British Airways has agreed to pay compensation to some of the passengers whose connecting flights were delayed last year when its Airbus A319 aircraft had to make an emergency landing at Heathrow International Airport, London on May 24.
Both the engine doors of Flight BA762 to Oslo blew off and right one caught fire, shortly after taking off from Heathrow. The passengers evacuated through escape slides. One of the two runways remained blocked for more than 3 hours.
BA initially denied any compensation and maintained that the incident was due to exceptional circumstances beyond its control.
However, the Air Accidents Investigation Branch revealed that the retaining latches to hold the engine doors in place were not closed, so this is human error. Therefore, the passengers who were delayed for more than three hours are entitled for compensation between €250 and €600 from the airline, said solicitors Bott & Co.
After the incident, nine other passengers have also filed a lawsuit against aircraft manufacturer Airbus and the engine maker International Aero Engines.
To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
Elements of this image are furnished by NASA
Egyptair Flight MS804 (AKA EgyptAir Flight 804) was a Paris to Cairo flight that ended in the Mediterranean on May 19, 2016. Sixty-six people lost their lives: three security crew, fifty-six passengers, seven crew.
Egyptian authorities published a progress report on 28/06/16 that the BEA repaired the recorders. On 17/06 that the Technical Investigation Committee of the A320 accident studied FDR data as well as performing time correlation between FDR and CVR data and cockpit voice recordings before the occurrence of the accident where the existence of a “fire” was mentioned. That report did not determine the reason or location where that fire occurred. Smoke was reported during the flight in the bathroom and the avionics bay.
The investigation has been fraught with controversy. On 22 May, 2016, M6 (French TV) reported that a pilot told Cairo air traffic control about smoke in the cabin, and the pilot consequently made an emergency descent.
On May 20th 2016 The Aviation Herald received information from three independent channels, that ACARS (Aircraft Communications Addressing and Reporting System) messages with following content were received from the aircraft:
00:26Z 3044 ANTI ICE R WINDOW
00:26Z 561200 R SLIDING WINDOW SENSOR
00:26Z 2600 SMOKE LAVATORY SMOKE
00:27Z 2600 AVIONICS SMOKE
00:28Z 561100 R FIXED WINDOW SENSOR
00:29Z 2200 AUTO FLT FCU 2 FAULT
00:29Z 2700 F/CTL SEC 3 FAULT
no further ACARS messages were received.
No sooner did the report come out that the Egyptian Civil Aviation Ministry dismissed it as false.
One truism I have found in accident investigation is that it takes time to find the truth. Another is that facts can be misleading. Reportage from official sources moves slowly; reportage from commercial, so-called “news,” or social sources is frequently speculative, unsourced, or purely imaginary. Sometimes it is actually correct. It is difficult to tell the difference. Contradictions are a frequent finding, such as this:
Le Figaro reported that no explosives were found on Egyptair flight MS804 French victims’ bodies. The flight crashed in the Mediterranean in 2016.
On Dec 15th 2016 Egypt’s Civil Aviation Authority announced that forensic examination on behalf of the Accident Investigation Commission found traces of explosives with some of the human remains recovered. In accordance with Egypt law, the states prosecutor was informed, and a technical commission formed by the prosecution office opened their investigation into the crime.
How does a close reader respond to a statement that “traces of explosives were found WITH human remains?” A close reader finds more questions. With the remains is not ON the remains. But it could be either way since we are dealing with languages. In English, WITH the remains could mean a bomb was floating in the water near the bodies, or ashes, or gasoline or TNT residue. And what constitutes near? Inches? Miles? It all is relative. Or if the original report is loosely translated, did the original document use a preposition such as ON the remains? And then, there are the forensic questions. Were explosive remains washed off of bodies that were submerged in the ocean?
If the case goes to court, the court will want to know if something failed on the plane, and if so, what it was. Manufacturers of failed components are considered responsible parties. No matter what the cause, international treaty determines carrier responsibility to the victims of the crash.
The determination of failed components provides additional responsible parties. The discovery of a bomb would make airport security one of the potential responsible parties. In addition, international treaty provides guidelines for what carriers owe to the families. (Which treaty is involved depends on which treaty/treaties the involved country/countries are signatory to. If it sounds like it can get complicated, you are correct.)
It has been nearly a year since the accident, and though some things may be believed in the court of public opinion to be one way or another, questions remain unanswered. How grievous and how difficult for the families that must wait so long to find out what brought about this tragedy that took their loved ones.
To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
What: twin-engine Falcon jet from Delhi en route to Coimbatore owned by the GMR group Where: Bangalore airport When: Thursday-3.05 pm. Who: Congress president Sonia Gandhi and Finance Minister P Chidambaram. No injuries. Why: Engine developed a “snag.” Instruments showed a “drop” for the right engine, so the pilot switched the engine off and landed with one engine. Passengers transferred to another plane.
To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
American Airlines flight AA-1965 had to return and make an emergency landing in Charlotte, North Carolina, on January 31st.
The Airbus A330-200 plane took off for Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, but had to turn back after an electrical odor was noticed on-board.
The plane landed uneventfully.
There were one hundred and eighty-three passengers and ten crew members aboard at the time. Authorities said all crew members were examined by medical teams at the airport, one crew member was subsequently taken to hospital.
To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
What: Malev Hungarian Airlines de Havilland Dash 8-400 en route from Budapest to Zurich Where: Budapest When: Jan 12th 2010 Who: 62 passengers and 4 crew Why: After takeoff from Budapest, the plane developed pressurization issues. The plane returned to Budapest and after circling to burn off fuel to avoid an overweight landing, made a safe landing.
To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.