NEWS

Pilot who crash-landed denied jobless benefits

Clark Kauffman
ckauffman@dmreg.com

Is a pilot who cost his employer $1.2 million by crash-landing a commuter plane without first deploying the landing gear deserving of unemployment benefits?

One Iowa judge says yes, but the state's Employment Appeal Board says no.

Donald G. Scarsella "knew what to do, was trained on what to do, was able to do it, was required by policy and safety to do it every time, and still did not do it," the board ruled last week.

"This is more than merely making some mistakes."

On Feb. 14, Scarsella, 49, was working as the first officer — or second in command — of a nine-seat, single-engine turboprop that was flying in mild weather from Kansas City, Mo., to Salina, Kan., according to state records.

Before the plane landed at Salina Regional Airport, Scarsella and his fellow pilot, who is not identified in the records, failed to deploy their landing gear.

The $2.2 million Pilatus PC-12 plane essentially crash-landed, skidding to a stop on its belly.

Neither pilot was injured, but both were immediately fired by SeaPort Airlines.

The crash landing caused $1.2 million in damage to the plane, the airline said.

Scarsella, who now resides in Livonia, Mich., filed for unemployment benefits with Iowa Workforce Development. A fact-finder at the agency initially awarded him benefits, but SeaPort challenged that decision, which led to a formal hearing in June.

Administrative Law Judge Susan Ackerman heard testimony in the case and ultimately ruled in Scarsella's favor, noting that a single act of negligence is not enough to disqualify a person from receiving unemployment benefits unless there is a deliberate disregard for the employer's interests.

"Although (Scarsella's) negligence cost the employer $1.2 million, there was no wrongful intent on his part or a deliberate disregard of the employer's interests," she ruled.

SeaPort appealed that ruling to the three-member Employment Appeal Board of Iowa, which last week ruled in favor of the airline, with one member dissenting.

Board members Kim Schmett and Ashley Koopmans ruled that while Scarsella "may not have actually wanted to endanger the public," he did disregard the mandatory steps required to safely and competently fly an airplane.

"The situation is no different from a person who drives through red lights because that person is in a hurry," the two wrote. "The driver surely does not intend the serious injury that may result from the decision to run the lights — but they do make a choice to run the lights."

The two board members noted that while the flight's pilot was responsible for completing the checklist of items for a landing, Scarsella was responsible for verifying that each of the steps had been completed.

Scarsella "absolutely knew how important the checklist procedures were," the two board members ruled. "He is not incapable of performing those procedures. He is a licensed pilot and surely cannot credibly claim he is incapable of following a checklist. So inability or incapacity does not explain his conduct.

"He wasn't unaware that the plane was coming in for a landing. He didn't think the checklist procedures were optional. He just did not carry out his duties as required. This is beyond negligence and is an intentional disregard of the employer's interests."

The third member of the board, Cloyd Robinson, dissented, stating only that he would have affirmed Ackerman's decision in its entirety.

Scarsella declined to comment on the matter when contacted by The Des Moines Register.