking my license,” it is time to immediately call a FAA defense attorney at The Ison Law Firm. It’s possible that your right to an appeal will exhaust if you do not act quickly. Your aviation attorney at The Ison Law Firm can competently and efficiently address your defense and assist you in the appeal process going forward. Call your FAA attorney at The Ison Law Firm today!

22

May,2017

FAA Hotline Complaints

Did you know that the FAA via FAA hotline complaints allows anyone to file a complaint with the FAA if he or she thinks that you (a certificated airman, air carrier, or otherwise) has violated a Federal Aviation Regulation or have otherwise jeopardized the safety of the National Airspace System? The problem with the FAA hotline complaint system is two-fold: anyone can file a complaint against a certificate holder and the reporter can remain anonymous. As you’ve probably already figured out (or have experienced in practice), the system opens the door to allowing everybody and their mother air their dirty laundry vis-à-vis FAA inquiries or investigations. While allowing concerned citizens to report legitimate safety concerns to the FAA is an important function within this safety-sensitive industry, it’s interesting to note that an inordinate amount of “false” reports are funneled through this process on a regular basis.

 

Typically, false FAA hotline complaints come from a person on the same airfield as the airman at issue, who has otherwise gotten their “nose out of joint” and is going to “make the other airman pay.” In other words, there are people out there that will file a report with the FAA because they know it could potentially spell trouble for an airman’s career and/or the airman’s ability to fly. What seems to be the most common form of complaint regards an airman’s qualification to hold an airman medical certificate with the FAA. For instance, one of the most egregious situations is where someone falsely claims to the FAA that an airman has a condition which would be medically disqualifying under the Federal Aviation Regulations (the airman is bi-polar; the airman has substance abuse problems, etc.). The problem with this scenario is that if the airman does not really have a disqualifying condition, it may end up being the airman’s responsibility (and financial burden) to prove otherwise. On the other hand, if the airman does have a condition which has been unreported to the FAA, such a hotline complaint can create a legitimate issue for an airman’s medical or airman certificate.

 

Have you received a FAA hotline complaint? If so, it is important that you represent your interests from a “damage control” perspective. In that, the FAA has both the authority and the liability to follow up on any complaints (false or not) and how you respond could possibly affect your certificate. So, if you fail to respond or otherwise provide a response which could implied guilt or lack of qualification, the FAA could use those statements or lack thereof in an action against your certificate. Your response must aim to avoid and at all costs “shut-down” an FAA inquiry.

 

If you’ve received a FAA hotline complaint, make sure you call on a qualified aviation attorney to guide you through the investigative process. At The Ison Law Firm, there is a FAA enforcement attorney with experience handling FAA hotline complaints, waiting to vector you through legal turbulence.

13

May,2017

Responding to a FAA Letter of Investigation

If you’re under investigation by the Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”), you may have questions about responding to a FAA Letter of Investigation (“LOI”). First, what is a FAA Letter of Investigation? The FAA sends a Letter of Investigation to a certificated airman/entity (pilot, A&P mechanic, IA air carrier, repair station, etc.) when there is evidence that the airman or entity allegedly engaged in activity which may have been in violation of the Federal Aviation Regulations (“FARs”). The purpose of the LOI is two-fold, in that it puts the certificate holder on notice that an investigation has been initiated and furthermore allows the certificate holder an opportunity to provide a verbal or written statement in response to the allegation(s) brought against him or her. When a certificate holder receives a LOI, natural instinct is to send an immediate response to the FAA inspector, detailing why the allegations are false or otherwise unworthy of investigation; however, providing such a response may not be the best move to make as a certificate holder. What should your response be to a FAA LOI?

 

The answer to the question posed above is somewhat complex. It is important to remember, however, that a response to the FAA’s Letter of Investigation is not required. In that, failing to respond to a FAA LOI does not create a presumption of “guilt.” In the alternative, anything you do say or do in response to the Letter of Investigation can be used against you. This means that if you provide a response to the FAA which ultimately admits to some level of “guilt,” the FAA could present that as evidence in a hearing before the NTSB to show admission of “guilt.” Most importantly, however, is that your statement in response to a LOI can later be used as impeachment evidence, whereas the FAA attorney could introduce your LOI response at the NTSB hearing if that statement is contrary to a statement made later during the course of litigation. For example, in response to a FAA Letter of Investigation sent to an A&P mechanic, the mechanic hypothetically responds to the inspector with a written statement which reads: “I did not perform maintenance on the aircraft that morning, as I was late for work.” However, later on in the course of litigation, the mechanic testifies that he actually arrived at work ten minutes late or maybe evidence is produced which shows the mechanic actually did do some work on the aircraft that day. Overall, no matter what the mechanic’s intentions were in providing his response to the LOI, having a statement which is contrary to the evidence will allow the FAA to impeach the mechanic’s testimony and will ultimately speak to the mechanic’s credibility before the NTSB law judge.

 

As such, it is always recommended that you speak with an aviation attorney prior to responding to a FAA Letter of Investigation from the FAA. In some cases, it may be best to provide the FAA with a courtesy response, simply acknowledging receipt of the Letter. It may be determined, however, in consult with your FAA defense attorney, that a more detailed response is necessary. If you have questions about responding to a FAA Letter of Investigation, call your aviation attorney at The Ison Law Firm. The Ison Law Firm is standing by to vector you through legal turbulence.

*This article is not legal advice and should not be construed as such. If you have a legal problem, please contact a licensed attorney.

12

May,2017

FAA Emergency Revocation for Refusal of a DOT Drug Test

If you are a person who performs flight crewmember duties under part 121, did you know that you could potentially receive a FAA emergency revocation for refusal of a DOT drug test? In that, employees who perform safety-sensitive functions for airlines and other companies certificated under part 121 are required to submit to random drug testing pursuant to their company’s anti-drug program. Most employees have completed these types of drug tests numerous times, whether it was for pre-employment screening or as a part of an airline’s random drug testing program, to the point where drug tests have become familiar process for employment with an airline. Did you know, however, that if you refuse a DOT drug test, the FAA could potentially issue an Emergency Order of Revocation and revoke not only your FAA airman medical certificate, but also your FAA airman certificates (including type ratings and add-ons)?

 

It is important, especially for airline pilots and those pilots employed by a part 121 company, to understand what the FAA considers a refusal to a drug test. Specifically, 49 C.F.R. 40.191 speaks to drug test refusal and states that an employee will have refused a drug test if (to name a few): 1) failure to appear for a test within a reasonable period of time; 2) failure to remain at the testing sight until the testing process is completed; 3) failure to provide a urine sample; 4) failure to allow observation of collection, in the event observation is required; 5) failure to provide a sufficient amount of specimen without a subsequent, adequate medical explanation for failure; and 6) outright failure or declining to take a required drug test. If you are subject to DOT drug tests, make sure you review the entire list of refusals under 49 C.F.R. 40.191.

 

It is important to note that simple things such as leaving the testing site or otherwise failing to go provide a specimen within a reasonable period of time can be deemed by the FAA and your company as a refusal. So what? You can just take the test again, right? Well, the answer to that question is likely, “no.” Under 14 C.F.R. §67.107(b)(2) and the corresponding regulations to second and third class medicals state that “a refusal by the holder of a certificate issued under 14 C.F.R. part 67 to submit to a drug or alcohol test required under 14 C.F.R. part 120 is a specifically disqualifying medical condition under the medical standards in 14 C.F.R. part 67.” Beyond that, under 14 C.F.R. §120.11, a refusal by the holder of a certificate issued under 14 C.F.R. part 61 to submit to a drug or alcohol test required under 14 C.F.R. part 120 is grounds for revocation of any certificate or rating issued under 14 C.F.R. part 61. As such, the regulatory scheme does not allow for “second chances.” If you refuse, then you have refused.

 

Nevertheless, it is important to remember that if you find yourself in a situation whereas the FAA is revoking your airman and medical certificates as a result of your employer or collecting agent deeming your sample a refusal, that you may very well have a good defense. National Transportation Safety Board case law has determined that emergency revocation orders based on drug test refusals are heavily dependent on the facts in each given case. That means you shouldn’t lie down and allow the FAA to revoke your certificates (and ultimately career) just because your test has been deemed a “refusal” – fight it with an appeal to the NTSB, as the facts in your case may surmount to a plausible and successful defense.

 

If you are facing an emergency order of revocation for refusal of a DOT drug test, call an aviation attorney at The Ison Law Firm to discuss your defense. Whether you are an A&P mechanic, IA mechanic, ATP or commercial rated pilot, or otherwise, you could have a great defense at hearing before the NTSB. Your FAA enforcement attorney at The Ison Law Firm is standing by to vector your through legal turbulence.

*This blog article is not legal advice, but rather observations and personal opinions; if you feel you have a legal problem, please contact a licensed attorney.

07

May,2017

FAA Emergency Order of Revocation – Notice of Appeal

It is critical to remember that every second counts when you receive a FAA Emergency Order of Revocation. In that, if you receive a FAA Emergency Order of Revocation, you have 10 days from the date of the Order’s service to file a Notice of Appeal with the Office of Administrative Law Judges at the National Transportation Safety Board. But what is a Notice of Appeal? Essentially, a Notice of Appeal is like your way of putting your hand between two elevator doors that are closing – by putting your hand between the doors, you keep the doors from closing. Like elevator doors, the Notice of Appeal puts the FAA and NTSB on notice that you plan to put forward a defense and fight the FAA Emergency Order of Revocation.

 

Likely the most critical thing in filing your appeal is calculating your filing deadline correctly. Most airmen mistakenly think that they have 10 days from the date they receive their FAA Emergency Order of Revocation to file the Notice of Appeal with the NTSB – WRONG! Instead, you have 10 dates from the date listed at the top of the Order. So, if you receive a FAA Emergency Order on January 1, but the Order is dated December 31, make sure you calculate 10 days from December 31, not January 1. There are some exceptions as to when a Notice of Appeal is due, for instance if the deadline falls on a weekend or Federal holiday.

 

Another tip is to file your Notice of Appeal via a method which offers confirmation of delivery. In other words, make sure that if you fax your Notice of Appeal to the NTSB and FAA attorney, that you receive a confirmation fax confirming delivery of the Notice. Likewise if you send the Notice of Appeal via mail or e-mail – make sure you have some way of backing up the fact that you filed your Notice in a timely fashion.

 

If you have received a FAA Emergency Order of Revocation, time is of the essence. Make sure that if you have received an Emergency Order of Revocation from the FAA that you consult with an aviation attorney. Your FAA enforcement attorney at The Ison Law Firm is standing by to vector you through legal turbulence. Call for a consultation today, toll free at 855-FAA-1215.

15

Apr,2017

Denial of Your FAA Medical Certificate Application

Are you facing denial of your FAA medical certificate application? Did you know that in most situations where you feel like you are qualified for unrestricted medical certification, you can petition the National Transportation Safety Board (hereinafter “NTSB”) for review of your denied application? More specifically, if you feel you are qualified for medical certification per the regulations found at FAR Part 67, you may have an opportunity to argue your case before an administrative law judge at the NTSB, as well as before the full board on appeal. It is important to remember, however, that you have 60 days from the date of your denial to file your petition for review with the NTSB. One trick that most people don’t know, however, is that if you have missed the 60 day time period for filing your petition with the NTSB, it may not be too late. In that, in order to “re-open” that 60 day filing period, all you really have to do is apply again for FAA medical certification. How does that work? Essentially, you will need to file another application with the FAA, go to your AME for examination, allow for your application to be “deffered” to the FAA, and then wait for another denial letter – giving you another 60 day time period to file your appeal with the NTSB.

 

In every petition to the NTSB for reconsideration of a denied FAA medical application, the burden of proof is on the application (you) to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the airman (you) either: a) do not have a “specifically disqualifying condition” or b) safe to exercise the privileges and perform the duties owed to you as a licensed airman. As such, there are two types of petitions available to airman at the NTSB level – essentially, those airmen which claim to not actually have “specifically disqualifying condition” and those airmen which claim that their diagnosis does not hamper them from being a safe airman. A list of “specifically disqualifying conditions” are available to you at FAR Part 67; however, that list includes substance abuse, diabetes mellitus requiring hypoglycemic medication, disturbance of consciousness without satisfactory explanation of cause, and bipolar disorder. If you are an airman with a clear diagnosis of a “specifically disqualifying condition,” you should consult with an aviation attorney to discuss whether unrestricted medical certification or special issuance medical certification is appropriate in your case. In those case where you deny a diagnosis of a “specifically disqualifying condition” or if you feel that your non-“specifically disqualifying condition” does not limit your safety as an airman, you may have a valid argument to petition the NTSB for review.

 

If your FAA medical certificate application has been denied, you should consult with a FAA attorney as soon as possible. Your denial may be subject to one or more statutes of limitations, including a 30 day period for requesting reconsideration to the FAA for special issuance medical certification, as well as a 60 day period for filing a petition for review before the NTSB. Call your aviation attorney today at The Ison Law Firm and allow The Pilot Lawyer to vector you through legal turbulence.  

11

Dec,2016

Fighting the FAA on an Intentional Falsification Charge

Fighting the FAA on an intentional falsification charge may sound like a daunting task if you are a pilot or A&P mechanic facing certificate revocation. When the FAA catches wind that for example a certificate holder provided false information on a FAA medical application or allegedly falsified information in a logbook, the FAA will typically issue an Emergency Order of Revocation, stripping the certificate holder of his or her airman, mechanic, or medical certificate for a year and authorizing re-certification only after that year has been exhausted. What the FAA doesn’t make abundantly clear to certificate holders in these Orders, however, is that in intentional falsification cases the law allows for at least three avenues through which a pilot or mechanic can successfully develop a defense. The correspondence a certificate holder receives from the FAA typically does not paint a very bright picture for overturning an Emergency Order of Revocation, but certificate holders should know that they most likely have a defense vis-a-vie the three Hart v. McLucas elements.

 

Appeals from FAA Orders are heard by the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”). This means that when the FAA decides to revoke a pilot or A&P’s certificate, he or she will go before a NTSB Administrative Law Judge and present his or her defense. The NTSB has long adhered to the three-prong analysis found in in Hart v. McLucas when determining cases of intentional falsification. 535 F.2d 516 (9th Cir. 1976). The so-called “Hart elements” required the FAA (NOT THE CERTIFICATE HOLDER) to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the certificate holder: (1) made a false representation, (2) in reference to a material fact, and (3) with knowledge of the falsity of the fact. Consequently, the “Hart elements” allow a certificate holder at least three opportunities to overturn the FAA’s decision. If the certificate holder can show (depending on the facts of the case) that at least one of these elements was not supported by a preponderance of the evidence, the Emergency Order will be overturned and the certificate holder will remain a certificate holder.

 

The foregoing is not legal advice, but rather stands to show certificate holders that there are potential defenses available for intentional falsification allegations. It is extremely important that if you are a pilot, A&P mechanic, or other FAA certificate holder, that you contact your FAA Enforcement Action Attorney at The Ison Law Firm if you are facing a FAA Enforcement Action for “intentional falsification” charges. There is an aviation attorney standing by ready to analyze your case and develop a hopefully WINNING defense.

 

16

Nov,2016

FAA Notice of Proposed Certificate Action?

If you are under investigation by the FAA or otherwise involved in an FAA enforcement action, you may be wondering: “what is a FAA Notice of Proposed Certificate Action?” Quite simply, the FAA Notice of Proposed Certificate Action is the document which could ultimately become the complaint in an action to either suspend or revoke your airman certificate. To better understand the FAA Notice of Proposed Certificate Action, you must look at the enforcement process as a whole.

 
When an airman or operator within the National Airspace System violates a Federal Aviation Regulation and the FAA finds out about it, the FAA will begin an investigation into the incident. Typically, to initiate an investigation, a FAA inspector from the nearest FSDO will send the airman or operator what is known as a Letter of Investigation. The Letter of Investigation is discussed in greater length in other blogs. However, the Letter of Investigation is typically a document which tells the airman or operator that there was an incident on a certain date and that the FAA has initiated an investigation into that incident. Typically, the Letter of Investigation will invite the airman or operator to provide a statement, which will go into the EIR or investigative dossier. Generally, whether an airman or operator should respond to a Letter of Investigation is determined on a case-by-case basis; however, what with the FAA’s new Compliance Philosophy, it may be in your best interest to talk with the FAA about the incident. Whether or not you respond to a Letter of Investigation is something you should discuss with your aviation attorney.
The FAA Notice of Proposed Certificate Action is the next “important” document which you will receive after the Letter of Investigation.

 

Unless there is an emergency, the investigative process can last for several months. During this time, the FAA inspector is usually gathering documents, recording witness statements, and otherwise collecting evidence for a potential prosecution against your airman certificate. Once the FAA inspector turns all this evidence over to the FAA attorney with his or her opinion on the case, the FAA attorney will issue what is known as the FAA Notice of Proposed Certificate Action. Essentially, this document will summarize the information collected by the FAA inspector and included in the EIR or investigative dossier. As such, the document will detail the facts of the incident in question in a numerical fashion and then ultimately state what Federal Aviation Regulations the FAA believes the airman or operator has allegedly violated.

 
Upon receiving this document, it is imperative that you take action. If you have not retained an aviation attorney at this point or at least had a consultation with an aviation attorney, now is the time to do so. In that, the FAA Notice of Proposed Certificate Action is a time sensitive document. The FAA typically gives airmen 15 days to respond to a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action from the date of receipt– if no response is received within the 15 days, the airman will acquiesce to the FAA’s proposal of either certificate suspension or revocation. So, it is important that you respond to this Notice in a timely manner.

 
The Notice of Proposed Certificate Action begins the appeal process. In that, an airman has 4 options for response to the Notice. The airman can surrender his or her certificate (almost never a good idea); the airman can submit evidence which will show that the violation did not occur (again, almost never a good idea); the airman can request an informal conference with the FAA attorney (almost always a good idea) (discussed in greater detail in another blog); the airman can request that the proposed action be issued so that the airman can appeal to the NTSB full board (almost never a good idea). When giving your response to the Notice, it is typically good practice to request a copy of the EIR or investigative dossier.

 
If you have received a Notice of Proposed Certificate Action from the FAA, it is not too late to call an aviation attorney at The Ison Law Firm. This document is time sensitive and how you respond could potentially determine the fate of your airman certificate. Your FAA Enforcement Attorney at The Ison Law Firm is standing by to vector you through legal turbulence…855-FAA-1215!

29

Oct,2015

Liability in the Dynamic Airways Boeing 767 Engine Fire

Let’s discuss liability in the Dynamic Airways Boeing 767 engine fire that occurred at the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport on October 29, 2015. The plane, a Boeing 767 bound for Caracas, Venezuela, had a serious engine fire while taxiing for departure on Taxiway B. According to the Air Traffic Control (“ATC”) feed, everything happened relatively quickly. The aircraft behind the Dynamic 767 informed ATC that the “live” engine was leaking what appeared to be fuel. Moments later, that engine and a large portion of the port side of the aircraft were engulfed in flames. Fortunately, Broward County Fire Department responded to the scene and all passengers were able to evacuate within six minutes via the aircraft’s emergency exit slides. What is unfortunate, however, is that more than 20 people were injured, landing at least one passenger in the ICU with serious burns and one child injured. Furthermore, the Fort Lauderdale/Hollywood International Airport was closed for an indefinite period while emergency teams and airport administration contained the situation.

 

Time and time again, we are told that the most dangerous part of flying is “the drive to the airport.” Today, for some unfortunate souls onboard the Dynamic 767 bound for Caracas, that saying was a colossal farce. So who is to blame? Who do we hold responsible for the fact that some Dynamic passengers took a ride in an ambulance rather than an airworthy Boeing 767? Can those individuals have any redress for the injuries that they have sustained?

 

As of right now, it is too soon to tell who is at fault. Was it the airline, the pilots, the mechanics, ground crew, aircraft/engine manufacturers, and/or some unknown entity? It’s hard to say this early into the investigation. However, there is at least one early indications that seemingly spells disaster for both Dynamic Airways’ and the engine manufactures…the fuel leak. The two primary questions about the fuel leak are: what caused the leak and did the leak have anything to do with the fire? From there, an apportionment of blame can begin to sort itself out.

 

Well, what does “the blame game” have to do with potential torts in Dynamic Airways’ engine fire? Think of it this way. If the fire was caused by some sort of design defect in the engine, there may be a potential claim for strict product liability against the engine’s manufacturer. This theory of damage recovery allows the plaintiff to avoid showing negligence on the part of the manufacturer. Instead, the mere fact that the product was defective and caused injury is sufficient to allow the plaintiff to sue. Depending on the law in your state, for the most part, a strict liability claim will have four elements: 1) the defendant must be a merchant; 2) the product is defective at the time it is sold by the defendant; 3) the product is unreasonably dangerous; 4) the plaintiff suffers personal injury or property damage caused by the defective property. In the scenario where the engine was improperly designed, those injured on the Dynamic flight could potentially have a case using the strict liability theory.

 

Think of another scenario where the pilots of the Dynamic Airways’ 767 knew of the fuel leak and did nothing to correct or investigate the issue. In this scenario, you will likely have to also assume that the leak had something to do with the fire. This situation speaks to the tort theory of negligence. Negligence is an unintentional tort involving carelessness that causes harm. Generally, the tort of negligence requires the plaintiff to meet 4 burdens: 1) the defendant owed the plaintiff a duty of care; 2) the defendant breached that duty of care; 3) the defendant’s breach is the proximate cause of the plaintiff’s injury; and 4) the plaintiff suffers injury that is protected under the law. In the scenario of pilot negligence, you could see where those individuals injured on the flight could say that the pilot owed a duty and that the pilot breached that duty by not seeing to it that the leak was corrected, thus causing their injury. You could also see that in the world where a mechanic incorrectly/failed to fix/diagnose/maintain the engine, the injured parties could work up a case for negligence.

 

Nonetheless, those with significant injuries do not want to sue pilots and mechanics for their catastrophic injury. Why? Simply put, these aren’t the people with the money. Rather, the pilots and the mechanics would rather need to worry about a FAA Enforcement Action being brought against them in that sort of situation; however, that is not to say that they could not also be sued for negligence.

 

As the investigation continues, it will be possible to give more poignant analysis on the situation. None of the above is to be considered legal advice, rather brief legal musings on the details as reported. There are a lot of moving parts to be considered in a case such as this (like will the Montreal Convention come in to play, etc)…much of which are too lengthy to recite in a blog article. If you have questions about the Dynamic Airways Boeing 767 engine fire, call an aviation attorney at The Ison Law Firm…call us at 863-712-9472 or e-mail to Anthony@ThePilotLawyer.com.

Lakeland Web Design by BrightSky Web Design