Canadian government can be sued over helicopter crash

March 18, 2011 at 8:04 am | Posted in Aerospace Law Interfaces, Aviation Law Current Event | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: Canada.com

OTTAWA — The government has given up its fight to be shielded from a lawsuit filed by widows of a deadly helicopter crash — a move some say is a blow to Ottawa’s efforts to minimize its liability in cases involving possible negligence of government inspectors.

Transport Canada confirmed Monday the government is not appealing a decision of the B.C. Supreme Court, which ruled in December that the department can be found liable, in certain circumstances, to the public when it exercises its regulatory powers in a negligent way.

The Crown had argued that there was no cause of action against the government in this case because Ottawa cannot be sued for regulatory negligence in certain instances. The case involves Transport Canada’s relationship with the person who certified the helicopter as airworthy, despite an alleged checkered history as a maintenance engineer.

Although the specifics of this case involve Transport Canada, the principle of regulatory negligence and the government’s duty of care can be applied to other departments charged with keeping the public safe by enforcing safety regulations. [Full story]

 

Interview: Laura Montgomery

March 18, 2011 at 5:45 am | Posted in Interview | Leave a comment

Laura Montgomery is the Federal Aviation Administration’s Senior Attorney for Commercial Space Transportation. She supports the Associate Administrator for Commercial Space Transportation, the FAA’s line of business that regulates the commercial space transportation industry. Laura Montgomery’s work at the FAA includes the development and application of regulations, legislative issues, and enforcement matters. Her rulemakings include the FAA rules for human space flight and experimental permits. Before coming to the government, Ms. Montgomery was in private practice with Arter & Hadden in Washington, DC, where she specialized in telecommunications, administrative law and appellate work. She received her law degree from the University of Pennsylvania in 1987, and her undergraduate degree with honors from the University of Virginia in 1983.

Res Communis: Thanks for taking the time to speak with us today.  What is your formal title?”

Montgomery:   Senior Attorney for Commercial Space Transportation

Res Communis:     Would you consider yourself a space law lawyer?

Montgomery: Yes, definitely.

Res Communis: What does that mean to you?

Montgomery: I practice space law and, in my case, the law concerns the regulation of  rockets.

Res Communis: Please give us an example of the kinds of things you do on a day-to-day basis.

Montgomery: I am a general practitioner in the space law area. I work on licensing issues; review licensing evaluations for legal sufficiency; and, address enforcement issues. I am involved in lots of rulemakings and have worked on many over the years. I’ve worked on legislative issues. Long ago, I testified to Congress once on how the agency construes its statute, and I get involved in international issues that affect the FAA.

Res Communis. So, as an attorney, would you consider yourself to be a transactional lawyer, a regulator, or litigator?  Where on that spectrum?

Montgomery: I am a regulator.

Res Communis. What does a regulator do?

Montgomery: Administer and enforce the FAA’s regulations.

Res Communis. What is the most interesting thing about that work?

Montgomery: Getting to work with space issues. That is the most interesting thing for me. I love to see people coming in with new proposals, and I love being so deeply involved in new and exciting things like the recent SpaceX Dragon reentry.  That was very exciting. We issued  two waivers for that, and they were published in Federal Register. As a lawyer you can participate in some of the most cutting edge work from the legal side.

Res Communis. Tell us about that waiver. What did it involve as a matter of law? Where was your starting point? How was the decision made to make a waiver and what did the waiver make possible?

Montgomery: If I may take one of the waivers as an example, the regulations require that a licensee satisfy quantified risk numbers. The way our reentry rules are set-up there is a cap on the combined risk of launch and reentry. It looked like SpaceX’s reentry would lead the mission to exceed the cap, so we had to determine if that would be permissible and whether we should waive the regulations. There is a lot of work involved in figuring out what’s going on; whether a waiver is necessary; and, if it is necessary, how it is justified. In the end the waivers were granted for the reasons provided in the published notice. And, as everybody knows, Dragon came in safely.

Res Communis. Now prior to doing your current work, did you do space law anywhere else?  What was your path into space law?

Montgomery: My path into space law probably started with reading The Moon is a Harsh Mistress when I was thirteen. I read a lot of science fiction in my youth, and halfway through college I realized I wasn’t going to be able to work for NASA unless I did something other than graduate with a philosophy degree, which is what I was getting. I decided law school would be a good way to use my writing and analytical skills, so I went to law school hoping I would be able to get into space law. I took administrative law and international law and when I came out, I managed to land a job with a firm that did a lot of administrative law. One of the partners had a satellite client, which was very appealing.  At Arter & Hadden I worked on telecommunications issues, including some satellite work.  Then, with administrative law experience and the satellite work, I landed my current job with the FAA.

Res Communis. What did you do at the firm regarding satellite work? Licensing work?

Montgomery: Yes. I was also involved in other areas, in rulemakings in front of the FCC.  At one point, we handled an interesting opposition to the proposed relocation of a satellite used by one of our clients.

Res Communis. If a young law school student came to you today and said, “I’d like to do what you do and I want to be a space lawyer.” What is your best advice for that student?

Montgomery: I would strongly encourage them to take administrative law in law school and try summer jobs, internships, or clerkships in the field. There are companies that do this kind of work.

Res Communis. From your vantage point in the FAA, where do you see space law going? Where do you think the next new vista or challenges are going to be?

Montgomery: Well, our immediate challenge is reentry because the Dragon reentry was the very first one we licensed and there are going to be more.  It’s one thing to write regulations.  It’s another to apply them, and I’m sure we will face new challenges as the private sector develops new technologies and skills.

Res Communis. How about orbital licensing? Is there anything coming up with that in the future?

Montgomery: That would be for Congress to say. We do not have that authority. That was made very clear in the Committee report accompanying the passage of our reentry legislation.

Res Communis. So you work with the Commercial Space Launch Amendments Act of 2004 a lot?

Montgomery: Yes. We have done rule making under that law. There were two rules: the Human Space Flight Rule and the Experimental Permit Rule.

Res Communis. Were you involved in the definition of a “rocket” for the purpose of that legislation? The definition is a vehicle that has more thrust than lift for more than half of its ascent.

Montgomery: For the majority of the rocket powered portion of its flight.

Res Communis. Why it was important to create a definition that was so precisely technical?

Montgomery: Before the 2004 amendments were passed the question was whether a vehicle was an aircraft or a launch vehicle when it had wings and a rocket engine.  What kind of craft is it? The answer to that determined which legislation it would fall under: the Federal Aviation Act or the Commercial Space Launch Act.  That’s why we needed to be very, very clear about the definition.

Res Communis: So, as a philosophy major, how did you learn your engineering?

Montgomery: That might be an overstatement, but any lawyer has to know her facts. If you litigate a slip and fall case you need to know where the mop was. If you do space law at the FAA you have to learn all about the destruct system; the command receiver decoder; the shake, rattle, and roll test. You pick it up over time.

Res Communis: The analogy I give my students is that if you were to go into medical malpractice law you have to learn enough medicine to be able to serve clients and to know when it is time to call in a doctor as an expert.

Montgomery: Right.

Res Communis: So, you have to know enough engineering as a lawyer for space law to be able to apply the law but then know when to bring in an engineering expert to give you the information you need.

Montgomery: That’s very true.

Res Communis: Does your office call in engineers as experts to do that kind of technical background?

Montgomery: My client is the Office of Commercial Space Transportation. It is full of engineers, and they are the ones who evaluate applications.  They are also usually the people who know when they need their rules changed and why.  We then work together on the rules.  No pun intended, but no one is working in a vacuum.

Res Communis.: Can you give us an example of when one of your engineering colleagues brought a technical issue to your attention that the law didn’t address adequately?

Montgomery: The teamwork between the lawyer and engineer is most evident in rule making. An engineer may want to accomplish certain goals and the lawyer has to assist in making the requirements work. Sometimes the simplest and most routine drafting issues unearth more information. For example, lots of people draft requirements in the plural:  “Destruct systems must work thusly.”  If I added an “all” to the beginning of the sentence or made it singular, I would sometimes be told, they didn’t mean all—there were exceptions to the rule.  So I would say, let’s write down the exception. Sometimes it is just a drafting fix that leads you to questions you didn’t even know to ask. As you try to get more precise, you learn that there is more to write than you thought because you have to include the new ¬information they have in their brains but which has not been reduced to paper.

Res Communis. That is a great example. Would you recommend a law student to do some reading on aerospace engineering?

Montgomery: It could help, but you learn it where you need it.  My first exposure to a lot of the engineering aspects related to the proper way to destroy a rocket, not how a rocket works, because the safety rules for expendable launch vehicles address keeping the rocket away from populated areas.   This is a safety agency and you destroy the rocket if it goes off course.

Res Communis. For clarification, we are talking about range safety issues, absolutely one of the most important parts of what has to be planned. Is there anything else you would like to add to make the interview complete?

Montgomery: Just my usual point that everyone should take administrative law.

Res Communis: That is what I tell my students. It is absolutely critical. Even if they want to go in the private sector, they need to know administrative law. Thank you for a very informative interview.

Montgomery: You are most welcome.

 

 

 

 

 

 

USPTO to License National Online Parcel-level Map

March 17, 2011 at 1:49 pm | Posted in Remote Sensing Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by Joanne Irene Gabrynowicz with the blog faculty

Source: Geoconnextion.com

United States Patent Office is set to issue BSI, patent #7,912,880 entitled “Computerized National Online Parcel-level Map Data Portal” (NPDP™)
Boundary Solutions, Inc. (BSI) is pleased to announce that the United States Patent Office is set to issue to the company, patent #7,912,880 entitled “Computerized National Online Parcel-level Map Data Portal” (NPDP™) . More…

Russia and US sign agreement on astronaut transportation to ISS

March 17, 2011 at 8:55 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: The Voice of Russia

On Monday, March 14, Russia’s Federal Space Agency Roscosmos and NASA signed an agreement which provides for the delivery of American astronauts to the International Space Station (ISS) aboard the Russian Soyuz spacecraft until 2016.

This agreement, an addendum to an already existing contract between Roscosmos and NASA, envisages ferrying 12 US spacemen to the ISS throughout 2014-2015. Sending each astronaut to the ISS will cost NASA USD 63 mln, up from the current USD 56 mln. All up, the total value of the contract exceeds USD 750 mln. For each of the 12 astronauts, Russia also undertakes to deliver 50 kg of cargo to the ISS and take another 17 kg back, as well as remove some 30 kg of waste from the Space Station. Furthermore, the Russians will provide pre-flight training and search for and, if need be, rescue astronauts upon their return to Earth. Recall that NASA is wrapping up its own space shuttle program this year, with the oldest member of the fleet, the Discovery, completing its flight program on March 9. The Endeavour and the Atlantis will make their final voyages on April 19 and June 28 respectively. [Full story]

 

Arianespace contracted to launch Argentina’s Arsat-2 satellite

March 17, 2011 at 8:52 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: Arianespace

[Full Press Release]

ARSAT has once again selected Arianespace for its commercial launch services – this time to orbit the Argentinean satellite operator’s second satellite, Arsat-2.

Participating in this week’s Satellite 2011 conference in Washington, D.C., Arianespace today announced that it has signed a launch Service & Solutions contract with Argentine operator ARSAT (Empresa Argentina de Soluciones Satelitales Sociedad Anonima) to orbit its Arsat-2 satellite by the second half of 2013.

 

Russia and Australia working toward space

March 17, 2011 at 8:49 am | Posted in Space Law Current Events | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: Spatial Source

Russia and Australia are strengthening their co-operation on the exploration and use of outer space, the head of the international cooperation department at the Russian space agency Roskosmos, Alexei Korostelev, told Itar-Tass in an interview.

Russia and Australia signed an intergovernmental agreement on cooperation in exploration and peaceful uses of outer space back in 2001.

“We are currently working on a memorandum on support for a project to build differential corrections and monitoring stations of the global navigation space system (GLONASS) near the Australian city of Brisbane,” Korostelev said.

Korostelev also said that he recently signed off on a project for a joint international airspace monitoring system.

Australian organisations may also participate in other Russian scientific programs, such as putting Australian materials processing equipment on board the Russian segment of the International Space Station. [Full story]

 

FCC Proposed Rule on Policies To Promote Rural Radio Service and To Streamline Allotment and Assignment Procedures

March 17, 2011 at 8:36 am | Posted in Telecommunications | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: Federal Register

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 73

[MB Docket No. 09-52; FCC 11-28]

Policies To Promote Rural Radio Service and To Streamline
Allotment and Assignment Procedures

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Proposed rule.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: In this document, the Commission adopted a Second Further
Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (SFNPRM), in which it announced that it
wished to develop a more comprehensive record regarding measures to
assist Federally recognized Native American Tribes and Alaska Native
Villages (Tribes) in obtaining commercial FM radio station
authorizations. Specifically, the Commission sought comment on the use
of threshold qualifications for Tribes applying for commercial FM radio
channel allotments that were added to the Table of Allotments using the
Tribal Priority adopted by the Commission in the First Report and Order
(First R&O) in this proceeding. The Commission also sought further
comment on whether a Tribal Bidding Credit would accomplish the goal of
increasing Tribal ownership of commercial stations broadcasting to
Tribal Lands, and sought comment on the financial and other barriers
facing Tribes wishing to enter the commercial broadcast arena.

DATES: Comments may be filed on or before April 15, 2011 and reply
comments may be filed on or before May 16, 2011. Written comments on
the Paperwork Reduction Act proposed information collection
requirements must be submitted by the public, Office of Management and
Budget (OMB), and other interested parties on or before May 16, 2011.

ADDRESSES: You may submit comments, identified by MB Docket No. 09-52,
by any of the following methods:
Federal eRulemaking Portal: http://www.regulations.gov.
Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
Federal Communications Commission’s Web Site: http://
www.fcc.gov/cgb/ecfs/
. Follow the instructions for submitting comments.
E-mail: ecfs@fcc.gov. Include the docket number in the
subject line of the message. See the SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section
of this document for detailed information on how to submit comments by
e-mail.
Mail: 445 12th Street, SW., Washington, DC 20554.
People with Disabilities: Contact the FCC to request
reasonable accommodations (accessible format documents, sign language
interpreters, CART, etc.) by e-mail: FCC504@fcc.gov or phone: 202-418-
0530 or TTY: 202-418-0432.
For detailed instructions for submitting comments and additional
information on the rulemaking process, see the SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION section of this document.

FCC Final Rule on The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the Broadcasting-Satellite Service

March 17, 2011 at 8:33 am | Posted in Telecommunications | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: Federal Register

FEDERAL COMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

47 CFR Part 25

[IB Docket No. 06-123; FCC 10-188]

The Establishment of Policies and Service Rules for the
Broadcasting-Satellite Service

AGENCY: Federal Communications Commission.

ACTION: Final rule.

———————————————————————–

SUMMARY: In this document, the Federal Communications Commission denies
two petitions for reconsideration filed by Telesat Canada (Telesat)
challenging certain aspects of the processing and technical rules
adopted for the 17/24 GHz Broadcasting-Satellite Service (BSS).
Specifically, we decline to adopt Telesat’s proposal that the Federal
Communications Commission (Commission) impose additional blanket
international coordination licensing conditions on U.S.-licensed 17/24
GHz BSS space stations. Finally, we are not persuaded by Telesat’s
argument that the Commission’s technical and procedural rules
concerning assignment of orbital locations and frequencies are
inapplicable to requests filed by non-U.S.-licensed 17/24 GHz BSS space
stations operators seeking to access the market in the United States.

DATES: Effective April 15, 2011.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Andrea Kelly, Satellite Division,
International Bureau, at 202-418-7877 or via e-mail at
Andrea.Kelly@fcc.gov.

US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) makes meteorological evaluation towers (METs) marking mandatory

March 17, 2011 at 8:26 am | Posted in Aviation Law Current Event | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: AVweb

A recent FAA proposal that suggested a protocol for marking meteorological evaluation towers to make them more visible to low-level aviators didn’t go far enough, the NTSB says. “The NTSB is concerned that the application of the [FAA Advisory Circular] is voluntary, and, without mandatory application and marking requirements for METs, many METs will still be constructed without notice to the aviation community and will fail to be marked appropriately,” the board said in a Safety Alert (PDF) issued on Friday. Meteorological Evaluation Towers (METs) are used to measure wind speed and direction during the development of wind energy facilities, and many fall just below the 200-foot threshold for FAA-required obstruction markings. At least three fatal accidents have involved MET tower collisions, the NTSB said, the most recent one in January.

[Full story]

US and Europe consider new aircraft engine certification criteria for flocking birds

March 17, 2011 at 8:21 am | Posted in Aviation Law Current Event | Leave a comment

by Sara M. Langston with the blog faculty

Source: Flightglobal

A new analysis under way in the USA and Europe will determine whether “large” flocking birds – those weighing more than 1.13kg (2.5lb) each – are a growing threat to narrowbody aircraft and, as such, should be part of the engine certification criteria.

Heightening the expectations of the work, which began in 2009, are several recommendations by the US National Transportation Safety Board from its wrap-up of the January 2009 ditching of US Airways Flight 1549 in the Hudson river.

The NTSB, after its May 2010 final meeting on the Hudson river accident, asked the FAA to have the bird-ingestion rulemaking advisory group determine if the 2007 large-flocking-bird engine requirement should apply to smaller engines such as the CFM56, with inlet areas less than 2.5m2.

“The working group has agreed that the core ingestion element of the overall bird ingestion threat needs closer evaluation against the safety objective of the rule, and against our standard practices for conducting such tests,” says the FAA. “At this time no final conclusion has been reached.”

Included with the EASA, the FAA, Airbus and Boeing in the rulemaking committee are engine makers General Electric, Honeywell, Pratt & Whitney and Rolls-Royce.

The FAA will in turn respond to the NTSB recommendation. Engine manufacturers developing new-generation engines are spending significant resources on new fan designs, a process complicated by comprehensive bird-ingestion survival criteria, even with today’s criteria. [Full story]

 

« Previous PageNext Page »

Blog at WordPress.com. | Theme: Pool by Borja Fernandez.
Entries and comments feeds.

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.