if Spiros does the hatch and stairs how soon will there be a repeat of the Turkish DC-10 out of Paris where the cargo door was forced closed improperly...
The underlying factor in the sequence of events leading to the accident was the incorrect engagement of the door latching mechanism before take-off. The characteristics of the design of the mechanism made it possible for the vent door to be apparently closed and the cargo door apparently locked when in fact the latches were not fully closed and the lock pins were not in place. It should be noted, however that a view port was provided so that there could be a visual check of the engagement of the lock pins. This defective closing of the door resulted from a combination of various factors: - incomplete application of Service Bulletin 52-37; - incorrect modifications and adjustments which led, in particular, to insufficient protrusion of the lock pins and to the switching off of the flight deck visual warning light before the door was locked; - the circumstances of the closure of the door during the stop at Orly, and, in particular, the absence of any visual inspection, through the viewport to verify that the lock pins were effectively engaged, although at the time of the accident inspection was rendered difficult by the inadequate diameter of the view port. All these risks had already become evident, nineteen months earlier, at the time of the Windsor accident, but no efficacious corrective action had followed.
(emphasis mine). While convenient to blame a ramper who couldn't read the English instructions, the facts don't really support it.
Sorry to wander off topic, but let's not perpetuate myths/stereotypes. And while I generally disapprove of lawsuits, I certainly hope the FA in question gets well compensated (and well in all respects) for this unnecessary accident.