Nothing Happened in Nashville…

Similar Posts

  • |

    Dana Air: Pursuit of the Public Good

    Look in a courtroom and you will see that the trajectory of a case is not a straight line, but rather, one that bounces back and forth between the actions of the interested parties. It is not unlike a game of tennis, except that the ball of justice does not bounce back and forth but rather is angled inexorably toward justice (or injustice) rather than gravity.

    Nowhere is this more true than in the Dana Air case. Some people question why the suspension of Dana Air’s operating license has been lifted. The airline has begun the re-certification process.

    The court may well be in pursuit of justice; but the specifics of the accident and the disposition of the interests of the victims and the offended families should not be waylaid by a false move, a wrong move, a defensive move by interested (or disinterested parties.) This is not a chess match. A case with so many powerful parties involved may play deep in strategies, but we should never forget, it is not a game. The lawsuit is all too real—as real as the thoughtless and preventable annihilation of one hundred and fifty-nine souls. These people need not have died. But they did.

    The court may well be in pursuit of justice; but the Dana Air case is more than an opportunity to escape through, manipulate, reveal or sew up loopholes. Laws exist for the purpose of establishing justice. We should not sit quietly as law is manipulated in the court or government’s own interest. The failure of law is a dam that blocks the flow of social progress. It is a double tragedy when the legal minds involved in a case pursue the escape route of loopholes in the name of self-interest rather than keeping the high purpose of seeking justice for the victims.

    These truths are evident:

    Dana Airline must operate professionally and within the highest safety parameters or it should not fly at all.

    The victims and the families need full disclosure.

    The growth and development of the workings of Nigerian investigation, legal proceedings, allocations of rights and responsibilities must continue, must improve, must be refined; but in the course of that development, the court must not ever lose sight of its responsibility to find justice for people who died simply because they bought airline tickets, or were in exactly the wrong place when a plane fell fro the sky.

    I have not sat in the courtroom and heard every day the words of Captain Dele Ore. I do not know how valid is the coroner’s inquest. I only know that it is a judicial miscarriage for the court to permit the victim’s justice to be hijacked by mistakes in law, governmental evasion of responsibility, flawed forensics, loopholes, legal trickery or even those with a higher purpose of closing the loopholes for future cases. It can never be forgotten that lives were lost that should not have been. Irreparable damage has been done to individuals and families. The intent of the case is not to try the system (though indeed every case does try the system) but rather to find justice for the injured parties.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • |

    Air France Airbus Flight 447: Information Withheld

    George’s Point of View

    The next big question is whether or not information is withheld.

    That’s what some families are wondering, and that’s part of the reason why they’ve hired lawyers. Plaintiffs have access to more information; and they want to know what reason Air France has for not replacing a known Airbus problem, the pitot probes (airbus speed sensors.)

    What has been published is error messages based on inconsistent readings taken by the pitot probes.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    British Airways: Take This Class and Please Don’t Die on Our Plane

    Take This Class and Please Don’t Die on Our Plane. That will be £125. Thank you for not dying on British Airways.

    British Airways has a problem.

    It seems that they developed a class for British Petroleum. You see, BP sends their staff to remote locations which are only served by airlines on the EU banned list. As we described it on the last article the last time we talked about it, these poor BA employees ended up on flights on planes that skydivers wouldn’t touch with a ten foot parachute.

    Anyway, this class they worked up must now be like a friday night paycheck burning a hole in their pocket. You see, they keep trying to market this class as a product. Like the guy who gets stuck with a warehouse full of Widgets. The first time we heard this, the class was being offered for purchase, and the purpose of the class was to teach aviation safety and how to behave during a crash to increase your likelihood of not dying on their plane.

    We think the whole thing is kind of fishy, since the plane is not supposed to crash. Landing safety is the airline’s responsibility, not an option. I wouldn’t keep writing about this but I keep getting notices about this class.

    So they’re now looking for a new market, and they’ve found it. They announced that the£125 four hour class on how to survive a plane crash will be available for FREE. Or actually, only free to passengers who want to pay in mileage points, i.e. rich people. So. Rich people can pay in points (or perks) to get a lesson on how not to die. If anyone else wants to be safe, you’re going to have to ante up the cash.

    We are not really arguing against the class, if they want to provide it. Maybe it will make some people feel safer. (Though probably not. Why would you take a course in how to crash if you thought you were going to land safely? It’s probably going to be full of white-knuckled flyers anyway.) We just believe that, since arriving safely is the responsibility of the airline, that the class should be for free. After all, we don’t charge school students for fire drills.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • Does the Cutting Edge Cut too Far?

    Bombardier is promising their new C series planes will “cut greenhouse gas emissions, ensure substantial fuel savings and be four times quieter .

    Let’s hope all these cuts don’t also sacrifice safety along with heavier materials. As far as safety is concerned, will the new planes made of “lightweight composite and aluminum lithium materials, built to accommodate stricter environmental standards and” well-built airplane(s) … capable of withstanding turbulence” be sacrificing the safety of sturdier construction and time-tested safety features to reach optimistically green standards?

    How will these new lighter planes fare when subjected to unexpected turbulence, which is commonplace in realistic day to day flying conditions? I have no answers, only questions.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | | | | | |

    No Mayday, then Gone

    I could speculate here about what caused the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight MH370, but that is all it would be: speculation. One can look at the type of plane, the weather, and various circumstances, but the truth is that the devil is in the details, and we just don’t know the details. The investigation will turn them up; the investigation can be a long road down a circular path.

    It makes it more difficult when there was no distress call. No mayday. Think of this: if something happens and you’re on a plane rapidly losing altitude—or with catastrophic issues which could be anything on a plane from a drunk grandpa to a bomb on board to a bad repair failing, to a sudden system failure due to frozen pitot tubes, what is the first thing that you are going to do if you’re part of the flight crew? That’s right—the first thing will be to fix the issue, and stay in the air. The last thing to do after the crisis is handled is to call ATC and let them know what’s going on.

    But because there was no distress call, we can assume that whatever happened happened fast. And now the wildest speculation of all is that the two people with fake passports were terrorists carrying a bomb. Do we need to go down that thought path? There are plenty of things that could have gone wrong although the 777 has a a stellar safety record.

    Now too, there is even speculation where the plane went down, apparently. There’s an oil slick approximately where the teams are searching. Maybe they’re right. Maybe under that slick, there’s a beacon to hear.

    Still, I keep hoping there’s a raft somewhere full of survivors.

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.
  • | |

    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.

    http://twocircles.net

    To include the featured image in your Twitter Card, please tap or click their icon a second time.