Excel-Jet sues FAA for Sport-Jet crash

WJRFlyBoy wrote:


How so? By Fed do you mean Federal Court? Would not the FAA be liable to
the charge that it is not doing everything possible to prevent such an
accident by usurping an air directive? The jet was cleared for takeoff
behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of mandatory separation requirements."

We don't even know if that's the case. If the jet took off from the
same place as the Dash 8 then no wake turbulence delay was necessary.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:45:46 -0700, Newps wrote:

WJRFlyBoy wrote:


How so? By Fed do you mean Federal Court? Would not the FAA be liable to
the charge that it is not doing everything possible to prevent such an
accident by usurping an air directive? The jet was cleared for takeoff
behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of mandatory separation requirements."

We don't even know if that's the case. If the jet took off from the
same place as the Dash 8 then no wake turbulence delay was necessary.

That's the point. There is no true case until there is legal deposition.
Which is why I was asking Robert why he said:

"It will be interesting to see if the fed's grant their request to sue
the FAA."

--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

On Nov 30, 3:14 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:

How so? By Fed do you mean Federal Court? Would not the FAA be liable to
the charge that it is not doing everything possible to prevent such an
accident by usurping an air directive? The jet was cleared for takeoff
behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of mandatory separation requirements."

United States Government has sovereign immunity, and you have to seek
permission to take a legal action against an agency

-Robert

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 17:06:43 -0800 (PST), Robert M. Gary wrote:

On Nov 30, 3:14 pm, WJRFlyBoy wrote:

How so? By Fed do you mean Federal Court? Would not the FAA be liable to
the charge that it is not doing everything possible to prevent such an
accident by usurping an air directive? The jet was cleared for takeoff
behind a Dash-8-200 "in violation of mandatory separation requirements."

United States Government has sovereign immunity, and you have to seek
permission to take a legal action against an agency

-Robert

True but the precedent for monetary damages being pursued against the FAA
exists. Which gets back to your question, "It will be interesting to see if
the fed's grant their request to sue the FAA."

Is this a DOJ determination?


--
Remove numbers for gmail and for God's sake it ain't "gee" either!

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...

The dash 8-200 isn't that large an airplane. If the sport jet can't
handle it's wake 2 minutes after takeoff, how is it going to share
airspace with a 777 five minutes ahead?


FAAO 7110.65 defines large aircraft as those of more than 41,000 pounds
maximum certificated takeoff weight up to 255,000 pounds. Appendix A of
that order puts the DHC-8/200 in the large weight class. The type
certificate data sheet for the DHC-8 series issued by the UK CAA gives the
maximum take-off weight of the DHC-8 -200 series as 36,300 pounds.


http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/1419/srg_acp_fa36-06.pdf

http://www.faa.gov/airports_airtraff.../media/ATC.pdf

Recently, Steven P. McNicoll posted:

"Richard Riley" wrote in message
...

The dash 8-200 isn't that large an airplane. If the sport jet can't
handle it's wake 2 minutes after takeoff, how is it going to share
airspace with a 777 five minutes ahead?


FAAO 7110.65 defines large aircraft as those of more than 41,000
pounds maximum certificated takeoff weight up to 255,000 pounds.
Appendix A of that order puts the DHC-8/200 in the large weight
class. The type certificate data sheet for the DHC-8 series issued
by the UK CAA gives the maximum take-off weight of the DHC-8 -200
series as 36,300 pounds.

Interesting. MTO weight 41,000 pounds, yet classed as "L"... any notions
as to why there would be a discrepancy of this kind?

Neil

"Neil Gould" wrote in message
. net...

Interesting. MTO weight 41,000 pounds, yet classed as "L"... any notions
as to why there would be a discrepancy of this kind?


No idea.

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:28:31 -0600, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
.net...

Interesting. MTO weight 41,000 pounds, yet classed as "L"... any notions
as to why there would be a discrepancy of this kind?


No idea.

Could it be like the 757 where it's something to do with the vortices
even though it's not a heavy?

Peter Clark wrote in
:

On Fri, 30 Nov 2007 08:28:31 -0600, "Steven P. McNicoll"
wrote:


"Neil Gould" wrote in message
y.net...

Interesting. MTO weight 41,000 pounds, yet classed as "L"... any
notions as to why there would be a discrepancy of this kind?


No idea.

Could it be like the 757 where it's something to do with the vortices
even though it's not a heavy?

The 757 was classified as a heavy for a while for wake seperation, but that
was rescinded a few years back. Still a good idea not to nuzzle up behind
one. It's wing is kind of unique in that the center section has a critical
foil and this causes a particularly strong spanwise flow.
The latest 737s have the same wing, BTW.


Bertie

"Peter Clark" wrote in message
...

Could it be like the 757 where it's something to do with the vortices
even though it's not a heavy?


No. The B757 is the only aircraft specified by type in wake turbulence
procedures.