Coatney v. Berkshire
| Decision Date | 22 July 1974 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-1741,73-1741 |
| Citation | 500 F.2d 290 |
| Parties | Dorothy M. COATNEY, Appellant, v. Robert L. BERKSHIRE and United States of America, Appellees. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Eighth Circuit |
Thaine Q. Blumer, Kansas City, Mo., for appellant.
Bert C. Hurn, U.S. Atty., Robert G. Ulrich, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., and Neil R. Eisner, Trial Atty., Federal Aviation Administration, Washington, D.C., for appellees.
Before BRIGHT, STEPHENSON and WEBSTER, Circuit Judges.
This is an appeal from a decision in favor of defendant-appellees in an action arising out of a mid-air collision of two light aircraft. It is contended that the finding of the trial court that the negligence of both pilots and not the control tower was the proximate cause of the collision is clearly erroneous. Appellant further urges that the trial court erred in denying recovery under the Missouri Humanitarian Doctrine. We affirm.
Suit was brought by the widow of Homer E. Coatney, deceased, under the Missouri Wrongful Death Statute, 537.080 R.S.Mo.1969, V.A.M.S. The United States was joined as a defendant pursuant to the Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. 2671. The complaint alleged that employees of the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA), an agency of the United States, were negligent in several respects in authorizing the take-off of appellee Berkshire from the Fairfax Airport in Kansas City, Kansas, and in failing to warn Coatney, who was approaching the airport intending to land, of the approach of Berkshire's aircraft. It was further alleged that Berkshire was negligent in the operation of his aircraft.
The trial court found that the two aircraft collided approximately one and one-half miles northwest of the Fairfax Airport 1 at approximately 5:31 P.M.; at the time the weather was reported as clear, visibility 15 miles, wind light and variable; official sunset was at 6:50 P.M.; both pilots were operating under Visual Flight Rules (VFR); 2 both were holders of Private Pilot Certificates; both had substantial flying experience; and both were in command of their respective aircraft.
The record indicates that Berkshire was cleared for take-off on runway 35 at Fairfax Airport at approximately 5:28, three minutes before the collision. At approximately 5:29 Coatney radioed the local controller he was 'approaching Tank Inbound.' (The Tank intersection was situated 2.5 miles due north of the north end of runway 35.) The controller instructed Coatney to 'break off at the Tank' (meaning the pilot should make a right turn and proceed southwest to stay clear of the traffic pattern) and to notify him when his aircraft reached the Tank intersection. Ten seconds later Coatney reported, 'I just showed Tank intersection, I'm a little bit west about even with the bridge.' The controller then instructed, 'Fly your downwind west of the bridge and report there for sequence; I'll have traffic ahead of you.' Coatney acknowledged, 'Will do.' This was his last transmission.
Plaintiff's principal allegation of negligence on the part of the controller is that he failed to warn either pilot of the converging courses of their aircraft.
The Fairfax Airport control tower was staffed by employees of the Federal Aviation Administration whose job it was to facilitate the movement of traffic on and around the airport.
At the time of the accident and at material times prior thereto both pilots were operating within the Fairfax Airport traffic area 3 and had the duty to remain in radio contact with the controller and to monitor transmissions on the tower radio frequency. 14 C.F.R. 91.87. Records prior to the accident indicate that from the time Berkshire was cleared for take-off (three minutes before this collision) until the collision the controller spoke to at least eight separate aircraft and there were 37 separate transmissions between the various aircraft and the tower. While the controller's primary duty is to establish the sequence of arriving and departing aircraft, he cannot be expected to give constant and exact traffic information to all aircraft in the airport traffic area.
It is well settled law that under VFR conditions the primary responsibility for safe operation of the aircraft rests with the pilot, regardless of the traffic clearance. In the instant case, each pilot was directly responsible for, and had the final authority as to the operation of his aircraft. American Airlines v. United States, 418 F.2d 180, 193 (CA5 1969...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Transco Leasing Corp. v. U.S., 88-1823
...(1960); Bibler v. Young, 492 F.2d 1351 (6th Cir.), cert. denied, 419 U.S. 996, 95 S.Ct. 309, 42 L.Ed.2d 269 (1974); Coatney v. Berkshire, 500 F.2d 290 (8th Cir.1974); Hamilton v. United States, 497 F.2d 370 (9th Cir.1974); Colorado Flying Academy, Inc. v. United States, 724 F.2d 871 (10th C......
-
In Re Air Crash Disaster at Metropolitan Airport
...the primary responsibility for safe operation of the aircraft rests with the pilot, regardless of traffic clearance." Coatney v. Berkshire, 500 F.2d 290, 292 (8th Cir.1974). See Redhead v. United States, 686 F.2d 178, 183 (3d Cir.1982); In Re Aircrash Disaster at New Orleans (Moisant Field)......
-
Cappello v. Duncan Aircraft Sales of Florida, Inc.
...the primary responsibility for safe operation of the aircraft rests with the pilot, regardless of traffic clearance." Coatney v. Berkshire, 500 F.2d 290, 292 (8th Cir.1974). Schuler v. United States, 868 F.2d 195, 197 (6th A. The Conduct of Flight Specialist Ronald Kessock The pilot had dec......
-
IN RE AIR CRASH DISASTER AT NEW ORLEANS, ETC.
...of the aircraft is directly responsible for, and is the final authority as to, the operation of that aircraft. Coatney v. Berkshire, 500 F.2d 290, 292 (8th Cir. 1974); Bibler v. Young, 492 F.2d 1351, 1358 (6th Cir. The duties and responsibilities of air traffic controllers are set forth in ......