The H onorab le Sue E . M yers cough of the Central D is tr ic t  ofI l l i noi s , s i t t i ng by des i gna t i on.



## In the 

# U n ited S ta tes Co urt o f Ap p ea ls

F o rth eS e v e n th C ir cu it
N o. 11

- 2205 P EG GYS. L E G RANDE, Plai nt i f f

-Appe l l ant, v . U NIT ED S TATE S OF A MERI CA, D efend a nt-A pp ellee

.

A pp eal from the United S t ates Di strictC our t fo r the N o rthernDi stricto f Illino is, Eas tern Div isi on. No . 1:08- cv-02047

—Jo an B. G ott schall, Judge .
A RGUED O CTOBER26, 2011

— D ECIDED J UL Y 18, 2012

Befo re R IPPLE a nd H A MI L T ON, C ircu i t Ju dg es , a nd M Y ER S COUGH, D i s t r i ctJudg e .  R IPPLE, Cir cu i tJudg e . Whi l e wor k i nga s a fl i g ht atten d an t on Sou th w est A irl ines Fli gh t 2745, Peggy S. LeG ra n de w as i nj ured wh en the ai rcr aft e ncounter ed se ve r e tu rbul en ce . S he b r o ug htthi s ac ti o n a g ains t th e2 N o. 11

- 2205

The d is tr ic t c ourt has j urisd ic tio n und er 28 U
. S. C. §§ 1331 1 a n d 13 4 6 (b ). W e have j uris dicti on und er 28 U
. S. C. § 1291. 2 U nited States u nd er th e Fed eral T ort Claim s A ct (“FT C A ”), 2 8 U
. S
. C
. § 2 6 74 , al l e g i n gth a ta i r t r a ffi c c o n t r o l l e r s e mplo yed bythe Fed eralA vi ati on Ad m i ni str ati on ( “FAA ”) negl i gently had f ai l ed to warn t he fl i ght’ s ca ptai n that tu rbul en ce ha d b ee n fo r ec as t al o ngthe fl i g htpa th

. The 1 dist ri c t co urt concl ud ed that FA A em plo yee s di d not bre ach anyduty o w ed to M s. LeGrande and gr anted s ummar y j ud g men tf o r the Uni t e d S t a t e s . Ms. Le Gr a nd e now se eks r eve rs alo fthe dist ri ct c ourt ’ s j ud gm en t. 2 S he a l so c o nt en ds, f o r the fi r stt i m e i n thi s l i ti g at i o n, th at he r i njuries resulted from the n egli gen ce of a N ati onalW eather Se rv i ce ( “N W S”) m ete or ol ogi st. Because the FA A br eached no du ty owed to M s. LeGrande, an d b ec au se M s. Le G ran d e f ai l ed to g i ve the NW S the no ti ce tha t th e F TCA r equi res, we affi r m the j udg m en t ofthe dist ri ct c ourt
.
I

B AC KGR OUND A. Befo r e di s c us s i ngthe e v e nt s tha tc ul mi na t e d in M s. LeGr an de’ s i nj ur i es, w e setf o r th, i n s um m ary f o r m , the ro l e that the FAA and the N W S pla y in t h e op er ati on o f o u r N a t i o n ’ s a i r t r a ffi c c o n t r o ls y s t e m.N o. 11

- 2205 3 1. Th e F AA o pe r a t e s a n a t i o nwi de n e t wo r ko fg r o un dbase d ai r tr affi c co ntro lcent er s that a re r esponsibl e for ai rcr aft fl yi ng i n the nati onal air space sys tem
. A s J usti ce J ac k so n wr o te i n h is c o nc ur r i ngo pi ni o n in N o rthw est A ir li nes, Inc. v. M innes ota , 322 U
. S. 292 (1944): Feder al c ontr oli s intensi ve and excl usi ve. Pl anes do not w ander about i n the skyl i ke vagr ant c l ouds. The y m ove o nl y b y federa lper m i ssi on, subj ect to f e d e r al in sp ec tio n, in th e h an d s o f fed er ally ce rt ifi ed pers onneland u nd eran intri cate sy ste m o f f e d e ra l co m m an d s. T h e m om en t a sh ip ta x is onto a run w ay i t i s ca ught up i n an e l abor ate and detai l ed sys tem o fco ntro l s. Id. at 303 (Jackson , J
. , conc urring); s e eal s o Ci ty of Bur b ank v. Lo ckhe e d Ai rTe r m i nal, 411 U
. S. 624, 633 (1973 ). Th e FA A o perat es m or e than thr ee hund re d fa ci l i ti es f or the contr ol of ai rcr aft. These f aci l i ti es ar e l oca ted th ro u gh o u t th e U n ite d Sta te s a n d h av e d iffer en t c ap ab ilitie s, depend i ng o n thei r ro l e in the N ati on’ s a ir tr an sp or t sy st em. Ce nt r alt o the c as e be f o r e us i s th e A ir R ou te T ra ffic C on tr ol C en te r (“A R T C C ”). Its ba sic m issi on is to provid e air traffi c con trol service to aircraft o per at i ngwi th i n contr o l l ed ai r spa ce , pr i nc i pal l y dur i ng t h e e n rou te p h as e o f fligh t. See M ich ae l S. N ola n, Fun dam e nt al s of

Ai rTr af

f i c Cont r ol ( 5 th e d. 2 0 1 1 )
. T he ART CC re sp on sibl e forpro vi ding gui dance to Fl i ght 2 745 at al lti m es pertinent t o our disc ussi on is lo cate d i n Cle velan d , Oh io (th e “ C lev ela n d C en te r” ), an d is re sp on sib le f orai r tr affi c co ntro li n hi gh- al titu de ai rs pace o ver4 N o. 11

- 2205

The M et eo ro l ogi c al W at ch Of fi c es i nc l ude the Avi at i on 3 W ea the r Cen t eri n Kansas Ci t y, M i s s our i , the Al as ka Avia t i on W ea the r Uni tan d the W ea the r For ec as tOf fi c e i n Honol ul u, H aw aii. port i ons ofsi x sta tes

— M ar yland, M i chi gan, N ew Yor k, O h io, P en n sy lva n ia a n d W es t V irg in ia

— as w ell as southe rn Ontar i o. A R T C C f acili ties are staffe d b y air traffi c con troll ers em plo yed bythe FA A
. Operat i ng under F A A di re cti ves, the pr i m ar y duti es ofai r tr affi c co ntro l ler s a re to preve nt co l l i si ons between ai rcr aft fl yi ng i n the ai r space se ct o r s as si g ne d t o the m , o r g an i zinga nd e xpe diti ng the fl o w ofa i r t r affi c, a nd s uppo r tingna ti o na l sec ur i tya nd ho m el an d s ec ur i tyo per at i o ns . To the e xt en t co ns i st en t wi ththe se pr i m ary r es po ns ibi l i ti es , air tr affi c co ntr o l l er s al so p rovi de l o wer - pr i o r i tys er vi ce s to o per at i ng aircraft, i nc lud ing broad ca s t in g certain sp ecifi c w eath erre l ate d i nfo rm ati on t o pil ots
.
2. FA A per so nnel r ecei ve var i ous weatherr epor ts, cal l ed “w eather products. ” Th ese ar e pr ovi ded bythe thre e M eteorological W atch Offi ces and by N W S m eteor- 3 ol ogi sts st ati oned atthe Center W eather Se rv i ce Units embe dded i n ea chARTCC, i nc l udi ngthe Cl ev el an d Center. Thi s ca se i n vol ves seve ra lweather products; w e s hal ldescr ibe them br i efl y.N o. 11

- 2205 5

a . Me t e o r o l o g i c a l I mpa c tSt a t e me nt A M ete or ol ogi calI m pact S tat em ent ( “M I S”) i s “ an uns ch edu led fl o w co nt r o la nd fl i g hto per at i o ns pl anni ng f o r e c a s t ” th a ta me t e o r o l o g i s tp r o v i des t o a s s i s tF AA p e r s o n n e l i n “ m a k i n g fl o w c o n t r o l

- t y p e d e c i s i o n s . ” N WS I ns truct i o n 1 0- 80 3 § 7. 5 ( J an . 5 , 2 00 5)
. NW S r egul at i o ns st at e th at, a t a m i ni m um , a n MI S s ho ul d b e i ss ue d when : a. A ny of th e fol low ing con d iti ons occu r, are f o r ec as t to oc cur, and, i fpre vi o us l y f o r ec as t, a r e no l o ng e r e xp e c t e d: ( 1 ) Co nd i t i o ns me e t i ngc o nv e c t i v e S I GMET cri ter i a ( see N W SI10

- 811) ( 2) I cing

— m oder ate o r gr eat er ( 3) Turbul ence

— m oder ate o r gr eat er ( 4) H eavypre ci pit ati on ( 5) Fr eez i ng pre ci pit ati on ( 6) Conditi ons at orap proa chi ng L ow I FR ( see N W SI10

- 813) ( 7) S urf ace w i nd s/ gusts [ gr eat erthan orequal to] 30 kno ts ( 8) Low LevelW i nd S hear( surf ace

— 2, 000 feet ) ( 9) Vol c an i c as h, dust st or m s, o r sandstor m s; an d b. I n the f o r ec as te r ’ s j udg m en t, the c o ndi ti o ns l i ste d above , or any othe rs , w i l l advers el y im pact the flow o f ai r tr affi c withi n the A RTC C are a o f re sponsibi l i ty.6 N o. 11

- 2205 Id. ( em phasi s in or i gi nal )
. A n M I S i s desi gned as a bro ad pred i c t i o n; i t i s v a l i d f o r up t o t we l v e ho ur s and can cove r a wide g eog ra phic ar ea. These w eather products ar e desi gned to pro vi de thos e r esponsib l e forthe f l ow o f ai r cr aft tr affi c wi tha n e st i m at i o n o fwea th erc o nd i ti o ns th at m ay i n terfere w ith air traffi c p attern s in the h ou rs ah ea d

. A lth ou gh th is w ea th er p ro d u c t is p u b licly avai l abl e o n the N W S A vi ati on W ea th erCenterwebsi te, ai r tr affi c co ntro l l er s do not bro adcast an M IS to pi l ots
. P i l o t s i n c o mma n d o fa i r c r a fta l o ftn e e d r e a l t i me weath er i nf o r m at i o n t o ha ndl e cur r en t si tu at i o ns o n the ai rcr aft’ s r oute oftrav el. T hi s r epor t s i m plydoes not su p p ly th at info rm at ion
.
b . C en ter W ea th er A d vis ory A CenterW eather A dvis or y (“ CW A ”) i s a warni ng tha t w eather condi ti ons i n a rel ati vel y l i m i ted ge ogr aphic ar ea are e xpected to approa ch orm eetnati onali n-fl i ght ad visory c riteri a. N W S Ins tru ction 10-80 3 § 7. 6 (J an . 5, 2005). I n contr astto an M I S, a CW A i s “ p rim ar i l y use d by ai r c r ews t o a nt i ci pat e an d a vo i d a dve r se wea th erc o ndit i ons. ” Id. N W S re gul ati ons sta te: T h e r e a r e f o u r ( 4 ) s i t u a t i o n s i n w h i c h a C WA s ho ul d b e i s s ue d: 1. W h en ex ist in g or an tic ip at ed w ea th er co n d iti ons do not m eetnati onali n-fl i ght a dvis or y c ri teri a ( i
. e. , i n ter m s o fi ntensit y orar ealco ver age ) bu t c urren t [pil ot rep orts] or oth er w eath er i nform a t i o n s o u r c e s i n d i c a t e th o s e c o n d i t i o n s , i n the j ud gm ent o fthe [ Center W eather Se rv i ce Unit]N o. 11

- 2205 7

The HIW AS br oadc as t s “[ c ] ont i nuous r ec or ded ha za rdou s 4 (co n tin u ed ...) m eteorologist, w il l ad v e r sely i m p act th e safe f l o w o f a i r t r a ffi c wi thin the ART CC a r ea of re sponsibi l i ty. 2. A s a su p p lem en t t o a n ex ist i n g in-flig h t a d visory. The i ssuance ofa CW A i n thi s ci rcum sta nce shoul d be l i m i ted t o occa si ons w hen, i n the j ud gm ent o fthe [ Center W eather Se rv i ce Unit] m ete oro log ist, a red efin in g s ta te m en t o r u p d a te , in ad va n c e of a n ew n at ion al a d vis or y, is ad eq u at ely su p p or te d by rea l-tim e in for m at ion
. . . . 3. W hen an in- fl i ght a dvis or y has notbee n iss u ed , bu t o b se rv ed or ex p ec te d w ea th er co n d iti ons m eeti n-fl i ght a dvis or y c ri ter i a (base d on curr ent [ pil ot re port s] and/o r othe r sour ces of in for m at ion ). .
. . 4. T o cancela CW A wh en the phenom enon d es c rib ed in t h e C W A is n o lon ge r ex p ec te d

. . . . Id. W he n a m ete or ol ogi st i ssues a CW A , the i nfo rm ati on i s pr i nt ed o n a Ge ne r alInf o r m at i o n S tr i p a t th e re sp on sib le a ir tr affic co n tr olle rs ’ st at ion s. E ac h air tr affic co n tr olle r re ad s t h e s tr ip alou d , bro ad c as tin g it once to al lpi l ots o n that ra d i o fre quency. I fthe i nfo rm at i o n i n c l u d e s c e r t a i n we a th e r c o n d i t i o n s , th e c o ntr o l l era dvi se s pi l o ts t o tune i nt o the H az ar do us Infl i g ht W eather A dvis or y Se rv i ce ( “H I W A S”) , Fl i ght W atch orFl i ght S er vi ce, depend i ng o n the geo gr aphic ar ea. 48 N o. 11

- 2205

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 4 infligh t w eath er forec asts .
. . to ai rb or ne p ilots.” FA A Pilot/C on t r o l ler G lossar y . T he H IW A S is no t av ailab le in all areas ; Fli ght W atc h and Fli ght Servic e prov ide en route weather u p d ates an d p ilot w eath er rep or ts in no n-H IW A S ar eas. c . P ilot R ep ort A Pi l ot Report( “PI RE P”) , as the nam e s ugges ts, i s a re p or t o f ad ve rs e w ea th er co n d itio n s t h at an air t ra ffic contr ol l err ecei ves dir ectly fro m a p il ot ra therthan fr o m a n N WS Met e o r o l o g i c a lWa t c h O ffi c e o r a n N WS m et eo rolog i sta t a Cen te r W ea th erS er vi ce Uni t. The re l evantFAA di re cti ve i nstr ucts a i r tr affi c co ntro l l er s t o “[ s] ol i cit PI RE Ps wh en r equeste d orwh en o ne o f[ an enum e r a t e d l i s t o f ] c o nd i t i o ns e xi s t s o r i s f o r e c a s tf or [ thei r] ar ea of j uri sdic ti on. ” FA A J ob Order 7 110. 65P § 2- 6- 3( a)
. W ea th erc o ndi ti o ns unde r w hi cha n a i r t r affi c co ntr ol l ersho uld s ol i ci t PI RE Ps i ncl ud e “[ t] urbul ence of m oder ate de gr ee or gr eat er . ” Id. § 2- 6- 3( a) ( 4)
. U pon re cei vi ng a PI RE P, an a i r tr affic c ontr ol l erbr oadcast s i t t o re l evantfl i ghts and enter s i t into th e airtr affi c co ntro l co mpu t e r s y s t e m. P I R E P s a r e p u b l i c l y a v a i l ab l e o n t he FA A websi te. PI RE Ps ar e co m m on; the re cor d refl ects thatthe Clevel and Ce nt err ec ei ve s hundr eds t o tho us an ds o fPI REPs ev er y d ay . Th ey als o a re lim i te d te m p or ally in t h eir u se fu ln es s; FA A reg u lat ion s d o n otid en tify a sp ec ific dur at i o n f o r ea chPI REP, b utthe pa r ti es a g r ee tha t PI REPs “pro vi de useful w eat h erdata f or30 to 60 m i nutes, u n les s p ilot s c on tin u e t o rep or t t h e s am e w ea th er co n d iti on in the sam e l oca ti on. ” R. 70 at 11.N o. 11

- 2205 9 B. W i th th i s ba ck g r o und, we tu r n to th e ev en ts of Feb r uary1 0, 2 00 6, tha t ar e th e factu alpr edi ca te o fthi s ac ti o n. On that day, M s. LeGrande w as w or ki n g as a fl i ght a tte nda nto n a S o uthwes t Air l i ne s ai r cr aft. Thr o ug ho utthe day, the a i r cr aft ha d b ee n fl y i ngv ar i o us r o ut es i n the M i dw est
. I ts penulti m ate tr i p w as fro m Ch i cago to Clev el and. I ts fi naltr i p ofthe day was th e re tu rn t ri p f ro m Cl e v e l a nd t o Ch i c a g o . F o r thi s fi na ll e go fi t s da i l y s c he dule , the ai rcr aft w as oper ating as S outhw estA i rl i nes Fl i ght 2 745. D u r i n gth e c o ur s e o fth a td a y, T h o ma s J a n u s , a n N WS m ete or ol ogi st on duty a t the Cl eve l and C enterW eather Se rv i ce Unit, i ssued thr ee w eather products r ele va nt to thi s l i ti gat i on: M I S 02, M I S 03 and a CW A . B ot h M I S 02 an d M I S 0 3 war ne d the F AA ’ s Traff i c M an ag ement Unit t ha t, o ve r the t wel ve - ho urpe r i o d f o l l o wi ngthe i ssuance ofea ch M I S, fre quent m oder at e turbul ence to i so l at ed se ve r e tu rbu l en ce c o ul d de ve l o p o ve r po r ti o ns of M ich iga n, N ew Y or k, O h i o a n d P en n sy lva n ia

— a l ar ge part ofthe airsp ace w i thi n the Clev el and C enter ’ s a re a ofr esponsibi l i ty. Jan u s i ssued the fi rs t o fthes e weather products, M I S 02, a t 2: 42 p. m . H e l i m i ted i t t o al ti tudes of 1 7,0 00 to 27,00 0 fe et . Th e s e c o n d w ea th er p ro d u c t, M IS 03, was i ssued at9: 06 p. m . and re l ate d t o th e s am e g eog r aph i c ar ea b utto a l ti tu des o f1 7, 00 0 to 3 2, 00 0 fee t. J an us a l s o i s s ue d a CWA a t8 : 3 1 p . m. , i n r e s po ns e t o a P I RE P of seve re turbul ence at 32, 000 feet i n air space easto f Clev el and. The parti es do not dispute that J anus bel ieve d the we a the r s y s t e m was mo v i nge a s tfr o m Cl e v e l a nd

.10 N o. 11

- 2205

Several PIRE Ps were not i ncluded i n the Southw es t Airl ines 5 w eathe r package because the dis patcher did n ot c onsi der them perti nent to F li ght 2745. Thes e i ncluded a 6: 45 p. m . report ofs evere turbu le nce at19, 000 to 21, 50 0 fe et over the Boile r V H F O m nidire ct ional Rad io Rang e and an 8: 10 p. m . report ofm od erat e t o se vere turbu le nce at20, 000 to 21, 000 feetover Portl and , Indiana. P rior t o d ep ar tu re on th e fin al leg of th e a irc ra ft’s d aily sc he dul e, a S o uthwes t Air l i ne s di spa tc he r pr o vi ded th e captai n ofFl i ght 2 745 w i th a pre- fl i ght info rm ati on packet

. The packe t co ntai ned w eather- relate d i nfo rm ation, includ ing a p rivate m eteorologist’s forecast of m od erate turbul ence at 2 0,000 t o 26, 000 feetand a num bero f PI RE Ps, o ne o f w hi ch w as a r epor t o fse ver e turbul ence at 20, 000 to 22 , 000 feeto verW i nd sor, Ontari o. Based o n 5 thi s info rm ati on, the So uthw estA i rl in es dispat cher advi sed the captai n ofFl i ght 2 745 to fl y a t 3 0, 000 feet
. H owever, t h e captai n el ecte d to fl y a t 2 0, 000 feetbec ause he ha d e nc o unt er ed tu rbul en ce abo ve 2 4, 00 0 fee t o n the p re vio u s fligh t fro m C h ica go to C lev ela n d . Th e c ap ta in re qu es ted and r ecei ved perm i ssi on fro m the contr ol l er at the Cl eve l and C enterto fl y a t 2 0, 000 feet; he di d not i nf o r m hi s S o uthwes t Air l i ne s di spa tc he r of hi s dec i si o n. Ne i th e r th e d i s p a t c h e r n o r th e a i r t r a ffi c c o n t r o l l e r i nf or m ed Fl i ght 2 745 ofM I S 02, M IS 0 3 orthe CW A that Janu s had i ssu ed earli er. Fl i ght 2 745 too k o fffro m Clev ela nd H opki ns Inter national A ir p o rt at 9: 40 p
. m . Shortly therea fter, the aircraft encounter ed a l i ght t o m od er ate bum p, and the pil ots in st ru c te d th e fligh t a tt en d a n t s t o t ak e t h eir se at s. W ith inN o. 11

- 2205 11 fi ve seco nd s o fthe pil ots ’ o rder, Fl i ght 2 745 encoun ter ed seve re turbul ence f orapproxi m ate l y fi ftee n sec onds. M s. LeGrande, w h o presum abl y had nothad ti m e t o se cur e he r se l fi n a s ea t, was i njured and r en der ed unc o nsc i o us dur i ngthe e pi so de. F l i gh t 2 74 5 pr o vi ded th e air traffi c con troll er w ith a PIR E P d escribing sev ere tu rbul en ce a t 9: 58 p. m . Sev er alphy si ci an s ab o ar d F l i g ht 2745 car ed f orM s. LeGran d e u n tilthe ai rcr aft l anded at Ch i cago M i dw ay I nter nati onalA i rpor t.

C. On Septem ber20 , 20 07, M s. LeGrande fi l ed an adm i ni str at i ve “ Cl ai m f o r Da m ag e, Inj ur y, o r De ath” wi ththe FA A
. S he so ught $2 5 m i l l i on f orherturbul ence- re l ate d i nj ur i es . In h erc l ai m , M s. Le Gr an de al l eg ed th at“ [ t] he U ni te d State s o fA m er i ca, thr ough the Fe deralA vi ati on A dm i ni str ati on, i ts em plo yee s, ag ents and repr ese ntati ves, w er e neg lige nt i n that they bre ached thei r du ti es und er th e r ul e s a nd r e g ul a t i o ns g o v e r ningthe p e r f o r mance o f th e i r j o b d u t i e s . ” R
. 4 5

- 2 a t 4
. T h e F AA d e n i e d th e c l a i m. Ms
. L e Gr a n d e th e n fi l e d th i s F T C A a c t i o n a g a i n stt he U ni ted S tat es. S he al l ege d that F A A per sonnelhad f ai l ed to advi se the c aptai n ofFl i ght 2 745 of tw o PI RE Ps o f seve re turbul ence i n the ar ea. A fteri t was deter m i ned th atone o fthe t wo P I REPs i n h erc o m pl aintwas the 9 : 5 8 p. m. b r o a dc a s t fr o m F l i g ht 2 74 5 i t s e l f, M s . LeGr a nd e f i l ed an am ended compl a i nt
. I n t hat pl eadi ng, M s. LeGrande al l ege d, i n re l evantpart, that th e [F A A ] a n d th e a ir tr affic su p er vis or s, co n tr oll er s an d o th er F AA per so nne l ha ndl i ngS W A Fl i g ht12 N o. 11

- 2205 2745 wit hi n the ai rs pace bo und ar i es ofthe Clev el and A i r Traffi c Contr olCenterwere aw ar e o f pi l o t r epo r ts , wea th err epo r ts a nd f or ec as ts a nd o th erwea th er [

- ] r el at ed pro duct s g en er at ed an d i ssued bythe C level and C enterW eather Se rv i ce U n it m e te or olo gis t re sp ec tin g s ev er e c lea r air tu rb u len c e re p or te d an d /or fore c as te d to ex istin and/orwithi n cl ose pro xi m i ty to the fl i ght path an d c ho se n a l ti tu de o ff l i g htSW A 2745 , i nc l udi ng i ts fl i ght path throu gh the ai rs pace bo und ar i es of the C lev eland A ir T raffi c C ont rol C en ter’s j ur i sdi ct i o n.

. . . [T ]h e U n ite d Sta te s o f A m e r ica , in d ivid u ally an d/ o r thr o ug h th e F AA , i ts e m pl o y ee s, a g en ts a nd r epr es en ta ti ves, b r ea ch ed th e duty o wed t o the P l a i n t i ffb y f a i l i n gt o pr o v i d e th e p i l o to fS WA F l i g ht2 74 5 wi ththe a f o r ement i one d kno wn, exi sting, per tinent pil ot re port s, weather re port s, advi sor i es and i m pact s ta tem ents and fo re cast s i ssued bythe m ete or ol ogi st i n the Center W eather Se rv i ce Unit at Clev el and C enterr espect i ng se ve r e cl ea r a i r turbul en ce e xi st i ngi n a nd ne arthe fl i ght path and chose n al ti tude of SW A Fl i ght 2 745. R. 45 at 2- 3. F o l l o wi ngdi sc o ve r y, M s. Le Gr an de an d the Go ve r nm ent fi l ed cr oss - m oti ons f orsum m ar y j ud gm ent. M s. L eG ra n d e p ro vid ed m or e d et ail a b ou t h er cla im s in he r s um m ary jud gm en t fi l i ng s. S he a ss er te d tha t th e thre e weatherpro du c ts issued by NW S m ete or ol ogi stN o. 11

- 2205 13

Althoughs he m en t i one d PI RE Ps in he r Am en ded Com pl ai nt 6 a n d h e r M em or an d u m in Su p p or t of Su m m ary J u d g m en t, Ms
. Le Gr a n de l a t e r c o n c e de d th a t th e r e we r e n o PI RE Ps perti nent t o Fli ght 2745. R.70 at6. J an us

— MI S 0 2 , MI S 0 3 a n d th e C WA

— ha d al e r t e d F AA 6 perso nnel atthe Clev el and C entero fse ver e tu rbule nce i n the ai rs pace thro ugh w hi c h t h ey knew Fl i ght 2 745 woul d b e fl y i ng . T he Go ve r nm en t co nt es te d the ex ist en ce o fa du ty, the al l ega ti on that F A A per sonnel br ea ch ed an y duty a nd c au sa ti o n. The dis tr i ct c ou rt co ncl ud ed that the Unite d Sta tes , thro ugh the FA A , o w es a d u ty ofr eas onabl e ca re to an ai rcr aft, passe nger s, cr ew s a nd car goe s i n the per f or m ance ofai r tr affi c co ntro lr esponsibi l i ti es and that thi s duty i ncl ud es w ar ni n g p il ots o fcer tain w eather condi ti ons. N ev er th el es s, the di st r i ctc o ur t determi ne d tha t th e F AA h ad no t br ea ch ed th atduty he r e. S pec i fi ca l l y, the d ist ri c t c ou rtco n c lu d ed th at th e d u ty ow ed by air tr affi c co ntro l l er s doe s no t incl ud e a n obl i gat i on t o dissem i nate M IS n oti fi cati ons to pil ots bec ause such w eathe r pr o duct s ar e des i g ne d f o r t r affi c pl anni ngpurp ose s r atherthan f orpro vi ding i m m edi ate navi gat i onal gui dance to ai rcr aft a lready al oft. The co urt furtherdeter m i ned that the CW A i ssued b efor e the departure of Fl i ght 2 745 w as not pertinent be cause i t was l i m i ted to ai rs pace e asto fCl eve l and t h ro ugh w hi ch Fl i ght 2 745, h e a d i n g w es t fro m C lev ela n d to C h ica go , d id n ottra ve l. The dis tr i ct c ourts im i l ar l y c oncl ud ed that the pi l ot r epo r ts o n whi chM s. Le Gr an de r el i ed were n ot per tine nt14 N o. 11

- 2205 to Fl i ght 2 745. Giv en the se c irc um sta nces, the dist ri ct cour t co nc l ude d, F AA pe r so nne lha d no t br ea ch ed an y duty o wed t o M s. LeGr an de byf ai l i ngt o b r o adc as t tu rbul ence w ar ni ngs t o Fl i ght 2 745.

II DI S C US S I ON W e r ev i ew a di st r i ct co ur t’ s g r an t o f su m m ary j udg m en t d e n ov o. See M a ssey v . U nited Sta tes , 3 1 2 F
. 3 d 2 7 2 , 27 6 (7t h C ir
. 2 0 0 2). Su m m ar y jud gm en t is ap p ro p ria te on ly w hen “there i s no ge nuine dispute as to any m ate ri al f act and the m ova nt i s e nti tl ed to j ud gm ent a s a m attero f law .” Fe d . R. C iv. P . 56(a ). W h er e t h e d ist ric t c o u r t is fac ed w ith cr os s-m ot ion s fo r s u m m ar y jud gm en t, as in th i s ca se , “ we c o ns true a l li nfer ences i n f av o r o fthe p ar ty ag ain st w h om th e m ot io n u n d er co n sid er at ion is m ade. ” Edwards v. Br iggs & St r at t on Ret
. P lan , 63 9 F
. 3d 355, 35 9 (7th C ir. 2 011) (i nt erna l qu otation m arks om itted ). To sur vi ve sum m ar y judgm ent, M s. LeGrande m ust provi de f acts that, wh en ta ken in the l i ght m ost f avo rabl e t o her, es tabl i sh a genu ine i ssue ofm ate ri alf act as to w he th er her inj uries resu lted from the G overn m en t’s b r e a c h o fa d u t y o we d t o h e r . S h e s e e k s t o do so i n t wo w ay s: b y m ain ta in in g t h at FA A p er s o n n el n eg lige n tly f ai l ed to br oadcastturbul ence p redict i ons to Fl i ght 2 745 an d b y i n t r o d u c i n g th e a r g u me n t, n o t r a i s e d b e f o r e th e d ist ric t c ou rt, th at N W S m et eo ro log istJan u s w as n eg ligent f ornotprovi ding hi s turbul ence predi cti ons to F AA pe r so nne l

. W e addr es s ea chc o nt en ti o n in tur n.N o. 11

- 2205 15 A . T h e D u ty o f A ir T raffic C on trolle rs 1. The FTCA se rv es as a l i m i ted waive r ofthe sov er ei gn i m m uni tyo fthe Uni te d S ta te s. I t the r efo r e o pen s th e federa lgo ver nm ent t o tor t l i ability “ und erci rcum sta nces w here the U ni ted S tat es, i fa pri vate per son, would be l i ab l e to the c lai m an t i n a cc o r dan ce wi ththe l aw o fthe pl a c e wh e r e the a c to r o mi s s i o n o c c ur re d.” 28 U. S
. C. § 1346 (b). W e a gr ee w ith th e p ar tie s t h at O h i o law gov er n s t h is c as e. See R i c h a r d s v. U nited Sta tes , 369 U
. S. 1, 9-10 ( 1962 ). Because the al l ege d negl i gent acto r om i ssi on o ccurr ed i n O h i o, w e a p p ly O h io c h oic e-o f-law ru les

. Se eSp urgi nD ienst v. U nited Sta tes , 359 F. 3d 451, 455 n
. 2 (7th C ir. 2004). Ohio has adopted the Rest ate m ent ( Se cond) ofthe Law ofC onfl i cts § 146, under wh i ch “a presum pti on i s cr eat ed th a t the l a w o f the pl a c e o f the i nj ur y c o nt r o l s unl ess an ot h er j u ris d ict ion h as a m or e s i g n ifica n t re lat ion sh ip to the l aw sui t. ” M o rga n v . B iro M fg. C o ., 474 N
. E.2 d 286, 2 8 9 ( Oh i o 1 9 8 4 )
. At the t i me M s . Le Gr a nd e was i nj ur e d, Fl i gh t 27 45 w as fl yi ng i n Ohio ai rs pace and w as und er th e jur isd ict ion of air t ra ffi c co n tr olle rs ba se d in Cl ev el an d , O hi o . The pa r ti es ha ve no t su g g es te d tha t an y o th ers ta te ha s a m ore s i g ni fi ca ntr el at i o ns hi p t o the l a ws u i tth a n do e s O h i o . T h e r e f o r e , we a p p l y O h i o t o r tl a w. U nd erOhio l aw , i t i s we ll sett l ed that the e l em ents ofan o rdi narynegl i genc e su i t be tw een pr i vate parti es ar e ( 1) the exi ste nc e of a l ega lduty, ( 2) the defen d ant’ s br each o fthatduty and ( 3) an inj ury that is p ro x im at el y ca u se d by th e d efe n d an t’s br ea c h

. Wal l ac ev.16 N o. 11

- 2205

T o the e xt en tthatM s . LeGr ande m ay be at t em pt i ng to 7 chall enge the FA A ’s determ inat ion as to w hich w eathe r prod ucts are useful t o pilot s, w e beli eve t h a t this determ ina tion i s a d iscretion ary fu nc tion tha t f alls w ithin the d iscre ti onary functi on d octr ine, w hich li m it s the FT CA ’ s w aiver o f so v er ei g n im m u n ity
. S ee Un i te d S tat es v. G au bert, 499 U.S
. 315, 3 2 2 -2 5 (19 9 1 ) (d isc u ssi n g d isc re tio n a ry fu n ct io n d o ct ri n e); B erkovi tz v. U n i te d S tat es , 486 U .S. 531, 536- 37 ( 1988) (sa m e); U n i te d S tat es v. V arig A i rl i n es , 467 U.S
. 797, 814- 15 ( 1984) ( a ppl yi ng the di s c r e t i on a r y fun c t i on do c t r i ne t o an FAA ce rt ific a tio n p ro ce ss); C ol l i n s v. U n i te d S tat es , 564 F. 3d 8 3 3 , 838- 39 ( 7th Ci r. 200 9) ( appl yi ng the di s c re t i ona ry func t i on do ct ri ne t o the FA A ’ s decis ion not to i nst all radar at a regi onal a ir p o rt ). O hio D ep’tof Com m er ce, 77 3 N
. E.2 d 1018, 10 25-26 (Oh io 2002 ).

2. The parti es agr ee that the F A A airtr affi c co ntro l l er s a t th e C lev ela n d C en te r h ad a d u ty to p ro vid e a ir tr affic co nt r o lg ui dan ce t o F l i g ht2 74 5. W ha t th eydi spu te i s th e s co peo f that du ty. In M s. LeGrande’s vi ew , FAA per sonnel 7 k ne w tha t se ve r e tu rbul en ce had b ee n pr edi ct ed o n F l i g ht 2745 ’ s fl i ght path, and the age ncy there f or e br eached i ts du ty to her w hen the ai r tr affi c co ntro l l ers f ai l ed to w ar n the captai n ofthe f or ecas ter ’ s pre dict i ons. As we n o t e d e a r l i e r, i n a n a l y z i n g n e g l i g e n c e c l a i ms und erthe FTCA , the cour ts ofappeal s a re i n agr eem en t th ats ta te s ubs ta nt i ve l aw g o ve r ns whethertheN o. 11

- 2205 17

See, e . g. , G l or vigen v. C i rr us Des ign C orp. , 58 1 F .3d 737 , 74 3 (8th 8 C i r . 2 0 0 9 ) ( h o l d i n g th a tM i n n e so t a la w g o v e r n s p l a i n t i ff’s n eg l ig en ce ac tio n b ro u g h t u n d er th e F T C A ); St
. Tamman y Parish ex re l
. D avis v. Fed. Em ergency M gm t
. A gency, 556 F. 3d 307, 317 ( 5th Cir

. 2009) ( st ati ng that, “[ a] s lon g a s state tor t l aw cre ates the rel evant du ty, the FTC A perm its s u it for violatio n s o f fed er a l sta tu te s a n d r e g u l a tio n s” ); O chran v. Un i te d S tat es , 27 3 F
. 3d 1 31 5, 13 17( 11 th Ci r. 20 01 ) ( not i ng that, i n a ne gl i ge nc e a c t i on, the c ou r twou l d “ t ur n t o the law o fF l or i da to d et er m in e w h et h er [th e d efe n d a n t] o w ed a d u ty o f ca re ” ). G l orvigen , 581 F. 3d at 743. 9 Seei d. at 74 3 -4 4 ; s e e a l s o Ti n k l e rv . U n i t e d S t a t e s e x r e l
. F
. A. A. , 10 98 2 F
. 2d 1 45 6, 14 61 ( 10 th Ci r. 1 99 2) ( “M ea d’ s dut y a ro s e f ro m (co n tin u ed ...) defen dan t o wed a duty o fc ar e t o t he pl aint i ff

. In the 8 avi ati on co ntext, however, the cour ts often hav e g i ven conte nt to the el em en ts o fst ate l aw byr efer ring to federa lst andards. The r eas ons f orthi s r efer en ce t o federa l l aw ar e tw of ol d. Fi rs t, excl usi ve federa lj u ris dicti on o versuch cl ai m s, as a pra cti calm att er, has preve nted sta te cour ts fro m d ev elo ping contr ol l i ng l ega lpri nci ple s at a s uffi ci ent l eve lo fspec ifi ci ty. M or e fund am ental l y, 9 w hen the federa lem plo yee ’ s a cti ons ar e d i ctat ed by federa l l aw and r egul ati ons, re fer ence to thos e sour ces is ne cess ary to un d erstan d the n atu re of th e em p loyee’s du ti es and the l i m i tat i ons on hi s a ut h or i ty. A ccor dingl y, it i s no t su rp ris in g th at FT C A c as es c on c er n i n g air tr affi c co nt r o l l er s ha ve i m po r te d s ta nda r ds fr o m the r egul at i o ns o r the a i r t r af fi c m an ua l s i n de te r m i ni ng the c onto urs ofthe sta te- l aw duty. N ot ab l y, Ohio l aw 1018 N o. 11

- 2205

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 10 both the dic tat es ofthe Fl ightSer vi ce s M anual as well as the re lia n ce p i l o ts p la ce o n F S S b ri efe rs .”); M oorhea d v. M i t subishi A i rc ra f tInt’ l, Inc. , 828 F. 2d 278, 282 & n n . 1 3 -1 4 (5th Cir. 1977) (re ly in g o n th e m a n u a l to est a b l ish a d u ty o f ca re ); G i l l v. U n i te d S tat es , 42 9 F .2d 10 7 2 , 10 7 5 ( 5 t h C i r. 1 9 7 0 ) (sam e); c f. John son v . S aw yer, 47 F. 3d 716, 728- 2 9 (5th Cir. 1995) ( en banc) ( ho ld in g thatviolat ion ofa duty creat ed b y f ederal law w o u l d n o t s u p p o r t a n F T C A c l a i m , b u t n o t i n g th a t th e s a me v iola tion m ay con stitute a v iola tion of a state-im p osed d u ty o n a “n eg lig en ce p er se c o n ce p t” ); Jackson v
. U n i te d S tat es , 156 F .3d 230 , 23 4 (1st Cir. 199 8) ( rejectin g , as a m atter of W est V i rg i ni a l aw, pl ai nt i ff’ s ne gl i genc e p er s e the or y bui l ton c o n t r o ller’ s f ailu re to follo w m an u al, bu t sug g esting tha t it could be “som e evidence ofnegli g en ce”)
. Its hould be noted thats om e ofthe s e c as es ha ve i m por t ed the s t anda rds with a m ore prec is e l egal anal ysi s than othe rs by speci fic all y explaini ng th e d ifferenc e between im porting a fede ra l du ty an d im porting a f

ederal st an dard of

caret o de fi ne a s t a t e - law du ty
. B u t cf
. H ol brook v
. U n i te d S tat es , 673 F. 3d 345, 347 ( 4th Cir

. 2012) (“If select p assag es fro m a leng thy a n d c om p lex or d er co u ld s e r ve a s the ba s i s f org ov e r nme ntt or tl i a bi l i t y, the F AA w ou ld b e ho b b led b y the sp ect e r o f l i t iga tion as it w or k ed to pr omot e a i r c r a fts a fe t y . T h e p r i c e o fc i r c u l a t i n g i n t e r n a l g u i danc e s houl d notbe ane xpo ne nt i ali nc re as e i n e xpo s ur e t o a to rt su it.” ). Iti s w orth n o ti ng that thi s app roach t o defi ning s tat e- law duti es by re ferenc e t o fede ra l s our c es i s no tuni que t o the aviati on conte xt
. S ee Parrottv. Un i te d S tat es , 536 F. 3d 629, 637 ( 7th Cir

. 2008) ( noti ng that, und er Sup rem e Court cas es , federal s t atut es pr ovi ded a dut y ofc are owed t o fede ra l i nm at es , but (co n tin u ed ...)N o. 11

- 2205 19

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 10 also tha t, “[t] o th e e x t en t that th e F T C A requ ires us to assess the Gover nm en t ’ s dut y under In d ian a l aw, . . . the re i s no h in t th a t I n d ia n a la w w o u ld d iffer o n th is p o in t” ); seeal so B o lt v . U n i te d S tat es , 50 9 F
. 3d 1 02 8, 10 31

- 32 ( 9th Ci r. 20 07 ) ( reiter at i ng thata fede ra l r ul e, s uc h a s the Arm y r ul es f or s now rem ov al, can d eterm in e s tan d ard of care in exercisin g state la w d u ty ); M edi n a v. Un i te d S tat es , 25 9 F
. 3d 220, 223 ( 4th Cir

. 20 01 ) (in cas e i nvol vi ng i m m i gr at i on det en t i on off or ei gn di pl om at, not i ng that the FTCA “ s er ves t o c onvey ju ri s di c t i on wh e n th e a l l e ge d b r e a c h o fd u t y i s t o r t i o u s u n de r s t a t e l a w, or w hen the G ove rnmenthas b re ache d a duty underf ede ra l l aw t hat i s anal ogous t o a duty of ca rer ec og nize d by s t at e l aw ” (em p ha sis a d d ed ) (in te rn a l q u o ta tio n m a rk s o m itt ed )). I n Sal isbury v. G or don A i r M gm t
. C orp. , No
. 19 0 8 5 , 2 0 0 0 WL 11 92 08 7 ( Ohio Ct
. App . J an. 19 , 20 00 ) , a pi l otwas s ued fol l owin g a c ra s h f or f ai l ur e t o abi de by an FA A reg ul at i on c onc er ni ng w he n a n a ircra ft m ay fly in to “k no w n o r foreca st m od era te ic ing conditi ons. ” Id. a t*4. Re l yi ngi n pa r tup on“ pe r s ua s i ve au tho rity on the fed era l lev el,” the C ou rt of A p p eals o f O h io c onc l uded that“the r eg ul at ions do e s t abl i s h the s t anda rd o f care ofa re asonable piloti n [ O hio].” Id. T he cou rt no ted b oth that“the fede ra l ai r re gul at i ons ha ve bee n a dopt ed by the Sta t e o fOhi o a s i t s o wn, ” c i t i ngOhi o Re vi s e d Co de § 4 5 6 1
. 05, an d tha t cases from b oth the T hird an d the N inth C ircu its suggested thatthe adop ti on of the federal regulat ions as (co n tin u ed ...) appe a r s t o r e c o g ni z e the n e c e s s i t y o fr e fe r r i ngt o federa l leg al p rin c ip les in s u c h a sit u at ion
. See Sa l i s b ury v . Gor don AirMgm t
. Corp. , N o. 19085, 20 00 W L 92087, at* 5 ( Ohio Ct. A p p . J an . 19, 2000 ); see a lso Freem a n v . U nited Sta tes , 50 9 1120 N o. 11

- 2205

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 11 th e st a n d a rd o f ca re o r a s ev id en ce th er eo f is th e n o rm . Id. at *5. The court f ound this suffic ie nt to establi sh ord inary negl igence in th at ca se an d , the r e fo r e , d id no t con sid er w he the r, beca u se i ti nvol ved a vi ol at i on ofa s afety s t atut e des i gne d t o pr eve nt th e h a rm at h a n d , it a m o u n te d to n eg lig en ce p er se. Id. The s e regul at i ons ha ve s i nc e bee n r evi s ed a nd c an be f ound 12 i n s ub s t a nt i a l l y the s a m e f or m a tF AA J ob Or de r 7 1 1 0
. 6 5 T. F
. 2d 62 6, 6 29 ( 6th Ci r . 1 975) ( apply i ngF AA r egul at i o ns to est abl i sh the st andard ofcar e co ntro l l er s o w e parac h u tis ts in F T C A ca se go ve rn ed by O h io law ). In d ee d , Oh io h as ad op te d fed er al a ir re gu lat ion s a s it s o w n . Oh io Rev. Code §§ 4561
. 05 , 4 56 1. 14. A s J ud ge M cCree w ro te i n Fre e m an , ther ef or e, “vi ol ati on o fa federa lai r re gul ati on co nsti tutes a vi ol ati on o fOhio l aw . ” 5 09 F. 2d at 630. M s. LeGrande, wh o bear s the bur den ofpro of, has poi nted to no sta tute, r egul ati on o r othe r d ire cti ve that i m poses o n FAA tra ffi c co ntro l l er s the r esponsibi l i ty to tr an sm it M IS w ea th er p ro d u c ts to p ilot s. In d ee d , a r ev i ew o fthe g o ve r ni ngdi r ec ti ve s m ake s cl ea r tha t no such obl i gat ion exi sts
. A t the ti m e M s. LeGrande w as inj u re d , FA A Job O rd er 71 1 0 .6 5 P p re sc rib ed air t ra ffic co nt r o lpr o ce dur es r eg ar ding, a m o ngo th erthi ng s, the diss em i nati on o fweather- re l ate d i n form ati on t o pil ots
. 12 The J ob Order s tat es, i n re l evantpart : Con tr o l l er s shall a dvi se pi l o ts o fha za r do us w eather that m ay i m pact o perat i ons w i thi n 150 [ nauti calm i l es] o fthei r sect oro r ar ea of j uri sdic

ti on. H azar dous w eather i nfo rm ati on co ntai nedN o. 11

- 2205 21 i n H I W A S bro adcasts i ncl ud es A i rm en’ s M ete oro l ogi calInfo rm ati on ( A I RM ET ) , Si gni fi cant M ete
or ol ogi calInfo rm ati on (S I GM ET ) , Convect i ve SI GM ET ( W ST) , U rg ent Pi l ot W eather Report s (U U A ), and Ce nt er W eath er A d visori es (CW A ). FA A J ob O rd er 7110
. 65P § 2-6- 2. I nd eed , M s. L eG ran d e’s ex p ert, w he n ask ed w he th er a ir tra ffic controllers w ere “p er m itt ed to br oa d c as t a H IW A S a ler t fo r an M IS,” answ er ed by say i ng, “N ot that Ikno w o f

. ” R. 60- 6 a t 1 2 (Bu rgess D ep . 203). M s. Le Gr an d e c ont en ds, i n e ss en ce , tha t th e fi r sts en te nc e o f F AA J o b Or der 71 10
. 65 P § 2-6-2

— “C ont roll ers shal ladvi se pil ot s o fhaza rdous w eather that m ay im p ac t o p er at ion s w i t h i n 1 50 [n au tic al m iles ] of th eir se ct o r o r a r ea o fj ur i sdi ct i o n”

— op er at es in d ep en d en tly fro m th e re m ai n d e r o f th at su b se c tio n, w h ich , in her vi ew , detai l s ho w a i r t r a ff i c co nt r o l l e r s mus ta dvi se pil ots o fhaza rdous w eather. W e be l i eve that M s. L eGrande’ s textuali nter preta ti on o fthe j ob or der i s a str ai ne d o ne tha t, whe n r e a d i n the c o nt e xt o f the r e st of the di re cti ve, would produce a deci ded l y unre al i sti c r esul t. Fi rs t, i t i s im p or ta n t t o note , atthe outse t, that, under th e p ro c ed u re m an d at ed by th e job o rd er , air tr affic co nt r o l l er s in H I W AS a r ea s, i nc l udi ngthe a i r spa ce c o ntr ol l ed by the Cl eve l and C enter, ar e notdi r e c t e d t o b r o a dcas t d eta i l ed i n-fl i ght weatheradvi sor i es. Instea d, as a gener alr ule , the contr ol l er s r ead the l i m i ted i nfo rm ati on on a Genera lInfo rm ati on S tr i p to i n for m pi l ots thatan advi sory has bee n publi shed and then i nstr uct pi l ots t o tu rn to th e H IW A S b ro ad c as t o n an ot h er rad io22 N o. 11

- 2205

The s e p roduct s al s o a re no tava i l abl e on Fl i ghtW at c h o r 13 Fl i ghtSe rvi c e f re que nc i es r el ied upon by avi at or s t ra ver s i ng areas not c overed b y a H IW A S s ervic e. fr e q u e n c y f o r mo r e d e t a i l e d i n f o r ma t i o n . T h e F AA J ob Order di re cts contr ol l er s t o use the fol l owing phraseo

l o g y : “ AT T E NT I O N AL L AI R C R AF T
. HAZ AR DOU S W EA TH ER I N FORM A TI ON [ type and num bero f we a the r pr o du c t i s s ue d] F OR ( g e o g r a ph i c a la r e a ) AVAI LAB LE ON HI W AS, F LI GH T W ATC H , OR F LI GH T S ERV I C E FRE Q U E N C I E S. ” FA A J o b O r d er 7110.65P § 2-6- 2 ( noting tha t the i ncl usi on o fthe type and n um bero f w ea th er ad vis or y re sp on sib le fo r th e H IW A S a d vis or y is opti onal )
. N otabl y, ev en o n the H I W A S fre q uency, 13 w hi ch i s dedic at ed to weatherco nd i ti ons that ar e o f im m ed iat e i n te re st to p ilot s o f airc ra ft c u rre n tly in fl i ght, M I S w eather products a re notbr oadcastbec ause they ar e noti m m edi ate l y per ti nent t o avi ato rs al oft. W e a l so cannot accept the s u gge sti on that the FAA J ob Order i m poses o n ai r tr affi c co ntro l l er s a duty t o bro adcast i nfo rm ati on abou t pr edi cted turbul ence r egar dless of the w eath er p rod uc t in w hic h tha t pred ictio n is incl ud ed

. I t i s t rue that the fi rs t s entence o fFAA J ob Order 7 110. 65P § 2

- 6- 2 instr uct s air tr affi c co ntro l l er s t o “advi se pil ots o f h az ar d ou s w ea th er th at m ay im p ac t o p er at ion s w ith in 15 0 [n au tic al m iles ] of th eir se c to r or ar ea of jur isd ict ion .” I t i s a lso true tha t the FA A Pil ot/C ont roll er G lossary defines “ H azar dous W eather I nfo rm ati on” as info rm a-N o. 11

- 2205 23

Acc or di ng t o the FAA Pi l ot/ Cont ro l l erGlo ss ar y, Hazar dous 14 W ea the r I nf or m at i on i nc l udes infor m at i on co nt ai ne d i n ur ge nt PIR EP s and C W A s as w el l as w eathe r produ ct s know n as SI GM ETs, c onve c t i ve SI GM ETs, an d AIRM ETs. N one of thos e weathe r pro duct s a re i m pl i c at ed i n thi s c as e. Notabl y, the l i s tofweathe r pro duct s thatthe gl os s ar y us es t o de fi ne H az ar dous W ea the r I nf or m at i on does no ti nc l ude the w eath er p ro d u ct at issue in this case

— an M IS. ti o n c o nt aine d i n v ar i o us l i sted we athe r pr o duct s a nd 14 “a n y o th e r we a th e r . . . wh i c h i s c o n s i d e r e d s i g n i fi ca nt and [i s] noti ncl ud ed in a curr ent haz ar dous w eather adviso ry . ” To deter m i ne the si gni fi cance ofweather condi ti ons , w e rece i ve som e hel p f ro m ano therse cti on ofFAA J ob Order 7 110. 65P, wh i ch char ges the contr ol l er to be pr epare d to sugge st al ternate ro utes and al ti tudes i n “ar eas o fsi gni fi cant weather, ” no tes that“[ w ] eather sig n ifica n t t o th e s afe ty of airc ra ft in c lu d es su c h co n d iti o ns a s . . . mode rate to e xt r eme turbul en ce ( i nc l udi ng [ cl earai r turbul ence] )
. ” FA A Job Order 7110
. 65P § 2- 6- 4( b) note
. E ve n i f w e read thes e prov isi ons to sugge st th at th ere m ay be o ccasi ons w hen an a i r tr affi c co n tr olle r i s obl i ged to a l er t al o ft ai r cr aft to a wea th erc o ndi ti o n s ucha s tu rbul en ce whenthat c o ndi ti o n i s no t i nc l ude d i n a c ur r en t advi sory, w e do not thi nk that i t i s pla usibl e t o re ad these docum en ts to r equi re thatthe contr ol l eradvi se the pi l ot of th e c on te n t o f an M IS. Th e re lev a n t J o b O rd er p ro visi ons cl ear l y a pp l y t o cu r r e nts pe cific w e at he rc ondi t i ons o f s u ffi c i e n ts e v e r i ty to i mpe d e th e a i r c r a ft ’ s fl i g h t
. As we have note d ear l i er, the FA A has cate gor i zed weather24 N o. 11

- 2205

M IS 02 w as iss ued at 2: 42 p. m . Ab out ei ght and a halfhours 15 l at e r , MI S 0 3 wa s i s s u e d a t9 : 0 6 p . m. I n t o t a l , th e p r e di c t i on e n c a p s u l a t e d i n MI S 0 2 a n d MI S 0 3 l a s t e d fr o m 2 : 4 2 p . m. until 9: 06 a. m . the f oll ow ing m o rn ing, a t otal ofover tw en ty h ou rs. products into thos e that are d i sse m i nated to pi l ots , such a s a C W A , and thos e that a re not, such a s a n M I S, pre cise ly to ensure thatp ilot s r ecei ve us e f ul i nf o r m at i o n wi th o ut bei ng di str acte d by for ecas ts ofno practicalsi gni fi cance. The pil ot of an ai rcr aft, al er t fori m m edi ate m ete or ol ogi cal dangers , s i m plywould not profi t fro m

— orwant to be dist ra cted by

— th e inform ation con tained i n an M I S. H er e, M I S 02 and M I S 03 perta i ned to a 1 0, 000-to 15 , 000- f o o t hi g h bl o cko fa i r spa ce abo ve pa r ts o ff o ur states

— M i c hi g a n, Oh i o , Pe nn s y l v a ni a and N ew Y ork

— o ve ra pe r i od o fs o m e twe nty ho ur s. Ev ent ak i ng 15 al lthe f acts i n the l i ght m ostf avo rabl e t o M s. LeGrande, the g ener alf or ecas t o ffre quent m oder ate turbul ence to i sol ated s ev er e tu rbul en ce i n s ucha mass i ve a r ea a nd f o r s ucha l en g thy pe r i o d o ft i m e, whi l e us eful to the FA A f or flight pl anni ng purpose s, was f arto o i nd efi ni te to be o fas si sta nce t o pil ots
. The r efo r e, no t o nl y ha s M s. Le Gr an de f ai l ed i n c ar r y i ng he r b ur deno fpr o o f, b utthe g o ve r ni ngr egul at i o ns a nd j ob or ders m ake cl earthatthe dis tr i ct c ourtwas cor re ct i n de te r m i ni ngthat FA A ai r t r affi c co nt r o l l er s ha ve no du t y t o a dv i s e p i l o t s o fthe c o nt e nto fMI S we a the r p r o ducts. FAA per sonneli n thi s ca se ther ef or e had no du ty to d iss em in at e t h e t u rb u len c e p re d ict ion s c on ta in ed inN o. 11

- 2205 25

In further supp ort of her c ontenti on that airtr afficcontr oll ers 16 should have b roadcastthe tur b u le n ce pred ic ti ons from M IS 02 and M IS 03 , M s . LeGr ande i nvi t es ourat t en t i on t o U n i te d S tat es A viat i on U n derw ri te rs, In c . v . U n i te d S tat es , 562 F. 3d 1297, 12 99 ( 11 th Ci r. 20 09 ) , in w hich the Cour tofAppea l s f or the El eve nth Ci rc ui ts t at ed i n the c ou rse ofi t s dec i s i on: “Th e U nit ed Stat es conce des that, once the N ati onal W eathe r Se rvice f orecas ts m od erat e to se vere turbulence, the U nit ed St ates gov ernm ent has no dis cre ti on to decl ine to provide t hat i nf orm ati on t o pi l ot s . ” Th e Gover nm en t ’ s c onc es s i on i n Avi a t i on U n derw ri te rs w as li m it ed to the du ty ofan N W S M ete orologic al W a tc h O ffic e t o diss em inat e, per N W S procedures, a weather prod uct kn o w n as a SI G M ET
. There i s no SIGM ET i m plic ated in this cas e, w hich revolves ins tead ar o u n d an M IS, an e nt i r e l y di ffe r e ntwe a the r pr od uc t
. Addi t ional l y, the F AA p erso nn el M s. L eG ran d e accu ses of neg ligen ce i n t h is suit are no t g ov ern ed b y N W S direc tiv es. T he go v ern m en tal co nc ession on w hich M s. L eG ran d e relies is th erefor e ina p p osite to th is cas e. M s . LeGr ande al s o r el i es on S pu rgi n -Dienst v. U n i te d S tat es , 359 F. 3d 451, 455 ( 7th Cir

. 2004), in w h ich w e s ugg es ted that an ai r t ra ffi c c ont ro l l ere rr ed by, am ong othe r thin g s, notpr ov id i ng a pi l otwith a n M I S abouti c i ng c ondi t i ons . The s t a t e me n ti n S p u rg in-D ien st on w hich M s. L eG ran d e relies is di c t a. Atthe c or e ofthatdec i s i on was our ho l di ng a ddre s s i ng the act ions ofFA A pers onnel; w e h el d that the dis tr ic t c ourt (co n tin u ed ...) eit h er M IS 02 or M IS 03 t o F l i g h t 2 74 5. N or d id air t r a ffi c c o n t r o l l e r s h a v e a n y d u t y t o b r o a d c a s tth e C WA to F l i g ht2 745 ; i t was l i m i te d t o a i r spa ce tha t F l i g ht 2745 would not tr aver se on i ts path from C l eve l and to Ch i cago . 1626 N o. 11

- 2205

(
. . . c on t i nu e d) 16 had n otc l ea rl y e rr ed whe n i tf ound tha t the i nf or m at i on w ithh el d f ro m the pi l ot “woul d not have l ed [ the pi l ot ] to ch ange course . ” Id

. W e a l s o no t e d tha tthe “ FAA pe rs onnel com m it ted e rrors , ” i ncluding the f ail ure t o prov ide the M IS to th e p ilo t. Id

. This st at em en twas m ade i n pa s s i ng wi thout sign ifi can td iscussio n a nd , furth erm or e, w as u nn ecessar y to the outcom e i n thatcas e. B . Ne g l i g e nc e byNW S Me t e o r o l o g i s tJ a nus Inth is a p p ea l, M s. L eG ra n d e ra ise s, for th e firs t t im e in thi s l i tigati on, the al l ega ti on that NW S m ete or ol ogi st J anus negl i gently f ai l ed to pro vi de hi s turbul ence predi ctio n s t o FA A p er so n n el for d iss em in at ion t o p i lot s. T h is is a new tack, wh i ch go es beyo nd the al l ega ti on o fneglige n c e b y F A A em p loy ee s t h at M s. L eG ra n d e ra ise d in he r a dm i ni st r at i ve c l ai m a nd in h erpl eading s i n the d ist ric t c ou rt
. See R
. 45-2 a t 4 ( A d m inistrative Com p lai nt ); R
. 1 at 3 (Com p lai nt ); R.45 at 2-3 ( A m en d ed Com p lai nt ). The FTCA co ntai ns a thre shol d requi re m ent that a n admi ni st r at i ve c l ai m b e “pr es en te d i n w r i tingt o the a pp r o pr i a t e fe de r a la g e nc y . ” 2 8 U. S
. C. § 2 4 0 1 ( b )
. Ind e e d, no l aw sui t m ay be fi l ed “unl ess the cl ai m ant s hal lhave fi rs t pr es ented the cl ai m to the appropri ate Fe deral agency. ” 28 U
. S. C. § 2675
. The Suprem e Court h as h eld that thi s r equirem ent i s j uri sdic ti onaland not subj ect to w aiv er . M cN eil v. U nited Sta tes , 508 U
. S. 1 06, 112 -13 (1993). T h e a lleg at ion s in an ad m in ist ra tiv e c laim a r e o n ly su ffici en ti fthe y p utthe “ l e g a l l y s o ph i s t i c a t e d r e a de r ” o n no ti ce ofa c o nne ct i o n b etwee n the a l l eg ed i nj ur y a ndN o. 11

- 2205 27 the s peci fi c co nd uct that the pl ai nti ffi s a ss erti ng as a b as is for th e c laim

. P a la y v. U nited Sta tes , 349 F. 3d 418, 42 6- 27 ( 7th Ci r. 20 03) ( hol ding that an ag ency i s no ti fi ed p ro p er ly of a cla im for p u rp os es o ft h e F T C A if th e c laim w oul d have be en appare nt to a “l ega l l y s ophis ti cate d re ad er ”). T h e p er tin en t re gu lat ion s re q u ire an ag en c y in re cei pt ofa claim t o tr ansferthatcl ai m to ano therag ency i fthe acti vi ti es that ga ve r ise to the cl ai m were acti vi ti es o ftha t o th era g en cy . 28 C. F
. R. § 1 4. 2(b) ( 1)
. The r egul at i o ns fu rt h er p ro vid e t h at, i fm o re th an on e fe d er al a ge n c y is o r may be i nv o l ve d i n th e ev en ts tha t g i ve r i se t o the cl ai m , the a g en cyr ec ei vingthe c l ai m must c o nt ac t th e ot h er aff ec te d ag en c y in ord er to d es ign at e t h e s in gle age ncy that wil li nvest i gat e a nd deci de the m er i ts of th e clai m . 28 C
. F.R. § 14.2(b)( 2). W e hav e e xam i ned the adm i ni str ati ve cl ai m fi l ed by M s. LeG ra nd e. I t al l ege s si x cl ai m s of negl i gence ag ai nst th e F AA; e a c h c l a i m p o i n t e d l y a l l e g e s a b r e a c h o fa n F AA Job O rd er . I t al l eg es no c l ai m o fne g l i g en ce a g ains t th e N W S. In the box forthe entr y o fthe “A p propri ate F ede r alAge nc y ” to whi chthe c l ai m is d ire ct ed, o nl y the FA A is m en tio n ed . In sh or t, th e a d m in ist ra tiv e c laim is cl ear ; o nly the F AA’ s a c t i o ns a r e a l l e g e d t o h a v e b e en negl i gent. U nd erthes e ci rcum st an c es, no provi si on o f28 C.F
. R. § 14. 2 r equi re d the F A A to tr ansfer t h e c laim to th e N W S, t o no ti fy the NW S o fthe c l ai m o r t o de te r m i ne whi cha g en cywoul d unde r ta k e th e i nv es ti g at i o n a nd adj udi ca ti o n o fthe c l ai m . The v ery s pec i fi c al l eg at i o ns o fthe cla i m a l l eg e ne g l i g en ce o n b eh al fo fthe F AA a nd no o therfedera lag ency.28 N o. 11

- 2205 As th e S upr eme Cou r t no te d i n M cNei l , the sta tu tory th re sh old re q u ire m en t of filin g an ad m in ist ra tiv e c l a im w i th the ap propri ate agency i s cl earand cannot be c hara cter i zed as a “tr ap f orthe unw ary. ” 5 08 U
. S. at11 3. Beca us e M s. Le Gr an de f ail ed to c o m pl y wi ththa t admi ni str ati ve re quir em ent, hernew al lega ti ons ar e ba rr ed by the pl ai n l anguage o fthe sta tute.
Conclusi on T h e d ist ri ct c ourtco rr ectl y dete rm i ned that M s. LeG ra nd e had f ai l ed to est abl i sh that FA A p er sonnel bre ached any du ty owed to her

. A dd i ti on ally, the al l ega ti ons ofthe N W S m ete or ol ogi st’ s neg l i gence ar e ba rred f o r f ai l ur e to c o m pl y wi ththe statu tory r equi r ement that su it und erthe Feder alTor t Cl ai m s Act be prece ded by an a d m ini str ati ve com pla i nt. A ccor dingl y, the j ud gmen to fthe di s t r i c tc o ur ti s a ffi r med

. A FFI RMED

7- 18- 12