Had the pilot continued on the same course, he would have had ample room to complete the landing of the aircraft on runway 6.
Having charged the tower personnel with negligence in improperly or inadequately advising the pilot as the latter approached the airport for landing, the plaintiffs must satisfy the trier of the issues of fact, by a preponderance of the evidence, that (1) a specific government agent advised and directed the pilot; (2) the advice and direction was incorrect, inadequate and improper to the knowledge of the advisor; and (3) such advice and direction was a proximate cause of the crash of the airplane.
The evidence satisfies me, and I find, as follows:
1. The communications between the tower and the aircraft were made and received by Biggio, one of the tower personnel.
2. Biggio had reasonable cause to believe, until the plane reached the threshold of runway 6 that the plane's landing gear was up, and properly so advised the pilot.
3. The landing gear commenced to descend as the plane was passing over the runway threshold, and Biggio promptly so advised the pilot. The pilot failed to acknowledge these advices.
4. The plane appeared to descend and level off over the center line of runway 6, at an altitude of less than 150 feet, with landing gear fully extended and flaps lowered.
5. The positions of the gear and flaps were reliably demonstrated to the pilot by indications apparent to him, within and from the cockpit.
6. The plane was committed to land straight ahead on runway 6 while making its descent over the center of the first 2,500 feet of that 5,000 foot runway.
7. When over the intersection of the east-west taxi-way the pilot attempted to 'climb out'; the plane lost minimum control speed; the plane yawed to the left due to the increased drag, whereupon the pilot volitionally made a banking left turn in the direction of the yaw; the left wing fell into a spin and the plane crashed.
8. At the moment when the aircraft made its initial deviation to the left from its descending course over the center line of the runway, Biggio advised the pilot that if he was going around, he was cleared to use any runway.
9. The pilot, by reason of his experience, under the conditions confronting him, and with the benefit of the communications from the airport control tower, was free to land the aircraft safely, and, by the exercise of reasonable care in handling the plane, could have done so.
10. No advice or directive, or lack or insufficiency thereof, on the part of any of the control tower personnel, was negligent or proximately causal of the crash of the aircraft.
11. The sole proximate cause of the crash of the aircraft was the negligence of its pilot.
I conclude, therefore, that the plaintiffs have failed to discharge their burden of proof of the causes of action set forth in their respective complaints, and that each complaint should, therefore, be dismissed, with prejudice.
Let appropriate orders be submitted.