Opinion ID: 1160343
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: federal aviation administration regulations

Text: Plaintiffs allege error in the superior court's failure to give the following proposed instruction: Federal Aviation Regulations appropriate and pertinent to this case for the operation of an air taxi and commercial operation of small aircraft provide that: 1. Each pilot in command shall before beginning a flight, familiarize himself with all available information concerning that flight, including weather reports and forecasts, fuel requirements, alternates available if the planned flight cannot be completed; 2. No person may operate an aircraft in a careless or reckless manner so as to endanger the life or property of another; 3. No person may operate an airplane under visual flight rules in uncontrolled air space during the day when the ceiling is less than 1000 feet unless flight visibility is at least 2 miles; 4. Except when necessary for take off and landing no person may operate an airplane under visual flight rules during the day below 500 feet above the surface or less than 500 feet horizontally from any obstacle; 5. The pilot in command of an aircraft is directly responsible for and is the final authority as to the operation of that aircraft; and 6. A pilot is prohibited from operating an aircraft lower than 1,200 feet above the surface in uncontrolled air space unless flight visibility is at least one statute mile and unless the aircraft may be operated clear of clouds. The court did not give the instruction, nor did it refer to Federal Aviation Administration regulations in instructing the jury. The proposed instruction was composed essentially of selected FAA regulations. [15] The court rejected the instruction for the following reasons: (1) plaintiffs made no request during the trial that the court judicially notice the FAA regulations; [16] (2) plaintiffs' failure to request notice deprived Skyways of the opportunity to contest the applicability of any specific regulation and (3) the regulations were not within the matters that could be judicially noticed on the court's own motion. [17] The court concluded: This does not, however, preclude the plaintiffs from making reference in argument and certainly does not preclude the jury from considering what they heard in the way of testimony as to the regulations that was adduced at the trial. So I don't mean by this ruling that there cannot be discussion of the regulations on which evidence was given. But that I simply will not adopt an instruction which is not based on material that was evidence at the trial. [18] Plaintiffs sought to invoke the regulations, as represented by the proposed instruction, to establish a standard of care or duty imposed upon Skyways. It was incumbent upon plaintiffs to seek to introduce the regulations into evidence. [19] In Dunbar v. American Airlines, Inc., 376 P.2d 226, 229 (Okl. 1962), the court refused to judicially notice federal aviation regulations, asserted for the first time on appeal as applicable to standard of care. The case is analogous in that the opposing party was not afforded an appropriate opportunity to rebut the regulations' applicability. Federal regulations are not specifically included within the ambit of matters judicially noticeable under Civil Rule 43(a). [20] Plaintiffs argue that the regulations must be noticed under Civil Rule 43(a)(1) since they have been incorporated into Alaska law by reference under AS 02.05.080(d). [21] That statute, however, does no more than to require air carriers to show that they can and will comply with federal regulations before a certificate can be issued. AS 02.05.080(d) does not effect a wholesale incorporation of FAA regulations into the statute itself. We find no error in the superior court's denial of plaintiffs' proposed instruction.