Air traffic controllers guide thousands of aircraft daily through crowded airspace, issuing instructions that pilots must follow precisely to maintain safe separation. When controllers make errors—issuing conflicting clearances, providing incorrect altitude assignments, or failing to warn of traffic—the results can be catastrophic mid-air collisions or controlled flight into terrain. Because the FAA employs most controllers in the United States, these cases involve claims against the federal government with unique procedural requirements.

The controller workload in busy terminal areas and en route centers leaves little margin for error. A moment's inattention or a single miscommunication can place aircraft on collision courses that pilots have seconds to recognize and avoid. When the ATC system fails, determining liability requires understanding both aviation operations and the complex legal framework governing government accountability.

Common Types of Controller Errors

Separation violations occur when controllers allow aircraft to approach closer than required minimum distances. Depending on airspace and equipment, required separation ranges from three to five miles horizontally and 1,000 feet vertically. Controllers who lose situational awareness, who forget about aircraft in their sectors, or who misjudge closure rates create separation violations that can culminate in collision.

Altitude assignment errors include giving incorrect altitudes, failing to coordinate altitude changes with adjacent sectors, or clearing aircraft to altitudes already occupied by traffic. Mountainous terrain adds another dimension—controllers must ensure assigned altitudes clear terrain along the route. Altitude errors have caused numerous controlled flight into terrain accidents.

Conflicting clearances place two aircraft on intersecting paths. A controller who clears one aircraft for approach while another departs on a crossing runway, or who assigns converging headings to aircraft at the same altitude, creates conflict that the controller must recognize and resolve. Failure to detect developing conflicts before pilots must take evasive action represents controller negligence.

Traffic advisories and safety alerts warn pilots of nearby aircraft or terrain hazards. Controllers who fail to issue timely warnings when they observe developing conflicts—even if they did not create the conflict—may bear responsibility for collisions that warnings could have prevented.

The Federal Tort Claims Act Framework

Sovereign immunity historically protected the federal government from lawsuits. The Federal Tort Claims Act waives this immunity for claims arising from negligent or wrongful acts of government employees acting within the scope of their employment. ATC errors by FAA controllers fall within the FTCA waiver, allowing victims to sue the United States for controller negligence.

The FTCA requires exhausted administrative remedies before filing suit. You must first submit an administrative claim to the FAA, stating the circumstances of the accident and the damages sought. The agency has six months to respond, and only after denial or expiration of this period may you file suit in federal district court.

A two-year statute of limitations applies to FTCA claims, running from the date of the accident or, in some cases, from when you knew or should have known of the government's involvement. Missing this deadline forever bars your claim against the government, regardless of how clearly controller error caused the accident.

The FTCA applies the law of the state where the negligent act occurred. This means that damage caps, comparative fault rules, and wrongful death statutes of the state where the controller worked govern your recovery. An accident caused by controllers in a state with damage caps may yield less than an identical accident in a state without limits.

The Discretionary Function Exception

The FTCA's discretionary function exception preserves immunity for government actions involving judgment or choice in implementing policy. This exception protects decisions about how to design the ATC system, what equipment to purchase, or how many controllers to staff at facilities. However, operational errors in executing established procedures do not qualify for discretionary protection.

Courts distinguish between planning-level decisions protected by the exception and operational-level actions that are not. A decision about whether to implement a new separation standard is discretionary; a controller's failure to maintain existing separation standards is operational. Most controller negligence claims involve operational errors that fall outside the exception.

Defendants frequently invoke the discretionary function exception to dismiss ATC cases. Your attorney must carefully characterize the alleged negligence as operational rather than policy-based, focusing on how controllers failed to follow established procedures rather than arguing the procedures themselves were inadequate.

Proving Controller Negligence

ATC radar data and recordings provide definitive evidence of controller actions. Radar tracks show exactly where aircraft were positioned throughout the accident sequence. Controller communications are recorded, documenting every instruction issued and pilot response received. This comprehensive record often establishes negligence clearly.

Controller training and certification records may reveal inadequate qualifications for the position held. Controllers must complete extensive training and demonstrate proficiency in their assigned sectors. A controller working a position they were not certified for, or whose recent performance reviews identified problems, presents stronger negligence evidence.

Facility staffing and workload documentation helps establish whether controllers were overwhelmed by traffic demands. An accident during a period when the facility was understaffed or when traffic exceeded normal levels suggests systemic failures beyond individual controller error. However, staffing decisions are more likely protected by the discretionary function exception.

Expert testimony from experienced controllers explains what reasonable controllers would have done in the same circumstances. Establishing the standard of care requires experts who understand ATC procedures, workload management, and the specific demands of the airspace where the accident occurred.

Multiple Defendant Considerations

ATC errors often combine with pilot errors or equipment failures to cause accidents. A controller who loses separation but issues a timely traffic advisory may shift responsibility to pilots who failed to see and avoid. Comparative fault between the government, pilots, and other parties determines how damages are allocated.

Aircraft manufacturers may bear liability when equipment failures contributed to collisions. If an aircraft's collision avoidance system malfunctioned, both the controller's separation error and the equipment failure may be causes of the accident. Product liability claims against manufacturers proceed separately from FTCA claims against the government.

Airlines face vicarious liability for pilot errors that contributed to accidents involving ATC errors. If pilots failed to comply with controller instructions, failed to see and avoid traffic, or made other errors that combined with controller negligence, the airline may bear proportionate responsibility.

Damages Against the Government

The FTCA incorporates state law damage rules, creating significant variation in potential recovery depending on accident location. Some states cap non-economic damages; others permit full recovery. Some states allow punitive damages in wrongful death cases; the FTCA prohibits punitive damages against the government regardless of state law.

Economic damages include lost income, benefits, and services the decedent would have provided. These damages require expert economic analysis projecting lifetime earnings and calculating present value. Young, high-earning victims generate the largest economic damage claims.

Non-economic damages for pain, suffering, and loss of companionship depend on state law and vary dramatically by jurisdiction. Understanding how different states value these damages helps inform litigation strategy, particularly when accidents occur near state borders and venue selection may be possible.

Pursuing Your Claim

The procedural requirements of FTCA litigation demand careful attention. Missing the administrative claim deadline or statute of limitations ends your case regardless of how clearly the government was at fault. Early consultation with an attorney experienced in aviation FTCA cases protects your rights.

Government litigation proceeds differently than private cases. The United States is represented by the Department of Justice rather than private attorneys. Discovery may be more difficult, and the government has significant resources to defend claims vigorously. Understanding these differences helps set realistic expectations.

If you believe air traffic control errors contributed to an aviation accident that harmed your family, acting promptly is essential. The combination of FTCA deadlines and the complexity of aviation accident investigation makes early engagement with qualified counsel critical to preserving and proving your claims.