Originally Posted by
WillowRun 6-3
Quite.
I only referred to 191 for the point that awareness of imminent and untimely death is a form of damage that could be compensated at law. The detailed discussions of what the ET302 passengers experienced led me to think, "wonder what the state of mind was of those aviators in Chicago as the final moments flashed before them - would they not have experienced something quite similar to the type of pain at issue in this case?"
The ET-302 pilots responsible for failing to follow ANY of the recommendations? Are you asking if I care what they felt? I cannot care what a driver feels just before blasting into the side of a church school bus, causing it to burst into flames, killing all involved when earlier that same driver was told their brakes were faulty and to either drive at a reduced speed or not at all. I bet the pilots of PIA 8303 had similar feelings as they cruised into a residential area.
Damages for the pilots and cabin crew of ET-302 are an employer problem.
The pilots of AA-191 lost key controls available to normal flight. ET-302 did not. The pilots of AA-191 had no warning of what could happen and what could be done. ET-302 crew had every bit of information required. The pilots of AA-191 did not take actions that demonstrably made the situation worse. On ET-302 almost every step was witer a half-measure or made it worse.
Yeah - I know about the simulator testing - where they worked out that if the AA-191 pilots knew the exact configuration of the plane that they might have recovered, but the pilots in the crash did not have that preparation. But that report includes the following:
"Under these circumstances, none of the pilots believed it was reasonable to expect the flightcrew of Flight 191 to react in the same manner as did the simulator pilots who were aware of Flight 191's profile and were able to recover from the stall."
In other words, having been told about the condition the subsequent pilots expected to survive. Told, just like ET-302 pilots were told, or should have been told by their employer. If there was concern for their passengers, they (the pilots and the company and the CAA) had roughly 5 months to work out how to follow the memory list items for the stall warning and then the MCAS increments. If they didn't care about the passengers before that, it also doesn't matter to me what they thought during.
In fact, isn't it a tremendous moral hazard to shield people from responsibility? Boeing has already admitted fault but ...
Boeing took the hit as the alternative was to tell Ethiopia they would never be sold another plane, particularly after Ethiopia immediately misrepresented the event to the public, a case you refuse to acknowledge by deflecting. Ethiopia absolved Boeing of all blame by purchasing more 737 MAX aircraft, though no doubt benefiting Ethiopia from discounts due to the adverse publicity from the misrepresentation.
The plaintiff lawyer might know this, but there is the saying "A man will not admit knowing when his job depends on him not knowing" so I expect no acknowledgement either way.
But this is America, where even now the US Supreme Court, with hundreds or thousands of cases submitted, chose to spend their day hearing about a disagreement between a maker of a dog chew toy and a maker of a toxic drink. I wonder, what will Justice Kavanaugh have to say? We know he likes beer. 16 years ago, Louis Vuitton lost a similar suit against another dog chew-toy company at the Federal level.