Aviation News, Headlines & Alerts
 
Category: <span>Lawsuit</span>

Category: Lawsuit


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Lawsuit, Lawyers

Lone Survivor On Trial


Air Station Crew makes memorial flight for fallen crew

What: United States Coast Guard (USCG) Sitka CGAS Sikorsky MH-60T Jayhawk 6017
Where: 9:30 a.m. off James Island near the mouth of the Quillayute River at the northwest tip of Washington state. Pacific ocean near La Push, Washington
When: July 2010
Who: fatalities: pilot Lt. Sean D. Krueger, Petty Officer 1st Class Adam Hoke and Aviation Mechanic Technician 2nd Class Brett M. Banks
Why: The co-pilot of the MH-60 Jayhawk that crashed killing the rest of the crew is being charged with five counts: two counts of negligent homicide, two counts of dereliction of duty and destruction of government property.

Lt. Lance Leone is the only survivor of the crash of the Jayhawk that went down after hitting power lines in Sitka Alaska. Afterwards, he was airlifted from Forks to Seattle’s Harborview Medical Center. In that crash, he suffered a broken arm and a broken leg. His decorations include Coast Guard Commendation Medal, Coast Guard Achievement Medal, two Coast Guard Unit Commendation Medals, Coast Guard Meritorious Unit Commendation, Coast Guard Meritorious Team Commendation, Global War Terror Service Medal, Commandant’s Letter of Commendation, Coast Guard “E” Ribbon, National Defense Service Medal, Armed Forces Expeditionary Medal, Coast Guard Special Operations Service Ribbon, Coast Guard Presidential Unit Citation, Coast Guard Sea Service Ribbon, Transportation 9-11 Ribbon, Coast Guard Rifle Sharpshooter Ribbon, Coast Guard Pistol Marksman Ribbon.

Air India, Air Safety, Lawsuit

Air India In-fighting

 ,


Management of Air India ignored safety warnings regarding their fleet.

Now some of the crew Air India pays to fly on those unsafe planes are now considering suing Air India management.

If permission is granted to file the suit, a “Public Interest Litigation” may end up with enforcement arresting management officials for endangering the lives of passengers and crew of Air India flights where safety procedures have been consistently violated. The safety violations by Captain AS Soman and RS Pal, two to be named in the suit, include comprising flight operations with insufficient crew, assigning excessive flight duty, and denying board rest. Punishment includes fines and imprisonment.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Air France, Airbus, Lawsuit

Get in Line to Sue Air France

The latest entity to sue Air France (over flight 447) is Motorola, who is blaming Air France (formerly Societe Air France) in a “multi district litigation” for the June 1 2009 crash.

The blame game goes like this: Motorola is being sued for designing flight control computer microprocessors which (allegedly) prevented software from functioning. And Motorola is blaming the accident on Air France.

Although U.S. District Judge Charles R. Breyer dismissed the litigation in October on forum non conveniens grounds, plaintiffs want U.S. jurisdiction. Plaintiffs contend that French courts cannot exercise jurisdiction and the cases would be thwarted for years 

Families are asking the manufacturers (Motorola Honeywell International, Intel Corp and General Electric ) be tried in the US because “unilateral submission to jurisdiction in France is not effective to create jurisdiction under European Council Regulation 44/2001” because none of the parties live in France or the European Union. Other companies operating in the US (Honeywell International, Intel Corp and General Electric

The latest black box analysis confirms that invalid (Thales pitot tube) readings were outputted right before the plane crashed.

view docket
view docket


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Crash, Lawsuit, McDonnell Douglas, Spain, Spanair

Managers Indicted on Spanair Flight JK5022


update

Three Spanair managers, the Spanair shift supervisor at Madrid airport, the maintenance manager and the quality manager, indicted for “negligent homicide” for Spanair Flight JK5022 will be appearing before a judge between June 20 and 22.

Malware in the mainframe software may have been involved in the crash.

Two mechanics were also indicted.

https://airflightdisaster.com/?page_id=3438
https://airflightdisaster.com/?p=626

Air France, Airbus, Brazil, France, Lawsuit

Arm-wrestling Damages from the Mother Country: Brazil vs France


In the continuing saga of Air France Flight 447, whether the victims are Brazilian or French, they certainly qualify for compensation. The question is how much. Everyone involved, the airlines, the insurance companies, the lawyers, the families all have different numbers in mind.

Recovery of the black boxes is not the only Air France news.

In the poker game of damage recovery, Air France must have blinked. The Brazilian Court system rejected the latest offer to the family of the deceased Luciana Clarkson Seba, a 31-year-old Brazilian who died along with her husband and stepparents.

Brazil rejected the appeal and raised compensation from1.2 million reals ($744,000) to 1.4 million reals ($868,000). The decision was unanimous.

Currently French courts are considering manslaughter charges against Airbus. At least Airbus has some good news to temper the bad, since the search has revealed the black boxes. Whether or not the integrity of the boxes has been breached has not yet been revealed. Experts predict both extremes: complete data loss due to the pressure and time and complete data recovery. We tend to believe the data is safe, since these memory devices must pass certification at 3400 G/ 600 psi.

And when that data is recovered, the experts will be examining it, looking at the rest of the gathered evidence, including the wreckage that is being recovered right now, which will have its own tale to tell.

It remains to be seen if the pitot tube theory will be supported by the CDR and FDR; but with all of these various sources coming together, we can anticipate a dimensional inquiry, a coordinated synthesis, and a profound deduction to explicate the enigma that is Air France Flight 447.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Barjas Airport, Crash, Lawsuit, McDonnell Douglas, Spain, Spanair

Madrid Crash Case Should Be Tried Here, Not Stuck in Spanish Amber

March coverage included the news of Central District of California U.S. District Judge Gary Allen Feess dismissing the case against McDonnell Douglas (and component manufacturers) because he believed the litigation of the airline crash case should be moved to Spain. Spanair Flight JK 5022, the deadliest Spanish accident in the last 20 years, killed 154 people (18 survivors) when it crashed just after takeoff at the Barajas Airport in Madrid.

Here is the problem:
In Spain, Spainair filed for a delay which was granted, and now, criminal proceedings have pre-empted civil proceedings, which now makes the Madrid case stuck in Spanish suspended animation.

Families believe that this new development should allow their case to be reconsidered in US Courts.

Suspending civil proceedings until criminal proceedings are concluded could extend the length of time it takes the aviation case to complete. Aviation cases normally take a long time to settle anyway)

According to forum non conveniens, the court court can dismiss a case where another court or forum is better suited to hear the case. (Plaintiffs refer to another Spanair crash case which took eleven years to settle.)

The judge’s decision was based on his opinion that that private and public interest factors weigh in favor of shifting the litigation to Spain. But now that the case will be delayed indefinitely pending the judiciary of Spain’s criminal case, the interest of the families who were affected by the crash has in effect been swept aside.

How is that in anyone’s best interest? Why must the victims’ justice wait on Spain looking at two maintenance personnel have been charged with negligent homicide?

The judge cited “drawbacks associated with translating the cockpit voice recording” but, as Boeing was a technical adviser to the U.S. investigative team, and downloads, transcripts and the cockpit voice recorder are part of evidence already secured in the United States which cannot be secured in Spain.

Plaintiffs argue that family members were injured or died because of problems with the wing slats and flaps (component failure). The facts support the case being tried in US Courts.

Read More…

Damages, Lawsuit, Published Settlement, USA

Skydiving Crash Victims Awarded by Jury


Doncasters Inc. of London is a manufacturer of aviation components. They were recently held accountable for the death of five victims of the crash of a DeHavilland DHC-6 Twin Otter, the skydiving plane which exploded at the Sullivan airport.

Six people were killed: Melissa Berridge, 38, of St. Louis; Victoria Delacroix, 22, of London; Robert Cook, 22, of Rolla, Mo.; Rob Walsh, 44, of St. Louis; Scott Cowan, 42, of St. Louis were awarded four million each, and a portion of $28 million in punitive damages.

David Aternoster, 35, also died in the crash but his relatives were not part of the lawsuit. Jim and Scott Cowan, owners of Quantum Leap Skydiving were piloting.

Eight engine failures are believed to be due to a defective Doncasters part according to aviation experts, air crash investigators, metallurgists and aircraft design engineers.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Crash, Damages, Editorial, India, Lawsuit, Mangalore

New Lows for Air India Crash Compensation

 ,

Compensation disbursal has hit a new low. It was recently published on the Khaleej Times site that Air India’s insurance company is calculating compensation claims based on ‘the loss of livelihood” rather than “loss of life.’ Loss of life according to the Montreal Convention (in terms of Indian currency) amounts to nearly Rs7.5million. Advocate and solicitor Hoshang D Nanavati, who represents Air India’s legal counsel, is saying they are settling cases where the issue of applying 100,000 SDR (Special Drawing Rights) equivalent to $160,000 did not arise.

Compensation is complicated—a complicated process, and it is frequently misunderstood.

Families understand, or are made to believe that soon the carrier will be coming around to pay no less than $100,000 SDRS less the amount of the advance they received. This is not always the case. If the emergency advance was $10,000 and that 100,000SDRs equates to $151,000 US dollars, the family is entitled to the $141,000 that is still due under the treaty ONLY IF THEY CAN PROVIDE THE DOCUMENTATION. To qualify, documents must show that the person who died had a life span long enough to earn at least that amount based on the decedent’s profile, hence the term above, “loss of livelihood.” It’s always been my opinion that the Montreal Treaty, as other treaties/conventions before it, is not intended to protect the passenger. It’s to protect the operator of the airline from being sued for more than the amount called for in the treaty. The 100,000 SDRs is not a right, it’s a cap, the maximum that, in addition to a small amount for baggage, the operator will have to pay each family of a decedent unless negligence is proved. (Negligence can creep into the picture in a number of ways, such as lack of maintenance, or inferior pilot training leading to pilot error.)

The insurance companies and lawyers commonly require a global release upon payment of any funds, so even if they paid the maximum per the treaty, if more culpable parties turn up, those who signed too early have signed away their rights. If a global release was required before operator paid the compensation, all doors would be shut to sue anyone else later found responsible, such as the manufacturer of a component or the manufacturer of the aircraft.

Keep in mind that we don’t even have a final report on the cause of the crash, other than bits and pieces about pilot error. Other responsible parties may turn up.

The loss of a decedent is handled by profile. It is NOT generic. The loss is based on the person’s age, employment, if not employed, what did he do when he was employed, then how many children, wife/husband, who else depended on the decedent for support, was he the bread winner for how many? All these factors play into what make determining compensation complicated. But in this circumstance, that cap is not a baseline, it is a ceiling.

And unless you have a top earner, there is nothing to negotiate beyond the economics which depend on the country (in this case, India.) And then there’s pain and suffering, and how each country handles it. In India, it is possible that pain and suffering is not even considered. In some countries, there may be a fixed amount for pain and suffering; or it may be banned all together. What happens to the family member in India who was not a top earner?

For those families who are trying to hold out for the compensation they deserve, for authorities to say cases are delayed because of pending case opposition is just a typical delay tactic. There’s always the ambition on the part of airline and insurance lawyers that the families who are most in need of cash will capitulate and accept lesser compensation. The longer the lawyers take, the more red tape and loopholes the families have to weave through, the longer the families have to struggle along, make their bills, and stretch out whatever interim compensation the law has allowed. The more likely they are to capitulate and accept less.

When the Indian Civil Aviation Minister assures speedy disbursal of maximum compensation, if he is thinking of his constituents, is he referring to maximum compensation to take care of widows and orphans, or that completely different number that the insurance companies and airlines would like to redefine as “maximum,” in other words, the least possible that they can legally get the victims to accept?

The Montreal Convention is a treaty that governs international aviation incidents. The airline is automatically liable for up to 100,000 Special Drawing Rights I mentioned above. But an airline is liable to claims over that limit if it is unable to prove that the crash was not due to the negligence or wrongful act or omission of the company or any of its servants, or that the crash was solely due to the negligence or wrongful act or omission of a third party.

If there is no cap, because of the certain pilot error, shouldn’t that victim, even if a low earner, at least get the cap amount? Their life has value. Every life has value.

Air India’s parent company, National Aviation Company of India Ltd said that next week they will make public the steps toward safety taken during the past year. “We are now preparing a whole list of what all actions we have taken. That should come out in public domain in a week’s time.”

That is a very good thing. I look forward to seeing the list of actions taken that comprise improvements, for is also the selfsame list of practices which were negligent in 2010. Every item on that list should be financially compensated as an action which was denied the victims of the Mangalore crash.

I wish there were some way to empower the struggling families to see that there is a light at the end of the tunnel if they do not cave in to lesser offers. The pain and suffering, the loss of life, the decreased quality of life, and the loss of income are very real. They have more than the emotional weight which the families are suffering, but also a physical reality reflected in concrete family circumstances.

The families are living through a terrible ordeal, and the song and dance that the victims are being forced to endure is unnecessarily cruel punishment.There is no question that the airline and insurance companies bear the responsibility; they should just stop playing a numbers game, stop extending the misery, and just provide the families the compensation they deserve.

Air Blue, Crash, Lawsuit, Legal, Pakistan

The Peshawar High Court Demands Air Blue Inquiry

 ,

An independent board of inquiry for determining the causes of the crash was petitioned by politician Marvi Memon.

Interior Minister Rehman Malik gave a two month timeframe for the release of the Air Blue report. It still has not been released due to “political pressure.”

The families have persistent unanswered questions regarding the Air Blue crash in the Margalla Hills in Islamabad. One hundred fifty two people died in that crash in July 2010. As of Thursday, the PHC expects the written submissions (complete statements) from all respondents on the next court date.

Counsel Omar Farouk Adam requested that the Air Blue Fleet be grounded until the report is made public. According to Chief Justice Ejaz Afzal Khan, relief for the victims families must be “fixed” in the inquiry prior to the court ordering interim relief.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Air France, Airbus, Crash, Editorial, France, Lawsuit, Legal

Airbus Yesterday, Air France Today: Justice Wheels Grind Slowly

 

George’s Point of View


Thursday’s news was that Airbus is being investigated for Air France Flight 447. Airbus officials made a public statement that they “strongly disapprove” of the decision, (no doubt!) but would comply with the investigation. Note to readers: This is law, not option. So let’s take that cooperation with a grain of salt, shall we? When the judge tells you that you’re being investigated, you say, “Yes Ma’am.”

March 20 is the date the search starts again, more on that below.

So yesterday, Thursday, was Airbus’s turn in court–
Today, Friday, Air France has been called in its turn before a judge in France to get its hand slapped. Or get in preparation to get its hand slapped, in ten years or so. Anyway, Air France is also on the mat.

Or, as they call it in France, (to be purists here) Mise en examen

This is a criminal investigation. It is a matter of FRENCH LAW. As it was explained to me, “Every air accident is also a criminal matter, and a judge is appointed to oversee the investigation and follow up including charges if any to be filed.”

So what was the problem with the flight? It crashed. It killed lots of people No one knows for sure why. (Though to some of us it seems obvious.) No black boxes, right? But we’re not idiots. We have plenty of information about what was going on. Not everything, of course, but we have the messages sent by the plane’s computers. They reflect faulty readings which are believed to be the result of faulty pitot tube readings and a series of system failures. We would have a rounder picture of events if the black boxes, which hold crucial information were not misplaced somewhere in the Atlantic. They think they know where it is, (or at least they say they know or say they think they know) based on drift and whatnot (heavy on the whatnot.) But millions have been spent finding this needle in a stack of needles under the ocean, in a submarine mountain range. Nearly 30 million dollars has been spent on the search for the black boxes so far. The cost of the new search is shared by Airbus and Air France and will cost 12.5 million.

What about the details about the mise en examen preliminary manslaughter charges filed Thursday against Airbus? They were filed in French court by Judge Sylvie Zimmerman over the 2009 deaths of 228 people aboard Air France Flight 447. Fatal accidents automatically prompt criminal probes running concurrent with civil investigations, but a couple of points which may not be obvious to Americans not versed in French Justice are that the charges may be issued pending further investigation, and may hinge on the black boxes which have not been found and may never be found; AND the dual investigation slows things down. That may be one item that delayed the Concord trial 10 years after the accident. You’ve seen pictures of a guy walking around with a tiny ankle-biting dog chewing on the hem of one pants leg? Well, instead of a chihuahua, picture the entire french justice system. Might tend to slow down ones progress, do you think?

So Air France will be in court Friday, ie today. Watch the news, because what we saw yesterday about Airbus, we’ll see today about Air France. I hope the families are getting some satisfaction from this, because it is going to be a long (long long long) time before they feel like they’re actually being heard, not herded into obscurity.

Bombardier, Colgan Air, Crash, Editorial, fatigue, ice, inadequate training, Lawsuit, pilot error, Pinnacle, pitot tubes, USA

Family Charges Bombardier with Negligence

 

The National Transportation Safety Board’s decision on the Colgan Air Flight 407 crash is that the pilot responded inappropriately to the stick shaker, which led to an aerodynamic stall from which the airplane did not recover. The stick shaker only comes into play when the plane is already slow enough to stall. The plane fell 800 feet before crashing pointing northeast, away from the airport

The family of Ellyce Kausner has filed a lawsuit against Bombardier. Bombardier is the manufacturer of the plane involved in the crash. The suit charges that Bombardier was “negligent and careless” in the design of the plane by not providing more efficient internal mechanical warning systems.

Kausner was a 24 year old Jacksonville law student traveling to NY to visit family.

At least 19 other families have filed suits.

At the time of the crash, the automated “stick-pusher,” pushes the control column down in order to send the aircraft into a temporary dive so it can regain speed and recover from a stall but Capt. Renslow yanked back on the controls while adding thrust, manually overriding the stick-pusher.

Colgan Air, Clarence Center, NY, Accident Dockets

George’s Point of View

Time for Bombardier to step up to the plate. Although this has little to do with the pilot, who had flunked numerous flight tests during his career and was never adequately taught how to respond to the emergency that led to the airplane’s fatal descent. Maybe Ellyce would still be here if the warning systems on the Bombardier were simply better.

When the plane slowed down to a dangerous level, it set off the stall-prevention system, and the pilot performed the opposite of the proper procedure. So there were hiring and training issues involved too. And Captain Renslow had about 109 hours of experience, hardly enough to be pilot.

Even if procedures seem counter-intuitive, shouldn’t the pilot be aware of them?

Barring the inefficiency of an ill-prepared pilot, shouldn’t Bombardier have some kind of way to limit ineffective pilot responses?

When the hiring and training fails, and when the pilot fails, shouldn’t there be some kind of fail-safe within the plane? Even a copy of the Complete Idiot’s Guide to Not Crashing your Bombardier for pilots who flunked their last check write 16 months before and who apparently didn’t read the real manual?


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Canada, Crash, Lawsuit, Sikorsky, Video

Newfoundland Cougar 491 Crash: Unanswered

Families and the only survivor of the 2009 Sikorsky crash have petitioned Transport Minister Chuck Stahl to take action. Transport Canada did not enforce certification requirements, leading to sixteen factors that in their turn lead to the crash. Two of three titanium studs broke off the oil filter assembly.

The helicopter’s design is to be able to continue flying for thirty minutes after the gearbox runs dry.

The last conversations between air traffic controllers and the Sikorsky’s pilots, Capt. Matt Davis, 34, of St. John’s, and First Officer Tim Lanouette, 48, Comox, B.C., were released by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada.

The news from the day of the tragic accident.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
airliners.net, Crash, Damages, Fines, Lawsuit, Swearingen, UK

Survivors Have Rights Too


Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact photographer Andrei Visan

What is a life worth?

It appears that Manx2 Airlines doesn’t think a life is worth very much. Manx2 denied an advance payment of more than £15,000 to cover the costs of a crash survivor (Cork Airport) to fly by aircraft from Cork University Hospital to the U.K. They are trying to shift responsibility to BCN.

On the second approach to runway 17 the right wing-tip of the Swearingen SA-227BC Metro III hit the runway, flipping the aircraft upside down. The plane slid 190 metres along the runway and came to rest in the grass adjacent to Taxiway C when fuel tanks leaking fuel in the right wing caught fire.The leased plane crashed on Feb 10, 2011, killing 2 crew members, and 4 passengers. There were 6 survivors.

After a horrific accident like that, you’d expect Manx to step up to the plate.

When someone dies in a crash the question is asked: what is this life worth? You may not hear it in that many words, but it is there. The value of a human being, translated into dollars and cents. When someone survives a crash as 6 did in this instance, it is difficult not to see Manx’s petty delay tactic as a slap in the face.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
JAL Japan Airlines, Lawsuit

Ex Pilots Sue Japan Airlines

 ,

In Tokyo District Court, 146 plaintiffs argued over their dismissal. A year after JAL filed bankruptcy, and underwent restructuring in a government-backed bailout, the 74 flight crew and 72 cabin attendants—some of whom include their most experienced employees—attended a press conference. The documentation of their lawsuit included statements that said their dismissal was unnecessary as the airline known as JAL made operating profit totaling over 140 billion yen ($1.7 billion) from April to November in 2010. Kazuya Chikamura, head of the Japan Federation of Aviation Worker’s Union said pilots over 55, copilots 48 and above, and over 53 for flight attendants, factoring in also sick days. The suit questions if JAL made every effort to avoid dismissal and honor their contracts. A November 30 court decision by Tokyo District Court requires JAL to lose 30% of their workers or 16,000 jobs by March.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Airbus, Lawsuit, Legal, Rolls Royce

Australian Lawsuit against Rolls Royce Possible

Australian Transport Safety Bureau has issued a safety alert.

The Qantas A380 Rolls Royce engine failure was due to a (fatigue) cracked tube. The Australian Trade Practices Act allows Qantas to pursue a legal solution against rolls Royce, especially as it appears they were aware of engine problems (fatigue cracking in the thin side of an unevenly bored oil tube) but did not inform Qantas. If there were flawed oil tubes on the earliest “A-version” Trent 900s, have some of these survived in lagter models? Qantas no longer uses A version engines.

George’s Point of View

Good for Qantas, if they are going to sue.

Now the passengers should sue Quantas for the close miss to a possible tragedy and for the mental stress.

The Australian Report:
Manufacturing problem potential factor in QF32 engine failure
Date: 02 December 2010

The ATSB has issued a safety recommendation about potential engine problems in some Airbus A380 aircraft.

The safety recommendation identifies a potential manufacturing defect with an oil tube connection to the high-pressure (HP)/intermediate-pressure (IP) bearing structure of the Trent 900 engine installed in some A380 aircraft.

The problem relates to the potential for misaligned oil pipe counter-boring, which could lead to fatigue cracking, oil leakage and potential engine failure from an oil fire within the HP/IP bearing buffer space.

In response to the recommendation Rolls Royce, affected airlines and safety regulators are taking action to ensure the continued safe operation of A380 aircraft. The action involves the close inspection of affected engines and the removal from service of any engine which displays the suspected counter-boring problem.

The ATSB will hold a media briefing tomorrow (Friday 3 December 2010) at 10.30am to accompany the release of its preliminary factual investigation report into the QF32 occurrence. ATSB Chief Commissioner Mr Martin Dolan will present the known facts gathered from the investigation and highlight the key safety issues that have resulted from the investigation to date.

Summary
On 4 November 2010, at 0157 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), an Airbus A380 aircraft, registered VH-OQA (OQA), being operated as Qantas flight 32, departed from runway 20 centre (20C) at Changi Airport, Singapore for Sydney, New South Wales. On board the aircraft were five flight crew, 24 cabin crew and 440 passengers (a total of 469 persons on board).

It was reported that shortly after departing Singapore the No. 2 engine failed. The aircraft was returned to Singapore for a safe landing after reducing its fuel load. The investigation is continuing.

A report has not yet been released for this investigation.

Preliminary report to be released 10.30am Friday, 3 December 2010

On 4 November 2010, at 0157 Universal Coordinated Time (UTC), an
Airbus A380 aircraft, registered VH-OQA (OQA), being operated as
Qantas flight 32, departed from runway 20 centre (20C) at Changi
Airport, Singapore for Sydney, New South Wales. On board the
aircraft were five flight crew, 24 cabin crew and 440 passengers (a
total of 469 persons on board).

It was reported that shortly after departing Singapore the No. 2
engine failed. The aircraft was returned to Singapore for a safe
landing after reducing its fuel load. The investigation is
continuing.

A report has not yet been released for this investigation.

Preliminary report to be released 10.30am Friday, 3 December
2010

Recommendation

Safety Recommendation AO-2010-089-SR-012

On 4 November 2010, at 0157 Universal Coordinated
Time (UTC), an Airbus A380 aircraft, registered VH-OQA (OQA), being
operated as Qantas flight 32, departed from runway 20 centre (20C)
at Changi Airport, Singapore for Sydney, New South Wales. On board
the aircraft were five flight crew, 24 cabin crew and 440
passengers (a total of 469 persons on board).

Following a normal takeoff, the crew retracted the
landing gear and flaps. The crew reported that, while maintaining
250 kts in the climb and passing 7,000 ft above mean sea level,
they heard two almost coincident ‘loud bangs’, followed shortly
after by indications of a failure of the No 2 engine.

The crew advised Singapore Air Traffic Control of the
situation and were provided with radar vectors to a holding
pattern. The crew undertook a series of actions before returning
the aircraft to land at Singapore. There were no reported injuries
to the crew or passengers on the aircraft. There were reports of
minor injuries to two persons on Batam Island, Indonesia.

A subsequent examination of the aircraft indicated
that the No 2 engine had sustained an uncontained failure of the
Intermediate Pressure (IP) turbine disc. Sections of the liberated
disc had penetrated the left wing and the left wing-to-fuselage
fairing, resulting in structural and systems damage to the
aircraft. The No 2 engine was removed from the aircraft and
disassembled in an authorised engine workshop for examination,
under the supervision of the Australian Transport Safety Bureau. In
addition, a large section of liberated IP turbine disc was also
recovered from Batam Island for examination. Those examinations are
ongoing.

As a result of this occurrence, a number of safety
actions were immediately undertaken by Qantas, the Australian Civil
Aviation Safety Authority, Airbus, Rolls-Royce plc, and the
European Aviation Safety Agency.

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau has prepared a
Preliminary Factual Report on the investigation of the occurrence.
That report will be publically released on 3 December 2010.

Recent developments

Recent examination of components removed from the
failed engine at the Rolls-Royce plc facility in Derby, United
Kingdom, have identified the presence of fatigue cracking within a
stub pipe that feeds oil into the High Pressure (HP) / Intermediate
Pressure (IP) bearing structure. While the analysis of the engine
failure is ongoing, it has been identified that the leakage of oil
into the HP/IP bearing structure buffer space (and a subsequent oil
fire within that area) was central to the engine failure and IP
turbine disc liberation event.

Further examination of the cracked area has
identified the axial misalignment of an area of counter?boring
within the inner diameter of the stub pipe; the misalignment having
produced a localised thinning of the pipe wall on one side. The
area of fatigue cracking was associated with the area of pipe wall
thinning

Critical Safety Issue

Misaligned stub pipe counter-boring is understood to be related
to the manufacturing process. This condition could lead to an
elevated risk of fatigue crack initiation and growth, oil leakage
and potential catastrophic engine failure from a resulting oil
fire.

As a result of the identified critical safety issue, the
Australian Transport Safety Bureau issues the following safety
recommendation:

Safety Recommendation AO-2010-089-AR-012

The Australian Transport Safety Bureau recommends
that Rolls-Royce plc address the safety issue and take actions
necessary to ensure the safety of flight operations in transport
aircraft equipped with Rolls-Royce plc Trent 900 series
engines.

Date: 04 Nov 2010 Investigation Status: Active
Time: 0201 UTC Investigation Type: Occurrence Investigation
Location: overhead Batam Island, Indonesia Occurrence Type: Powerplant / Propulsion
State: International Occurrence Class: Mechanical
Occurrence Category: Serious Incident
Report Status: Pending Highest Injury Level: None

Aircraft Details

Aircraft Manufacturer: Airbus
Aircraft Model: A380
Aircraft Registration: VH-OQA
Serial Number: 0014
Type of Operation: Air Transport High Capacity
Damage to Aircraft: Serious
Departure Point: Singapore
Destination: Sydney, NSW

Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Air France, Air Safety, Airbus, Lawsuit, Legal, wrongful death

Air France, Airbus Playing “Hot Potato” with Responsibility

Air France denies responsibility for the Air France Flight 447 crash, saying that they had raised concerns about the sensors before the crash.

If they did so, it would seem the memorandum they presented indicates that they were aware of the problem, and therefore responsible. Though Air France “submitted a memorandum to show it had taken ‘all possible precautions” after a series of earlier sensor failures,’ ” it would seem the memorandum would indicate that they were aware of a problem, and should have cancelled flights until the problem was corrected. Certainly passengers were not made aware that there was a potentially serious issue.

If Airbus had really been concerned, they would have installed the $50,000 backup system used by other carriers in the event of a multiple airspeed sensor failure.

Watching Air France and Airbus (and Thales) shift blame for the crash back and forth is like watching a child’s game of “hot potato.” When they are finished passing the buck, who ever ends up officially responsible, the victims are still just as dead. Time for someone to “man up.”

There are rumors that a request will be made to Transport Minister Thierry Mariani to continue the search for the black box. Three earlier searches failed, seeking the Airbus SAS A330, which crashed into the Atlantic on June 1, 2009, en route from Rio de Janeiro to Paris, killing all 228 people aboard. 6,700 square miles was searched for the acoustic pings, but the batteries are now dead, and searches changed to sonar imaging.

The BEA claims that only the black boxes will tell the truth of what happened but drags its feet in continuing the search. On May 6th 2010, a French deputy minister told the public that the black boxes had been found (meaning, apparently, that their general location had been pinned down.) That report was withdrawn. That fact, combined with the BEA reluctance to continue searching, has led to persistent rumors of a cover-up.

Private shareholders own 81.4% of Air France, 37% held by former Air France shareholders and 21% held by former KLM shareholders. The Government of France owns 18.6% of Air France—putting the BEA in the awkward position of heading an investigation where it has essentially owes 18.6% responsibility.

Air France was fined €310 million this month for price fixing. Read about their response to the fine


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Crash, FAA, Helicopter, Lawsuit, Medevac

FAA Air Traffic Controller Could Not Provide

FAA air traffic controllers provided the pilot outdated flight visibility information that made navigation difficult for Steven Bunker. Bunker had requested an “airport surveillance radar approach”, a ground-based radar approach. After the FAA air traffic controller told him she could not provide “airport surveillance radar approach” service, the four people in Bunker’s helicopter died.

On Sept. 27, 2008, the medevac helicopter that crashed in a wooded area of Walker Mill Regional Park: Kenneth Mallard, State police pilot Stephen J. Bunker, Trooper 1st Class Mickey C. Lippy and Ashley J. Younger.

Jordan Wells who was also aboard, survived.

Kenneth Mallard was an EMT for the Waldorf Volunteer Rescue Squad. Michael Loyola Rowan, his wife Tanya Mallard’s lawyer, is filing a $7 million federal lawsuit against the FAA for ” not doing everything necessary to ensure a safe landing for the Maryland State Police Trooper 2 helicopter.” Christina P. Lippy has sued for $15 million.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Damages, Fines, Lawsuit, Legal, News

Helicopter Lawsuit Filed, $16 Million

The family of flight paramedic Mickey Lippy is suing the FAA for negligent acts leading up to the crash on September 28, 2008, when Maryland State Police Trooper 2 (Eurocopter AS 365N1 Dauphin, N92MD) disappeared from radar and crashed. TFC Mickey Lippy, was one of the five people aboard. The others were Pilot Stephen Bunker, EMT Tonya Mallard (Waldorf Volunteer Fire Department), and two patients on board, one of whom survived.

According to the suit, the FAA visibility data was hours out of date, and ATC was unresponsive and inattentive.

The case seeks 15 million for mental anguish, emotional pain and suffering, loss of companionship and loss of parental care and a separate case is pending for $1 million on behalf of Lippy’s pain and suffering.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
France, Language, Lawsuit, Lawyers, politics, press release, wrongful death

Crash au large des Comores, les familles des victimes réclament justice

Publié le 5 février 2010 par Nabiha Gasmi

Prises en étau entre le droit européen, comorien, américain et français, et face à des compagnies d’assurances des plus alertes, les suites juridiques du crash de l’air bus A310-300 de la compagnie Yéménia qui s’est échoué au large des Comores le 29 juin dernier , tuant 152 passagers sur les 153 à bord, promettent d’être longues et scabreuses. Demeurant sans indemnités ni explications sur ce funeste vol, à Marseille, les familles de victimes réunies en collectif, n’ont eu d’autre alternative que de faire appel à des magnats du droit, le célèbre cabinet d’avocat américain : Masry & Vititoe.Toutes les infos

Caught between European, Comoros, American and French legal systems, the families of Yemenia flight 626 are suffering at the mercy of insurance companies, and struggling with the legal consequences of the crash of the Yemenia airlines airbus that crashed on June 29, 2009. After all this time, the families still have no compensation. Demanding explanations, families of victims gathered to appeal for help from the American lawyer Masry & Vititoe in Marseille, this Saturday. Google Translation


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Crash, Damages, Lawsuit, Legal, Sikorsky, Video

Cougar Flight 491 Suit Settles

Sikorsky, Keystone Helicopters and their parent company, United Technologies Corp. have settled in court with the the families of passengers who died on March 12, 2009. In court last July plaintiffs “voluntarily discontinued” the lawsuit to begin negotiations on a possible settlement. That settlement has been resolved, but the details are not public.

Because pilots believed the Sikorsky met U.S. FAA regulations that the aircraft could operate for 30 minutes after losing oil, they flew toward the shore rather than landing on the water.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Lawsuit, News, wrongful death

Hudson Midair Collision Lawsuit

Five wrongful death lawsuits filed in Newark US District Court over the Hudson River Collision deaths of tourists Fabio Gallazzi, Giacomo Gallazzi, Tiziana Pedroni, Filippo Norelli and Michele Norelli allege the Federal Aviation Administration’s procedures for controlling Hudson River are out dated, and that the Teterboro supervisor was “grossly negligent, reckless and wanton” in leaving work to conduct personal business on government time and failing to monitor flight traffic.

Pilot Steven Altman, who was flying the piper that collided with the helicopter was named in the suit, as well as Liberty Helicopters Inc. and the Meridian Consulting Corporation Inc. Multiple parties are held responsible.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Crash, Lawsuit

Captain Indicted on charges of fraud

(former?) Captain John Kimberling has been charged of being in on a conspiracy to operate the charter service Platinum Jet Management without proper certification.

Owners are charged with falsifying paperwork falsely representing planes that planes were light so they could skimp on fuel.

20 people were injured in Teterboro Airport in 2005 when a Canadair CL-600 Challenger, was scheduled to fly to Chicago. Overloaded with cheap fuel, the plane barreled across the six lanes of Route 46, slammed into parked cars and a warehouse.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Lawsuit, wrongful death

Could it be Pilot Error in Yemenia Case?

I am not an attorney, however, I have a lot of experience with aviation crashes. I am watching the investigation here with great interest. I am a consultant/advisor/strategist to the U.S. law firm working this case with a French attorney firm. In terms of the investigation, relatively speaking (in terms of the length of time that is normally spent on crash investigations), it is still early days, and in my opinion, things could still go in another direction or many directions.

If preliminary investigations about the Yemenia crash head where they appear to be heading, then a primary cause of the crash is pilot error. Yes, weather may have been a factor, but the stress of dealing with the weather appears to have unnerved the pilots to the point where they botched landing the Airbus A310 on June 30 of this year, in the Comoros. It looks to investigators as if the pilots lost their orientation.

The flight data recorders have been recovered for this flight, but it is reported that there is a problem extracting the information. Bad weather and the primitive airport only seem to have exacerbated the main issue, which seems to have been pilot error, at least according to the initial investigation.

Investigators looking in detail at what happened that night at the Moroni Airport say that pilots failed to correctly line up the plane with the runway while being buffeted by storm winds, that the pilots lost control.

Investigators believe that the pilots became confused, lost sight of the horizon and failed to regain altitude.

If the cause is found to be pilot error, it could be good for the families who are awaiting compensation from the operator Yemenia Airlines.

Lawyers tell me that pilot error raises the maximum limits set out by International Aviation law (Warsaw) in this particular case and that (raising maximum limits), in my opinion, is good for the families of victims. The biggest tragedy is that no amount of money will bring back the loved ones who perished in this crash, but the push should be on to maximize the value of the human lives lost. With pilot error now in the picture, the limits of Warsaw in so far as Yemenia are concerned will be set aside as the attorneys for the victims work out each individual claim. Families have the right to maximize the value of the case. Even after the case is won, the loved ones will still be lost.

But let’s not just beat up the pilots. Look what they have to work with. If we look back at the A-310’s history, it does not appear to be the world’s best designed aircraft. Take, for example, the rudders. Many Airbus passenger jets are made of composite plastic that appears dangerously prone to disintegration. In March 2005, after taking off from Varadero, Cuba, the rudder came apart on a Canadian A310 airliner. The NTSB has raised questions about maximum capabilities, or “limit load” of Airbus series 300 rudders.

However, in the Yemenia crash, Investigators are looking at the cockpit for answers. The crew tried to react, but with the stress factors of the weather, pilots appear to have made various incorrect adjustments to the flight controls that investigators believe complicated their problems.

Families should not stop with only the operator YEMENIA Airline. Every factor should be considered, eventually. Families should find all possible defendants that could have contributed to the accident. Lost family members deserve it. An expert aviation attorney will do this on behalf of the family. An expert aviation attorney runs his own investigation, and does not fully depend on the official investigation. An expert aviation attorney will leave no stone unturned on the client’s behalf.

In fact, in my opinion, the case may eventually go in to investigating the mechanisms and technology, especially given airbus history. A good investigation pursues all avenues, and as I already stated, it is still relatively early in the investigation. We must keep an open mind because there is no telling at this point whether investigations (both the official ones and the attorneys’ behind the scenes investigations) will turn up failed components, which would result in additional defendants, and more filings in the most appropriate available forum. However, the immediate focus is the push to bring Yemenia Airlines to the negotiating table (either amicably or through the French courts.) The groundwork is already being laid to expedite the process of individual evaluation of each claim.

The families should know they aren’t in this alone; they can be wise and thoughtful about making the choice. In my opinion, they should not hire hire just any lawyer, nor the first lawyer to file a case. For more about hiring an aviation experienced lawyer, follow this link.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Cessna, Lawsuit, Published Settlement, wrongful death

$15 Million Settlement

We don’t always hear the numbers when cases are settled, so the news release that a $15 million settlement was okayed in Cook County, Illinois seemed to be a noteworthy news byte.

The ruling was in favor of the Chicago restaurant executive Michael Waugh who was killed in a 2006 crash.

Waugh, general manager of Joe’s Seafood, Prime Steak and Stone Crab Restaurant, was en route from Olathe, Kansas, when the Cessna 421B he was in crashed.

A major point in the case was that the plane was piloted by a Morgan Stanley senior financial advisor, who was not a professional pilot.


Warning: Trying to access array offset on value of type null in /home/airflight/www/www/wp-content/themes/fluida/includes/loop.php on line 270
Lawsuit, Papua New Guinea, PNG

Plane Crash Leads to Environmental Claims


Pictured: An Airlines PNG De Havilland Canada DHC-8-102 Dash 8
Click to view full size photo at Airliners.net
Contact photographer Raymond Ngu

What: PNG Airlines
Where: Papua New Guinea’s Owen Stanley Ranges
When: August 11 2009
Who: 13 people including nine Australians, three Papua New Guineans, including the female pilot, and a Japanese man
Why: Unresolved

George’s Point of View

While the cause of the crash is unknown, the locals are claiming compensation because the consequences of the crash include environmental damage. The area’s only water supply has been contaminated with human blood, aviation fuel and chemicals, which poses a health risk.

Content not attributed to or linked to original, is the property of AirFlightDisaster.com; all rights reserved.

Site Credits