Lieff
Global represents families of victims of
the Comair | Delta Flight 5191 accident.
Lieff Global has also retained David Gleave, an international
airport design and operations expert who personally inspected
Blue Grass Airport and has produced a
report on the safety of the airport and procedures
used by the FAA at issue in the Comair accident.
Families whose loved ones died in the Comair accident
are welcome to contact Lieff Global to learn more about
their legal rights without any charge or obligation.
A Bombardier
CRJ-100 commuter plane operated by Comair,
Inc., a subsidiary of Delta Air Lines, crashed
August 27, 2006 shortly after takeoff at Blue
Grass Airport in Lexington, Kentucky, killing
47 passengers and two crew members. The only
survivor was the first officer/co-pilot, who
was critically injured.
The aircraft
attempted to take off from the wrong runway. Damaged
sod and structures extend to the crash scene from
the end Runway 26, the shorter of the two runways
at the airport. Runway 26 is a 3,500 foot strip
used solely by small general aviation aircraft.
The two-engine jet was cleared to take off from
Runway 22, which was in excess of 7,000 feet in
length.
At the time
of the accident, there was one controller in the
tower at Blue Grass Airport, who was performing
both radar and control tower functions. As a radar
controller, the individual guided the movements
of aircraft in the area of the airport. As a tower
controller, he controlled the movements of aircraft
on the ground.
This violated
an FAA policy directive reflected in this November,
16, 2005 memorandum (see
a copy of the memorandum by clicking here),
which required that there be two controllers on
duty, with one focusing on air traffic control
functions and the other responsible for controlling
ground operations.
Key Questions for the Comair
Accident Investigation
While the immediate cause
of the Comair Flight 5191 accident seems apparent,
passenger safety requires a deeper examination
of all the possible contributing factors. Air safety
is a collaborative effort involving, among others,
aircraft manufacturers, airlines, airport designers,
airport operators, and air traffic controllers
employed by the United States Government. When
an accident occurs, it is usually the product of
a number of factors, involving errors by some and
missed opportunities by others.
Families whose
loved ones died in the Comair airplane
crash are welcome to contact aviation
law attorneys toll-free at
1-800-541-7358, or contact
an aviation lawyer at Lieff Global by
email to learn more about their legal
rights. We welcome the opportunity to
answer your questions free of charge,
without obligation and in strict confidence.
Here are some of the questions that
must be answered:
Why did the pilots attempt to take off from the wrong
runway? Were they fatigued or impaired by drugs or alcohol?
Were they distracted by something? Were there psychological
factors impacting the performance of either or both pilots?
Did the layout of the runways and taxiways contribute
to the accident? The two runways intersected at a point
that was very close to their ends (see
an additional diagram of the runways by clicking here).
A newly established taxiing route meant that the plane
was not supposed to start from the extreme end of Runway
22, where large, painted numbers identify the strip.
Did inoperative lights or missing directional signs or
pavement markings contribute to the pilots’ confusion?
A repaving project may have left some signs or markers
inoperative.
Are current standards for taxiway and runway signage
inadequate?
Should all commercial aircraft be equipped with available
technology which advises pilots which runway they are aligned
with or located on? Since 2003, Boeing has been equipping
some of its new aircraft with moving map displays, which
show the aircraft’s position on a map of the airport.
Other systems use GPS technology to advise pilots of their
position with respect to runways.
Did Comair incorporate into any of its training programs
or procedures any lessons learned from similar mistakes
made by pilots in previous years?
Would new clearance and taxiing procedures prevent another
accident like this?
News reports indicate that FAA officials had ordered
the Blue Grass tower facility to schedule at least two
controllers at all times, but there was only one present
at the time of the accident. Would the presence of a second
person in the control tower have made a difference?
Would a ground radar alarm have prevented the accident?
In other parts of the world, these radar systems can alert
ground controllers to the improper presence of a plane
(or other vehicle) on a runway.
Did the streamlined design of the CRJ-100’s wings
deprive the people on Flight 5191 of the opportunity to
overcome the pilots’ alleged error? Unlike most commercial
aircraft, the CRJ-100 and its successors lack “slats” on
the front edge of the wings. Slats are moving panels which
are extended during take-offs and landings, to enlarge
the wing and give the plane additional lift and stability
at low speeds. Had the aircraft been equipped with these
slats, the pilots might have been able to clear the obstructions
at the end of the short runway.
Could the operator of the airport have created a longer
Runway End Safety Area, that would have given the Comair
aircraft a margin for error and the ability to fly out
of danger or come to a safe stop?
The Legal Rights of Victims and Families
Whose Loved Ones Die in Aviation Accidents
We appreciate that this is a time of
deep pain and grieving for the families of those who perished
on Comair Flight 5191. In the coming weeks, you will have questions
concerning your legal rights, compensation that is available
to you, and the duties and legal responsibility of Comair or
others.
While Comair filed for bankruptcy protection
along with its corporate parent Delta, FAA regulations require
that airlines carry liability insurance, and this insurance
usually is sufficient to compensate victims fully. We expect
that claims against Comair eventually will proceed without
being affected by the bankruptcy filing.
The facts of this case suggest that others
aside from Comair might be held legally liable. If it appears
that the presence of a second controller in the tower would
have made a difference, a claim can be filed against the United
States, for the actions of the FAA. If the airport design or
maintenance is implicated, the Lexington-Fayette Urban County
Airport Corporation might be named in litigation. Any technical
deficiencies in the aircraft would be the responsibility of
its manufacturer, Bombardier, Inc., a Canadian company.
Lieff Global retained David Gleave,
an international airport design and operations expert, who
has produced a report
on the safety of Blue Grass Airport and procedures used
by the FAA at the airport. Gleave and Lieff Global attorneys
were present at Blue Grass Airport on September 27, 2006, during
the court ordered inspection of the airport.
Contact Premier Aviation Law Attorneys & Lawyers
Lieff Global represents families of victims
of the Comair | Delta Flight 5191 accident. Families whose
loved ones died in the Comair accident are welcome to contact
Lieff Global to learn more about their legal rights without
any charge or obligation.
Lieff Global, LLP, is an AV-rated
law firm with offices in San Francisco and New York,
and affiliate offices worldwide. Our representation has
included both Americans and people residing in Europe
and Asia in aviation lawsuits filed worldwide.
Lieff Global is uniquely positioned
to answer your questions and represent your interests.
Our attorneys have over forty years of experience litigating
airplane crash cases worldwide. We have relationships
with the foremost experts in the fields of aviation safety
and disaster analysis.
1. The National Transportation Safety
Board identifies the accident aircraft as a CRJ-200, but both
Comair and Bombardier state that it was a CRJ-100.BACK
2. In all cases, the runway number corresponds
to the first two numbers of the compass heading when a plane
takes off from that runway. For example, if a runway sends
a plane off on a compass heading of 180 degrees (due South),
the runway will be assigned the number 18. Runway 27 sends
an aircraft West. Runway 35 send an aircraft almost due North. BACK
Disclaimer/Attorney
Advertising:
Past success is not a guarantee of success in your case. The
hiring of legal professionals is an important decision that
should not be based on advertising alone. Please read our attorney
advertising disclaimer.
Desired
path via runway 22
Actual
path via runway 26
