You are on page 1of 4

Collin Fleck

1234 College Street


Salt Lake City, Utah 84111

March 10, 2014

Professor Jodi Howick


Westminster College
1840 S 1300 E
Salt Lake City, Utah 84105

Dear Professor Howick:

I am writing this letter to you to discuss the potential legal outcomes of


a case involving a man by the name of Mr. Flyer, a woman named Amy
Jones, and Delta Airlines. After reviewing the facts of their situation, I
have researched laws pertinent to the scenario and listed those along
with my conclusion on the case below.

Facts: The facts of this case are as follows: Mr. Flyer claims to have
been unaware that the Federal government had declared Jellystone
Canyon a national park the week before the incident, so he had not
applied to the Administrator for approval to conduct the tour over the
national park. Air traffic control instructed Mr. Flyer to call the tower
after he had landed. During his taxi to the airport after landing, he
taxied into the path of a jet operated by Delta carrying an international
passenger by the name of Amy Jones. The jet had to apply brakes
quickly to avoid a collision with the aircraft operated by Mr. Jones, and
this caused Mrs. Jones , an international passenger who was not
wearing her seatbelt at the time to break her nose on the seat in front
of her. No other injuries or damages occurred.

Issues: The issues involved with this case are that Mr. Flyer failed to
comply with FAR 136.37, which states that any air tour service must
apply to the Administrator for approval to provide tours over a national
park. Mr. Flyer also failed to follow taxi instructions and taxied the
aircraft in to the path of a Delta jet. Another issue is that Amy Jones
suffered a broken nose due to the jet having to apply brakes to avoid
Mr. Flyers plane.

Rules: The following rules apply to the facts mentioned previously

136.37 Overflights of national parks and tribal lands.


This regulation states that before commencing commercial air
tour operations over a national park or tribal lands, a commercial
air tour operator shall apply to the Administrator for authority to
conduct the operations over the park or tribal lands.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?
c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

91.123 Compliance with ATC clearances and instructions.


(a) When an ATC clearance has been obtained, no pilot in
command may deviate from that clearance unless an
amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the
deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision
avoidance system resolution advisory.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?
c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

91.107 Use of safety belts, shoulder harnesses, and child


restraint systems.
This rule states that;
(a) Unless otherwise authorized by the Administrator
(1) No pilot may take off a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a
free balloon that incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship
type certificated before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in
command of that aircraft ensures that each person on board is
briefed on how to fasten and unfasten that person's safety belt
and, if installed, shoulder harness.
(2) No pilot may cause to be moved on the surface, take off, or
land a U.S.-registered civil aircraft (except a free balloon that
incorporates a basket or gondola, or an airship type certificated
before November 2, 1987) unless the pilot in command of that
aircraft ensures that each person on board has been notified to
fasten his or her safety belt and, if installed, his or her shoulder
harness.
http://www.ecfr.gov/cgi-bin/text-idx?
c=ecfr&tpl=/ecfrbrowse/Title14/14tab_02.tpl

Analysis: It can be assumed that the reason Mr. Flyer was contacted by
air traffic control and instructed to call the tower is because during his
flight over Jellystone Canyon National Park, he violated Federal Aviation
Regulation 136.37 which states that because he was providing
commercial air tour services over a national park, he was required to
obtain permission from the Federal Aviation Association before over
flying the park. If this was the case and he did not first gain authority,
air traffic control had the right to make contact with him while he was
taxiing and instruct him to call the tower. Since there are no rules
regarding a certain time that air traffic control can contact a pilot, Mr.
Flyer cannot legally hold them accountable for distracting him from his
responsibility to comply with taxi instructions given to him by air traffic
control. FAR 91.123 also states that no pilot who is operating under
clearance from air traffic control can deviate from that clearance
unless an amended clearance is obtained, an emergency exists, or the
deviation is in response to a traffic alert and collision avoidance system
resolution advisory. This makes Mr. Flyer responsible for breaking FAR
91.123 and causing the Delta jet to brake abruptly.

Amy Jones has stated that she wishes to file a lawsuit against Delta
Airlines for breaking her nose. Assuming that Delta Airlines was
operating as it should be under FAR 91.107 which states that no
aircraft may move on the surface, take off, or land unless the
passenger has been briefed on the use of their seat belt and that the
pilot or crew has instructed all passengers to have them secured at
these times, Mrs. Jones should have had her safety belt secured during
the aircrafts taxi. According to the National Transportation Safety
Board, Mrs. Jones broken nose cannot be classified as an accident
because it does not fit the definition of a serious injury (J. Scott
Hamilton, Practical Aviation Law, 5th Edition, Aviation Supplies &
Academics Inc., 2011). Because of these two rules, Delta Airlines
cannot be held liable for Amy Jones broken nose.

Because Mrs. Jones will not be able to file a lawsuit against Delta
Airlines, there should be no need for the airline to file a lawsuit against
Mr. Flyer to compensate for any funds needed to pay for the injury.

Conclusion: Because of FARs 136.37, 91.123, and 91.107, Mr. Flyer


will not be able to file a law suit against air traffic control, Amy Jones
will not be able to file a law suit against Delta Airlines, and Delta
Airlines will not be able to file a law suit against Mr. Flyer. The most
probable outcome of this case is that Mr. Flyer will either be fined or
have his certificates suspended or recoked by the FAA for flying over a
national park without authorization and failure to comply with taxi
instructions from air traffic control.

Please contact me with any further questions or needed assistance.

Collin Fleck