Thursday, October 12, 2006
The cost of accidents: Who pays for scrambled fighters?
So, a rich man (probably) flies his plane into a building in Manhattan, where people are understandably sensitive about that sort of thing. Not immediately knowing that it was not a terrorist attack, the United States scrambled fighter jets over key American cities at what was undoubtedly considerable variable cost. Who should bear that cost? Call me a churl, but I think that the rich man's estate should pay for the scrambling of the fighters, assuming that it has any assets left after it settles with the building's insurer.
14 Comments:
By 
, at
Wed Oct 11, 10:37:00 PM:
So you have become Guido Calabresi?
Then again, I don't think even Guido would argue for this result.
By , at
Wed Oct 11, 10:57:00 PM:
I love it when the first words out of a persons mouth are "Who's gonna pay for this?" It keeps my faith that mankind cares more about mankind than money.
I think if we can afford Iraq to protect America from "gathering threats" then we can afford a policy that launches fighter planes when an aircraft crashes into a building, especially since 9/11.
Or are we playing "soak the dead rich man"? (He can't defend his money anymore so lets take it from him,eh?)
By , at
Wed Oct 11, 11:52:00 PM:
Is this the sort of personal responsibility CV was talking about earlier?
By , at
Thu Oct 12, 12:01:00 AM:
We would all be safer if Yankee pitchers, Kennedys, and other bored millionaires would spend their riches on harmless hobbies like golf, and leave life-threatening pursuits like flying to the professionals who know what they are doing. Yes, of course he should pay for the consequences of his conduct.
By , at
Thu Oct 12, 12:14:00 AM:
NORAD will mostly likely view this as an exercise. As for the cost; let the man's family bury him before we start whining about money.
Oh, and since when should flying be only for an exclusive club?
By , at
Thu Oct 12, 12:38:00 AM:
Flying, like driving cars and handling firearms, should indeed be limited to members of an "exclusive club": those who have acquired the skill to do it safely. Those who have not, or their estates, should expect to pay the reasonably foreseeable (and in the case of flying around densely populated cities, foreseeably enormous) damages. It might even serve as a deterrent.
By , at
Thu Oct 12, 05:47:00 AM:
Uh, how about at least waiting until the NTSB report is out regarding the accident instead of assuming that the accident was pilot error.
By 
Mojo, at
Thu Oct 12, 07:07:00 AM:
Those planes need to be scrambled frequently anyway, just to stay sharp. If they don't get an actual scramble, they would get a training scramble and the pilots and crews usually don't even know the difference at the time. So the cost is irrelevent because they would be flying one way or the other.
As far as speaking ill of the dead, please don't.
By TigerHawk, at
Thu Oct 12, 08:04:00 AM:
I don't believe I spoke ill of the dead, although I will confess that I don't see anything inherently wrong with that, either.
By GreenmanTim, at
Thu Oct 12, 10:33:00 AM:
There is some precedent for what TH suggests if the pilot was neglegent. Ill-prepared hikers who get themselves into trouble in the backcountry and dial 911 on their cellphones often get bills from the search and rescue teams that have to go extract them. Volunteer fire companies send bills to homeowners for repeated false alarms.
The unanswered questions are of fault and intent. If intentional or pilot error, expect the courts to wrangle about compensation for loss of life and damages to private property. The government, however, cannot justify suing its citizens simply because its own responsibility and policies compel it to protect them, false alarm or not.
By Cardinalpark, at
Thu Oct 12, 10:45:00 AM:
Churl.
Ok, seriously, when a person has a car accident which sets fire to a house, for instance, and the police and fire departments show up to put out the fire, secure the site, take care of the victims and so forth, who foots the bill?
It doesn't strike me as all that different.
Separately, I do have some interesting speculation from a military pilot and friend on how this accident may have unfolded:
"I can tell you that I have flown the exact route that cory lidle flew out of teterboro; down the hudson and then up the east river, and unlike the hudson you can not continue straight up the east river. the allowable airspace to fly in ends due to JFK (ed. correction: Laguardia) airport. what you have to do is make a very steep turn, to turn 180 degrees back the other way, all the while staying over the east river(it is very narrow if you are are going fast because your radius of turn increases depending on your airspeed). I will tell you in the t-34, my aircraft, which is probably one of the highest performance airplanes in the small propeller driven aircraft catagory, that turn was a bitch. It was such a bitch I will never fly up that river again. I can imagine, and this is just speculation, that probably what happened was they were flying too fast up the east river, had to make that turn to stay within the allotted airspace and had what we call "an accelerated stall".
That is when you are in a high angle of bank turn and the bottom wing of the aircaft is not moving fast enough, therefore there are not enough particles of air going over it and the aircraft departs controlled flight. The only way to recover is to relax angle of bank. Well you can imagine that if you relax angle of bank in an area of huge buildings and don't make it all the way back around you are going to probably hit something. That is my best guess as to what happened up there. I think he stalled, put in the correct stall recovery technique (which is to take out angle of bank and roll wings level) but then did not have enough time/airspeed to continue his turn back away from the buildings and that is why he went straight into the building and not into the building in an angle of bank. Just my thoughts, i am anxious to see what the FAA thinks happens."
By Enlighten-NewJersey, at
Thu Oct 12, 01:48:00 PM:
Yes, you are being a churl. A “pay for government services used” model isn’t likely to catch on any time soon. Not to mention we don’t know if the “rich man” or the “not so rich man” was piloting the plane. Both men paid a hefty price for their actions and their families … well, why leave them penniless? That’s what lawsuits are for – and there will be lawsuits. And in this case, lots of them - the estates, the pilot’s families, those injured and traumatized by the accident, the flight school, the airplane manufacturer, etc. The government will make a small fortune on the dough the lawyers will get and all will be set right on the money ledger.
By , at
Thu Oct 12, 05:00:00 PM:
Whoa! Wait a second, if you take such a suggestion to its natural conclusion, next you’ll have extreme skiers and rock climbers paying for their rescues, maybe even pleasure boaters who wind up rescued by the Coast Guard. I find this kind of responsibility for one’s own actions incredibly troubling. If this were ever to become mainstream, someday someone might get the idea that people should be responsible for their everyday plight in life, not just their own fault induced emergency situation. I hope you see the ridiculousness of your suggestion. Clearly, the government should take care of us in good times and bad…after all, it’s free!
By Mojo, at
Mon Oct 16, 05:43:00 AM:
Hello Tigerhawk,
I just checked back on this and saw your response to my first comment. I was referring to Pasquin speaking ill of the dead, not yourself.
Sorry!
Mojo
