2023 Supreme(US)(ca11) 213
COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
Perry Hodges – Appellant
Versus
United States – Respondent
____________________
No. 22-12316 ____________________ PERRY W. HODGES, AURORA CECILIA SCARPATI RIPALDA, as Personal Representative of the Estate of Carlo Alfredo Zanetti Scarpati, deceased, MARLENIS SANCHEZ, PEDRO SANCHEZ, Plaintiffs-Appellants, MONICA D. DOMINGUES, Plaintiff, versus UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Defendant-Appellee. 2 Opinion of the Court 22-12316
____________________
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 1:19-cv-21893-DPG ____________________ Before ROSENBAUM, BRANCH, and BRASHER, Circuit Judges. BRANCH, Circuit Judge: On July 17, 2018, two airplanes—a Seneca and a Cessna— collided mid-air, tragically killing the pilots and passengers in both planes. The Seneca was piloted by Nisha Sejwal, with Ralph Knight accompanying her. The Cessna was piloted by Jorge Sanchez, with Carlo Scarpati, a student pilot, also on board. Both planes were “VFR” aircraft operating under standard visual flight rules.1 The Seneca was departing from, and the Cessna was arriving at, the Tamiami Airport (now known as the Miami Executive Airport) when the collision occurred. The representatives of the pilots’ estates filed suit against the United States under the Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”), alleging negligence on the part of Federal Aviation Administration (“FAA”) air traffic controllers at the
1 Under visual flight rules (“VFR”), pilots receive guidance from air traffic controllers in the form of traffic advisories and safety alerts while inside the
airport’s jurisdiction, but still retain discretion over routes and altitudes during
flight. Compared to instrument flight rules, which impose a “highly
structured environment” in which a pilot is in constant contact with air traffic
control, VFR grants pilots a greater degree of flexibility.
22-12316 Opinion of the Court 3 Tamiami Airport. Following a bench trial, the district court
entered judgment in favor of the United States, and the Plaintiffs
appealed. After careful review and with the benefit of oral
argument, we affirm.
I. Background 2
A. Air Traffic Control Practices and Procedures
As part of its mission to ensure “the safety and efficiency”
“of the use of the navigable airspace” of the United States and to
“promote safe flight of civil aircraft in air commerce,” the FAA
operates a national air traffic control system which services pilots
from various facilities, including air traffic control towers. 49
U.S.C. §§ 40101(d)(4), (6), 44701(a). The Tamiami Airport, located
in Miami-Dade County, Florida, is staffed by FAA employees,
including air traffic controllers who work in the Tamiami Tower
and manage air traffic that is largely flying under VFR. The
prescribed practices and procedures of FAA air traffic controllers
are set out in FAA Order JO 7110.65, which we will refer to as the
“Air Traffic Control Manual” or “ATCM.” This Order is routinely
updated and superseded, and the version in effect on the date of the
crash was JO 7110.65X, Change 1. The provisions contained in the 2 We recount the facts as presented to the district court at trial. On appeal
from a bench trial, we review issues of law de novo and review issues of fact for
clear error. Direct Niche, LLC v. Via Varejo S/A,