Lawsuit Revived Against FAA Over Pilot and Passenger Deaths
A federal judge in Nevada has reopened a $6.5 million lawsuit against the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), accusing air traffic controllers of contributing to a fatal 2016 plane crash near Reno-Tahoe International Airport. The decision follows a ruling by the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals that reversed an earlier dismissal of the case.
Fatal Crash Details and Initial Ruling
The crash occurred on August 30, 2016, when a small single-engine Beechcraft A-36 Bonanza, piloted by 73-year-old John Brown, veered into turbulence caused by a jetliner and went down in a recreational vehicle park in Sparks, about half a mile from the airport runway. Both Brown, an experienced pilot and professional flight instructor, and his passenger, James Elliker, were killed in the crash.
In 2022, U.S. District Court Judge Miranda Du dismissed the lawsuit, ruling that Brown’s negligence was the sole cause of the accident. However, the families of Brown and Elliker argued that miscommunication between Brown and the control tower contributed to the crash, leading to the lawsuit against the FAA.
Appeals Court Overturns Dismissal
The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Judge Du’s ruling, instructing her to reconsider whether the air traffic controller involved shared any responsibility for the crash. The appellate court focused on claims that the controller failed to make it clear to Brown that there were two Boeing 757 cargo planes—one from UPS and one from FedEx—cleared to land ahead of his plane. Brown reportedly mistook one cargo plane for the other, which led to the fatal encounter with wake turbulence.
Miscommunication and Controller’s Responsibility
According to the lawsuit, the air traffic controller switched from radar-based separation to “pilot-applied visual separation,” a process where pilots visually ensure adequate distance from other aircraft without direct controller guidance. The appellate court highlighted a breach of protocol in this transition, noting that the controller failed to explicitly instruct Brown to maintain visual separation and did not confirm that Brown was actively engaging in visual separation.
The judges emphasized that their ruling was not an opinion on whether the controller’s breach was a substantial factor in the crash. Instead, they directed the lower court to reevaluate whether Brown was solely responsible for the accident, considering the controller’s potential negligence.
