What: Canadian air force CF-18 Hornet
Where: Lethbridge County Airport
When: July 23, 2010
Who: pilot Capt. Brian Bews
Why: Practicing for the Alberta International Air Show, the 419 Moose Squadron
jet olled right and nosedived, sputtered and emitted smoke, before the jet exploded in flames. The pilot ejected from the plane, and survived with minor injuries. The one other hornet in the show may or may not perform in the airshow.
Similar Posts
Small Plane Crashed in Hawaii; 3 Injured
A small plane crashed near Moanalua Freeway in Mapunapuna, Hawaii, on June 30th.
The Piper PA28 plane was carrying three people when it went down under unknown circumstances.
All three occupants of the plane sustained serious injuries, and were taken to a trauma center.
The FAA and the NTSB are investigating.
Koryak Helicopter Crashes in Russia
What: Koryak Airlines Mil Mi-8T en route from Anavgai to Tigil
Where: 70 km north of Anavgai Russia
When: Dec 28 2009
Who: 3 crew members
Why: While en route, the helicopter sent out a distress signal and had to make an (unexplained) emergency landing/crash which destroyed the helicopter. There was one fatality and two crew members were severely injured. The helicopter was carrying 2 tons of food.
Carolina Beach Rd Helicopter Crash Thursday March 13, 2008
Thursday March 13, 2008-Pilot John C. Miller, 18 year veteran firefighter, died in a helicopter crash behind Strickland Surplus Inc. at 5915 Carolina Beach Road in North Carolina. Miller was a member of a water rescue and recovery team and captain of Station 5. He ran a business, Wilmington Helicopter Rental & Training, and was about to take his final test to become a certified instructor. The helicoptor was a (year 2000) Robinson R22 Beta, a “trainer”. Miller was the only person on board the two seater.
We extend our condolences to family and friends.
The Federal Aviation Administration and National Transportation Safety Board are investigating.
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.
Japanese Coast Guard Helicopter Lost at Sea
What: Japanese Coast Guard Bell 412EP “Akizuru”
Where: off Kagawa, Shikoku Japan
When: August 8 2010
Who: 5 occupants 4 fatalities
Why: Akizuru hit offshore power lines and crashed into the sea. The five member crew was missing; but the remains of 4 were found by searchers. One is still missing.
Boeing 787 Smokes Battery in Boston
On January 7, 2013, a Japan Airlines Boeing 787 Dreamliner Japan-Boston had already landed in Boston, and all 184 passengers had safely disembarked when smoke filled the cabin.
A fire was found in a battery aboard the plane. Boston Firefighters arrived at 10:40 a.m. and put out the fire.
Passengers were provided alternative transportation and overnight accommodations.
Electrical issues in the avionics bay where the battery is located are a known issue in this type of plane, which uses electrical motors instead of hydraulics in certain areas. The auxiliary battery in the compartment kicks in after the engine kicks off. That’s what happened on test flights, and from what I have heard, that is what happened here.
Let’s slow down with this great plane. Let’s get the kinks out of it before we put humans on too many of these Dreamliners. Let them stay Dreamliner and not become Nightmareliners. United is starting service but are these planes really ready? There have been engine problems and some spooky events. We don’t read too much about them, but I know they have occurred. I love this plane, I want to fly all over the world in it, and if I live long enough, I will, but, is it ready?
According to the NTSB report below, the NTSB seems to agree with me that incidents like this warrant investigation.
Press Release
WASHINGTON– Investigators with the National Transportation Safety Board are gathering information regarding reports of smoke aboard a Boeing 787 at Boston’s Logan Airport today.
The Japan Airlines 787 was on the ground and empty of passengers at the time of the incident.
The NTSB has dispatched an investigator to Boston. Based on a review of the factual information gathered, the NTSB will determine the extent of its investigation.
Video Below