Chapter Nine Questions
Question one
The federal government has the vicarious liability for negligence of state employees engaged in forms of unintentional torts. This implies that the government is responsible for the negligence committed by its employees in the scope of their employment. However, for the employees in the private sector, most liability for negligence is bestowed on them meaning that the staff are personally responsible for their negligence.
Question two
Personal liability of those involved in federal activities are born by the government such that staff do not face the risk of consequences for unintentional tort. This is a major benefit for federal employees since the government pays any settlement in the negligence suit as the state defends its own name. With the private employees, they are left to bear the consequences of their negligence depending on whether the cause was a result of intentional tort or poor judgement from staff.
Question three
The fact that the ejection seat had design defects indicates that it had failed to conform to the aircraft certification standards required by FAR. This means that the design inspectors had failed to detect the error and look for ways through which the defect could be corrected. The manufacture also needs to have scrutinized the design and discuss with the designer every aspects of the structure before going ahead to manufacture the components. The spouse could therefore use both FAR, FAA and the manufacture for failing to assess the specifications of the designer and rely on their expertise to form judgement on whether the design had met the standards required.
The fact that the assembly workers had failed to assemble the ejection seat correctly implies that the wife could sue the manufacturer for negligence. Since the employee form a critical component of the organization, it is appropriate that the organization faces the consequence of the on job negligence by the assembly worker.
Question four
It is the responsibility of the air traffic controller to be able to use their expertise and personal judgment in providing the right vector altitudes, speed restrictions and clearance limits. It is important that the U.S attorney considers involving expert witness in the case as a way of determining whether it was an intentional tort or if the situation was beyond human control.
Question five
Discretionary function involves the situation where the liability is placed on the state when only operations issues are involved. This implies that other factors such as planning and policy making do not lead to liability for negligence since they do not involve operational decision making. The discretional function applies to individuals acting on behalf of the state where the government is vicariously liable for consequences of unintentional negligence by its employees.
Question six
For a discretional function, a person is alleged to have caused an aircraft incident when the situation involves only operational decision making as opposed to issues of planning and policy making. This implies that accidents have to occur within the scope of performing employment roles.
Question seven
The fact that the management had been notified on the need for a radar at the tower implies that it needed to have assessed the area and considered installing a radar at the location. Those affected by the accident could therefore sue the federal government for the negligence of Washington who was to take corrective measures to ensure that the radar was in place to assist controllers in directing the planes.
Question eight
The local controller is liable for the accident since his distractions led to the crashing. This implies that the local controller lacked the prudence to make proper judgment on the landing.
The local controller will have to bear personal responsibility for his negligence and incur costs aimed at settling legal claims by the injured and the relatives of the dead passengers. The federal government will also have to incur settlement obligation for the fact that the accident had happened from the negligent actions of its employee.
Question nine
The United States is to a larger extent liable for the consequences of FAA designee since the former is the one responsible for the inspection and giving of quality certification for products that meet quality standards. This then implies that in the event where the approval of poor quality designs take place, the US has the vicarious liability to face the consequences in such situations.
Question ten
The fact that the controller acted on the basis of anger and jealous makes the negligence intentional. Under such cases, the US will not have to be liable for the consequences of the employee’s actions hence the latter will have to personally face the punishment for his actions.
CHAPTER TEN QUESTIONS
Question one
It is important to notify NTSB to assess the nature of the accident. NTSB needs to assess the damage to the right wingtip to come up with the full report on the incident.
The fact the right main landing gear failed implies that it is important to notify NTSB to determine whether the component had been designed and manufactured according to the quality standards.
Since the propeller was also bent in the process creates the need to involve NTSB since the damage caused to the plane is assessed as a whole. Even in the case where the damage to the propeller was caused by the ground impact, the agency will still have to compile the full details of the incident.
In the case where the tear-down inspection of the engine revealed that the prop strike bent the crank-shaft, NTSB will still have to be notified so as to look into the events that could have led to the incident.
The fact that the head banged on the aircraft structures could have led to severe accident hence the necessity to notify the NTSB of the real events that took place including the dizziness felt after banging the structures.
Question two
The fact that the controller had contributed to the mishap creates the need for the pilot to notify the agency since it forms a major component of accident reporting protocols. The functionality of the pre-checklist has to be assed to determine if there are any technical limitations in it.
Failure or malfunctioning of the landing gear means that the agency will have to be briefed on such incidences to pave way for investigation. The purpose is to determine whether the design or the approval of the gear had failed to take into account quality standards.
Reporting on full damage that had occurred is necessary including making it clear that both crankshafts were bent when the propellers struck the ground. The agency needs to have a detailed report on the events before and after the crushing including the full extent of damage to the plane.
Question three
No one was injured while at the same time there were only minor defects to the plane means there is no need for NTSB to be notified.
No damage on the planes were reported thereby indicating that there is no need for NTSB to be notified.
The two planes missed each other by few millimeter but there were no reports of damage to the planes or fatalities to the passengers. This then means that there is no need for notification to be made to NTSB.
Question four
The fact that the mishap involved issues caused by the bird means there is no need for NTSB to be notified of the incident.
The catastrophic and uncontained incidents are major issues that cannot be ignored and left unreported. This implies that NTSB need to be involved in the investigation to assess the extent of the damage.
Question five
Question six
The fact that the rotor blades will have to be replaced create the need for NTSB to be notified. This is because the controller’s unintentional actions led to damage to a critical competent of the plane that if not replaced could lead to major catastrophes.
Question seven
The incident had no major damage hence limiting the need to notify NTSB of the same. In the event where the two planes could have collide, then it would have been imperative to invoke the agency.
Question eight
The FAA is responsible for analyzing the cause and the extent of the accidents by aircrafts on the basis of technicalities. This implies that FAA looks at the operational functionalities limitations such as engine failure, damage to rotors or failure of screen displays. FAA also assesses the competence of factors such as controllers and whether such factors could have led to accidents.
Question nine
The fact that there was an inflight failure and that the plane made an emergency landing makes it imperative to notify relevant agencies such as NTSB. In spite of the fact that there were no injuries, the inflight defects still require the attention of government agency.
Damage to the $ 200000 car implies that the owner will be pursuing legal means to demand compensation. This then creates the need to report on the accidents since it will pave way for an enquiry on what exactly happened.
Question ten
The fact that there were no casualties and that the only damage was on the aircraft implies that there will be no need to involve relevant agency into such matters. However, the insurer could be involved in order to assess the damage and determine whether to compensate the company.
Since the passengers had not yet boarded the plane, there wail be no need for notification. This is because for notification to be done, the passengers need to be on the plane with the intention to travel.
Question eleven
It is a requirement that crew members do not engage with FAA. This is because FAA could use the statement recorded in an enforcement action.
The fact that NTSB talks with FAA in accident related issues put the statement made by crew members at risk of enforcement action. This implies that it is only appropriate that the company under which the crew members work be notified to come up with the desirable response action plans.
Question twelve
In such a case, the appropriate thing to say will be for the person to wait for the results of investigations. This is to avoid incidences where the initial statement could be misinterpreted thereby leading to inaccurate reporting.
The first person to report the incident to is the employer who then will go ahead to come up with the appropriate response actions. Such engagement with the employer will be necessary after coming to terms with the event and restoring the consciousness capable of reflecting the events that occurred before the crush.
Written reports need to be handed to the NTSB only when required by the law.
Question thirteen
NTSB plays the role of helping victims and their families through providing family counselling services, providing forensic expertise in identifying bodes, communicating with foreign government and translating in case of communication barriers.
