Similar Posts
Mangalore: Two Pilot Tales, Which is true?
There are two accounts of the Pilot Alexander Glusicia’s situation prior to the Mangalore-Dubai-Mangalore flight. We wonder which of these versions is true.
1. Alexander (Zlatko) Glusica was initially not rostered by Air India to fly on the day of the crash— not scheduled to fly till May 23.. His schedule had last minute changes, when Glusica was asked to fly though he was fatigued, having just returned from a Serbian vacation.
2. Capt Glusica had landed in Mangalore two days in advance, and was plenty rested prior to flying.
Officials claim the family had opportunity to appear before the Court of Inquiry but they never came.
PILOT NOT ORIGINALLY SCHEDULED TO FLY
What: Air India Express Boeing 737-800 en route from Dubai to Mangalore
Where: Mangalore airport
When: 6:00 a.m May 22 2010
Who: Passengers include 23 children, 6 crew, 158 fatalities and 8 survivors
Kerala High Court Reverses on Mangalore Crash
In George’s Point of View
The Kerala High Court ruled that the Air India need not pay the compensation amount of Rs 75 lakhs each to the victims of the Mangalore plane crash. The Division Bench gave the order in the appeal given by the Air India against the earlier Single Bench rule to pay the amount. The order references the Montreal Treaty.
I am not surprised. When I first heard the original judgement, it was my layperson opinion that the high court would not let stand the order of the lower court to pass out 75 lakhs to each passenger.
In my personal opinion the Judge who made that order didn’t read the Montreal treaty very well. In order for the family to collect the equivalent of 100,000 SDRS (about $160,000 U.S.), they must present provable damages and if they do, under the treaty, Tier I, the operator (Air India) cannot dispute or contest paying that amount. The Judge must have overlooked that the 100,000 SDRS is not the minimum required under the treaty, it is the maximum. So when the Judge ordered 75 lakhs to be paid, his order basically was overruling the treaty requirement of proving the damages.
No, I was not surprised and neither were the attorneys I consult with. If no treaty existed limiting the liability of the operator, then the order from a Judge would have probably stayed in place.
But that was not the case.
The Montreal Treaty has two tiers. The above discussion explains tier one. The Tier II provision almost certainly removes the cap entirely, because of where the burden of proof lies.
As long as the Montreal Treaty is being held as a rule, families should know that in most cases as per the treaty, the value of the case could be much higher than 75 lakhs, pursuant to Tier II of the Montreal Treaty. I know, I know….I’m not a lawyer but I know how it works from experience over the many years I have been working with wrongful death cases, and based on the experience my aviation experts have graciously passed on to me.
Here is the explanation, as simply as I can explain it:
If you can prove provable damages, then Tier II (referred to in Article 21(2) of the Montreal Convention) Air India Express is liable to families/passengers for all personal injury or wrongful death damages exceeding 100,000 Special Drawing Rights (SDRs), unless the carrier(s) can prove that the injuries or deaths were not due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of the carrier or it servants or agents. OR the injuries or deaths were solely due to the negligence or other wrongful act or omission of a third party.
The carrier will never prove this and the burden of proof is on them. If I am correct, and know the experts who have taught me, are correct…
Air India Express is liable to the victims families for all damages under the applicable law, including but not limited to, pain & suffering of loved ones prior to death.
Air India Express is liable for pain and suffering of the survivors and heirs of the victims.
Air India Express is liable for the loss of support, i.e., money.
Air India is liable for the loss and enjoyment of life of the victim.
I could go on but I will stop here, and caution the families to please be very careful. The families should not give up all that there may be coming in return for even a payment of the 75 lakhs that this new ruling states the company no longer has to pay. If they actually get around to offering it, to get it, it means the families have to give up all rights to future claims.
I would tell the families this:
Put up a fight. Your loved one is never coming back, no matter how much they pay you, but, I’m sure he/she would want you to collect the absolute maximum possible. As a passenger, your loved one paid a fare, and no matter what caused that crash, your loved one is FAULT FREE. Legally, the operator must pay.
Consult a lawyer, an expert in aviation, I beg you to please do not try to do it yourself.
I fly over 250,000 miles a year, and I wouldn’t want my family to try and do it alone if I were a victim.
* I am not a lawyer, and this is not legal advice.
Policy Changes
In George’s Point of View
What does it mean that the Indian Civil Aviation Ministry is formulating new policies?
The existing policies are not working, but we wonder if the new policies are being rewritten to fit in better with the workings of business and the status quo. Will the changes begin to address safety issues, pilot training, and crucial concerns of passengers rather than stakeholders in the business end?
Will the policies be conceived and written by people involved in the mechanics of planes and technology, or will they reflect an infrastructure concerned only about maintaining a “bottom line?”
The current perspective has resulted in dangerous new rest rules. (Pilots are not allowed to get fatigued till they have completed 10 hours of flying during the night; and the airline’s director of operations can extend that time another hour and a half.) The work ceiling for Indian pilots is 25% higher than that set for US or British pilots.
Committees of experts should be based on expertise in successful operations, have proper credentials and their input should reflect current legitimate data and scientific findings. Otherwise, the changes will be reflected inevitably in more fatal crashes.
So we wonder what does it mean? We have to wait until February when results are released.
Air India Emergency Landing in Kochi
What: Air India Airbus A310-300 en route from Kozhikode India to Riyadh Saudi Arabia
Where: Nedumbasseri International Airport at Kochi
When: Oct 2nd 2010
Who: 197 passengers (11 in J, 180 in economy, and six infants) and 12 crew
Why: The flight originated in Nedumbasseri at 4.30am and went from there to Kozhikode. Forty-five minutes after leaving Kozhikode, the crew reported fumes in the cabin. The two Indian pilots diverted to Kochi, made a safe landing and passengers were evacuated. Emergency vehicles, including fire trucks, were on standby as the flight landed. The plane was isolated for maintenance, which found a problem in engine 2 on the right.
Passengers reported a high degree of alarm from the rapid descent, the cabin pressure, and the fire alarm. They were provided an alternative flight.
Turkish Airlines Flight Makes Emergency Landing in Moscow
Turkish Airlines flight TK-415 had to return for an emergency landing in Moscow, Russia, on January 12th.
The Boeing 737-900 plane took off for Istanbul, Turkey, but its tail hit the runway during rotation.
The crew subsequently returned to Moscow where the plane landed safely.
Everyone aboard remained unharmed.
Emergency Landing: Safety for Tripoli Evacuation
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact photographer Vivek Manvi
What: Air India Airbus A330-200 en route from Tripoli to Delhi
Where: Malta
When: Mar 6th 2011
Why: After taking off from Tripoli, the landing gear failed to retract. The pilot diverted to Malta and made a safe landing.
So far, of 18,000 Indians expats, 9,200 people had been evacuated from Tripoli. Egypt Air has also been making chartered flights to bring Indian citizens back home in “Operation Safe Homecoming.” As of Mar 2, Air India had retrieved 6 flights worth of passengers.