Hard Landing...

[wrenchbender]

Anyone hear of a Skyservice incident in PUJ regarding bending an airplane?

[cargodawg]

Just what's on the "other" forum... Heard/read that Boeing engineers were brough in to investigate the airframe as there could reportedly be some "bending" involved...

Would imagine a bend airframe could = write-off. Could be wrog, maybe they can just put it on the rack and straighten it (sarcasim)...

Either way, will be interesting to hear what happened and glad everyone is safe.

[YYZ]

767 bounced whilst FO flying and pitched nose down to try to correct:( Landed nose wheel first! Training captain was onboard.

Passengers were not too aware of the issue, just thought it was a heavy landing?

All rumours as I was not there, cannot see what was on the other thread as I cannot find it.

YYZ

[oldebloke]

AirTransat's was little bent,after their arrival..Aircraft lived to fly another day-due to Insurance insistance on the salvage..:ok:

[cargodawg]

This looks more than a little bend (of course I'm not a structural engineer and the boys from Boeing will determine what the state of the aircraft is).

http://www.geocities.com/cargodawg02/ssvpuj.jpg

I need to post the pic somewhere else, ran out of data transfer space.

Just resized and compressed. Should fit better now. Give it a bit to get my transfer limit back

[in limbo]

Holy crap.
That does not look very good:eek: :uhoh:

[Gilligan]

Dosnt really surprise me considering the lot at SSV. Good thing nobody got hurt...but could see it coming

[Lost in Saigon]

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17/msowsun/SSVB767.jpg

[oldebloke]

Gilligan,to say the least a very CAVALIER statement to make..
Pilots all live in 'glass houses'your only as good as your last landibg so don't start casting stones-you could be next..
Sky's reputation for converting General aviation guys/girls to the Airline industry is second to none..
Recently the airlines(hiring)have had the advantage of "qualified'people either on type or in the business,Sky' has had it's share of the these people,but prior to that they only hired from the G/A industry in the main..
Happily the future bodes well for'upgrading 'in the ranks to the airlines...After 37 years with airlines one doesn't voice accrimony too loud..:ok:

[Frankie_B]

Ouch,

i just photographed this plane a day before the accident.

Anyway, does it mean there's 2 pilot vacances coming up at SSV? Might help the market. :O

[brucelee]

The guy running flt ops is R. Giguerre. Ex AC flt ops manager. He's not known to fire someone so easy but then again it's a major bo bo. Who knows. We all have our bad ones but this may require a second look at who's getting hired or cast a question on their training. Very unfortunate for the company. Maybe more so for the crew.

[Cyow]

Knowing Rob, hiring practices AND training will change. These guys will be paying for this one for a long time. Insurance will probably go to FL390.

[Richard Spandit]

You're only as good as your last landing

Blimey... better start looking for another career then judging by my performance yesterday!

[barit1]

It wouldn't surprise me to see some jigging & reskinning here - not a simple job, and certainly dependent on the market value of the bird (CSN, TSN...)

If ABX can reskin the entire belly of a DC-9 then nothing much can surprise me.

[EGCC4284]

http://www.airliners.net/search/photo.search?regsearch=G-SJMC&distinct_entry=true

[atrflyguy]

A First Air 737 had a similar incident several years ago in Yellowknife and although the pictures I see of this one don't quite look as bad I suspect it will be a gonner like the 37 was. To bad as I have a friend who just finished his line check at SSV a monthe or so ago.

[Alberts Growbag]

There are hard landings and hard landings....The 767 is a very different beast to land than the 757. It comes as no surprise to anyone on the East side of the Atlantic that SSv have managed this so quickly.

It is not the fault of the FO that managed an 11g landing, but the training department of a sub standard cheap skate airline that should be under immediate investigation of the Canadian CAA.

[Torque2]

Those are very deliberate criticisms, I'm sure you'd like to expand on your facts. I for one would like to know how they are cheapskate etc. Didn't have that experience while I was with them.

[Inuksuk]

Bruce - isn't Rob the COO of Skyservice now ? I would think he'll be horrified at this.

Mr Growbag from the eastern shores of the Pond - would you like to detail the evidence upon which you base your assertions on the implied chronic poor airmanship at SSV? I am sure we'd all like to hear where the bias or data to which you refer comes from.

Is there anyone on here from TC TSB (Transport Canada - or Canadian CAA Mr Growbag) who can shed light on what I consider these ridiculous rumours of chronic training and flightcrew selection deficiencies at SSV?

If anyone is going throw such dirt on here - or elsewhere, they neeed to be able to support their claims...I bet Mr Growbag wouldn't march into a terminal and start murmuring such things to passengers waiting to check-in...

[Jerricho]

Inuksuk, welcome to the internet.

A place for many where they can make outlandish statements and criticisms......and never have to substanciate a single shred of supporting evidence.

From my dealings with SSV, the drivers have been nothing but 100% professional in their duties.

[brucelee]

Inuk. I believe you're right about Rob. Won't be easy to hide his frustration.
As for poor airmanship, I had never heard of any other incident regarding SSV prior to this one. They have been around long enough to have a good reputation in my view. Perhaps Mr. Growbag has more to add to his claims. Right then, let's hear them. I know SSV has done some flying in that side of the Atlantic so maybe Mr. GB knows something we don't.

[Safety Guy]

The best way to handle Growbag is to http://www.deephousepage.com/smilies/ignore.gif him.

[brucelee]

Another reason to dump the monarchy?

[Inuksuk]

You're right Bruce. Another reason to dump Betty Britain Inc.

By the way, didn't her off the rails off=spring, Charlie, bend a BAe 146 in a landing accident a few years back ?

Enough said. :E

[STC]

With the terribly tight seat pitch offered by Skyserive, I'm surprised those sitting behind the crease didn't hit their head on the seat in front of them and injure themselves....

:)

[Captaingomes]

Yeah, especially since the seat pitch in that area is 33" :8

[cargodawg]

I missed it on the news last night (must have something to do with my Directv subscription lol), but apparently Global National had the SSV incident on the news last night. As someone else questioned, not sure why it took 8 days to make a news story...

On another forum someone who had seen the story along with the video of the aircraft damage stated (on another forum):

They showed the cracks in the skin.A passenger said the nose gear hit hard 3 times and on the 3rd time is when the masks dropped and all hell broke loose.

Passenger said that there was a large dip in the floor where the belly was twisted.

[codpiece face]

What is it with people and finger pointing, none of us where there and so the facts are not actually known. I have to say that the majority of the ssv crews i have worked with have been very professional, no hint of shoddy training or management and their engineers have been excellent.

What i would say is that it could well be a write off if it hit the deck at 11g looking at the crumpled fuse there will be very serious structural damage internally.

I worked on this aircraft when it was delivered new from boeing to Manchester in 94?. Boeing had to come and change one of the main gears after the delivery flight. it will be a sad day if it is written off, like loosing an old friend.

[pictues01]

People I've talked to say this could be related to Weight and Balance issuses. They could have loaded it wrong in YYZ or a few locks in the cargo holds could have broken allowing the cargo to shift, making it nose heavy on landing.

[Inuksuk]

Pictures01 :

That's a great comment and could indeed potentially explain the incident.

Even an ultra- low time jock would have some difficulty in creasing the skin/crumpling the fuse like that without something having "cause and effect"...

[Safety Guy]

Actually, the B767-300 is quite prone to this type of damage following a hard landing or hard nosewheel touchdown. I recommend reading the accident report found at:

http://www.aaib.dft.gov.uk/cms_resources/dft_avsafety_pdf_502225.pdf (N373AA accident at LHR)

Although there are no pictures, I believe that the damage to the AA aircraft was very similar to what Skyservice has just experienced. An outfit in South America also had similar damage a while back. According to my sources, there are other similar accidents in the B767-300's history. As you can see in the AAIB report, Boeing stated that the fuselage was built to spec limits with no aditional margin (much like the A300 rudders). Boeing did make a change to the stringer strength in the later versions of the 767-300. I could not find the serial number for the SSV machine, but I'd be willing to bet it's one of the older ones, since MYT had it for quite a while.

As for the stories about G loads and other such nonsense, unless you have seen the FDRs, then you do not really know what you're talking about, now do you? Stop spreading BS and wait for the real investigators to do their job.

[CD]

According to my sources, there are other similar accidents in the B767-300's history.
Here is the FAA bulletin:

FAA Flight Standards Information Bulletin: Derotation Accidents During Landings of B-757/767, DC-10, and MD-11 Aircraft (http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/fsat/fsat9506.txt)

[crys8494]

As a passenger on the plane, who saw the pilots before they boarded, they both looked like kids. I was wondering if the training wheels were off of the plane. Appearently they were and much too soon! Now Skyservice is trying to offer the passengers $500 in the form of a hush coupon to get back on their plane. They had absolutely no accountability and acted like nothing happened on the return flight. It was all handled very poorly.

Furthery, the flight attendent was telling me that landings like that happen all of the time. Well, if that is the case, they are going out of business fast, with repairing and writing off planes all of the time. If thats their history, who needs them!

[Inuksuk]

Crys 8494

Are you a professional pilot ?

Just wondering...

[crys8494]

Not at all. Just a terrified and injured passenger. Despite what they are saying. People did get whiplash and my lower back has been hurting since.

[CDNFA]

crys8494,

I would like to know what you know about the 767-300 and hard landings if you wouldnt mind elaberating. Skyservice has a clean record. Out of its ten year history this has got to be the first mojor incident. Of course airlines have their IROP situations, I can't think of one Canadian airline that hasn't. The cause of this hard landing has not been determined and I would suggest that people not speculate on the cause until the reports are out.

Why is it that some passangers claimed that they didnt know anything occured till they steped out of the aircraft yet some claim monitures were falling from the ceilings etc. Something dosent make sence. I guess its easy to cry whip lash when your in prusuit of $$$

The pilot had control of the aircraft till it reached the gate. This is not the first time that this scenerio has accured on the 767-300. Regardless of who the pilot was this could have happened to someone with 30 years experance.

[crys8494]

Well clearly you are doing some speculating yourself. I have pictures that show the masks and further damage inside of the plane! I also clearly felt 2 jumps followed by a very hard crash! You really do need to keep your opinoins to yourself when you do not know what you are talking about. I don't care what their record is. What I do care about is the rediculous manner in which they handled it. No...we did not realize the extent of the damage of the plane until we saw the outside and reviewed our own photos of the exterior, but we did know that something went very wrong. I also know that I was in tears, in fear for 2 days before getting back on the plane!

In sum, if you don't know what the heck you are talking about, keep it to yourself!

Further...I never once asked for money from them, only recognition of the accident rather that a sublime statement "Stuff like that happens all of the time." This is a quote directly from them. And there was clearly pilot error. This comes from many individuals who have flown many times in the past. As a matter of fact, before we hit, my husband commented "We are coming in too fast and on the wrong angle." I am not stating that it was pure pilot error, but pilot error was definately a key factor.

Finally, I noted an error I made in my last post....where I mentioned the damage noticed in the photos I should have said interior, not exterior.

[CDNFA]

Well Im not speculating actually. I did not refer to you once when I said that people were in search of money. I dont even know if thats the case. I said that it is easy for one to blow things out context in search of money, not once did i say you were asking for money.

Secoundly, I never said it wasn't pilot error, I said that one should wait until the reports are out before one makes an assumption regarding pilot error. If there was a shift in weight in the cargo hold that pilot just might have saved your life, and then again it might have been pilot error. Do you know if ATC had given them a fast approach speed by anychance due to a number of circumstances?

And I have seen pictures of the aircraft they are every where its hard not to. The 767-300 is known to wrinkle at the secound set of doors if you perform a search youll find that this isnt the first.

And thirdly....You were asking for information from an uniformed FA who probably wasnt even there. How fair is that. What did you want him or her to say. You cant expect to catch someone off gaurd like that and then expect them to explain the cause and effect of such an event. Im sure the company will release facts in due time.

[crys8494]

Again, you read me very incorrectly. I did not ask a FA for any information. Simply ask that they recognize that passengers boarding the return flight home would be shaken and scared. But it was just the opposite. They were rude and passive, implying that it is common for planes to crumple and luggage and masks to fall from the ceiling. Knowing a number of people who have travelled hundreds of times, nobody has ever seen this before.

This may have happened before. I don't know. I never claimed to know the facts or the exact details. What I know is what happened on the plane and the effect on the passengers that is being ignored and passed by by individuals who were not there and do not know what happened. I ask you, have you ever been on a flight beside a mother holding a screaming child with a heavy carry-on bag hanging dangerously over the toddlers head?

And no, you may not have directly said that I was after money. But it has been stated that there were no injuries on news and in various forums. But nobody ever asked any passenger that I know of if they were ok or if they were hurt.

Skyservice told our travel rep that they would meet us all at the airport to speak with us. They did not. They can take their $500 gift certificate and shove it. I don't know if I will ever fly again, but I definately won't fly with them. Not so much because of the accident, but because of their rude and poor handling of it.

[CDNFA]

Well that is fine...maybe im reading you wrong. Your origianl post was quite immature, implying that the pilots were kids and required training wheels to fly the aircraft.

Maybe if your first post was a little bit more credible I would have taken your situation more seriously. Im not saying it wasnt a tramatic event for you or for the other passangers. When you dont fly on a regualr basis your not exposed to all the things that can happen I guess. To that flight attendant a hard landing is probably something that has been encountered before. I work for another charter and I have experianced them as well, like the FA said, they happen.

Hopefully youll fly again, but if you dont than i guess thats a choice you choose to follow.

Cheers

[crys8494]

I am very sorry that your sense of humour is lacking and you could not see the attempt to make a little lighter of a very seriuos situation. Immaturity however is not the case. Ignorance of the symantics of aircraft carriers, yes, but not immaturity. However, where my ignorance on the semantics is far over-shadowed by your ignorance on what really happened. Yes, hard landings do happen. However, I have yet to see many pictures of such damage. I encourage you to point some out to me. I would really be curious to see how common this is.

I only put in my two cents on this whole thing because I am very tired of the assumption of those who were not there that nobody was hurt. This is very inaccurate and I don't know where these details come from. No, there was no blood or broken bones, but there was whiplash, jarred backs and emotional trauma. As a matter of fact at the airport before the return flight, I was speaking with an individual whos 4 year old child woke up with nightmares for the first half of the vacation. She kept reliving the events in here dreams. Now you try to convince me that that child was not hurt!

Finally, I did not say that I will never fly again. I haven't decided yet. What I did say was that I would never fly with Skyservice again. And I reiterate that this is not based soley on the incident. That actually has very little bearing. I state again, that it is based primarily on the lack of customer service around the entire event. Not to mention the rudeness of the flight attendents and the Skyservice personel that I spoke with today. People may be interested in know that Skyservice is "compiling a list of all of the passengers" again, a direct quote from them, so that they can send us a letter and our coupons. This shows once again how their customer service lacks. They are waiting for us to contact them to give us our address and names so that they can contact us. They don't even have the courtesy to extend and olive branch and check the records where we are all listed with full names, addresses and passports and make the first contact. Dispicable.

[CDNFA]

Yeah if I had a sick sence of humour maybe I would have found it funny.

Anyways Im not going to continue on with this post as I am heading to bed.

Heres a pic it took 2 secounds to find.

http://www.airliners.net/open.file?id=074345&WxsIERv=Obrvat%20767-38R&WdsYXMg=Nfvnan%20Nveyvarf&QtODMg=Ybf%20Natryrf%20-%20Vagreangvbany%20%28YNK%20%2F%20XYNK%29&ERDLTkt=HFN%20-%20Pnyvsbeavn&ktODMp=1994&BP=0&WNEb25u=Qravf%20Nmrirqb&xsIERvdWdsY=UY7264&MgTUQtODMgKE=%20%28pa%2024798%29.%20Gur%20nvecynar%20ynaqrq% 20ba%20gur%20znva%20trne%20svezyl%2C%20ohg%20gur%20cvybg%20s beprq%20gur%20abfr%20sbejneq%2C%20pnhfvat%20n%20uhtr%20sbepr %20ba%20gur%20abfr%20ynaqvat%20trne.&YXMgTUQtODMgKERD=19191&NEb25uZWxs=2000-03-30&ODJ9dvCE=&O89Dcjdg=&static=yes&width=637&height=492&sok=JURER%20%20%28nvepensg_trarevp%20%3D%20%27Obrvat%20767-300%27%29%20%20beqre%20ol%20cubgb_vq%20QRFP&photo_nr=23&prev_id=076277&next_id=062085&tbl=ACCIDENT

[crys8494]

Judge as you may. People deal with trauma differntly and if you find that sick that it is probably a good thing that you were not on the bus going to the airport for our return flight. Those who weren't crying silently in their seats were cracking far more jokes than that one. Ever heard that sense of humour lightens a load? As an individual who works in mental health, I can attest to its great aid.

And thank you for the single photo. That proves that it has happened at least once before. But it still does not clear Skyservice of its poor handling of the situation.

[CDNFA]

You might want to read this as well...if you havent already, proves that it has happened much more then just once before.

goodnight

http://www.faa.gov/avr/afs/fsat/fsat9506.txt

[crys8494]

But what does it say about Skyservice and their lack of service? Not to much.

And your post tells me that pilot error is a cause. So much so that it outlined in their training manual to prevent such incidents from happening.

[I need a name?]

crys8494: I'm sorry that you had such a terrifying experience. Have you been to see a doctor about your injuries? Substantial injuries such as those you are describing need to be looked at quickly.

I'm very curious about the pictures of the interior of the plane that you have. Good for you for having the presence of mind to take photographs after the horrific experience you went through. Most people would not have been thinking so clearly. I would be very interested to see the carnage in the cabin.

I'm a little confused by a couple of your posts. You stated "...you read me very incorrectly. I did not ask a FA for any information. " yet in an earlier post you said "the flight attendent was telling me that landings like that happen all of the time." Which one was it? You asked an FA or you didn't? Because as CDNFA stated, to ask a uniformed FA who probably wasn't even there to speculate on what happened is hardly fair, is it? It's precisely what you're accusing CDNFA of. Speculating.

You stated "I never claimed to know the facts or the exact details." yet in an earlier post you said "And there was clearly pilot error. This comes from many individuals who have flown many times in the past." That sounds like a factual statement to me.

As for the comments regarding the pilots, I have to agree with CDNFA that the original post was immature. Whether the pilots looked young or not is neither here nor there. I, myself, am in my late 30s yet am often asked for ID in drinking establishments. Appearance means nothing. And if they ARE young, I have no doubt that they are also well trained and highly qualified individuals.

I quote you once again and suggest you perhaps take your own advice. "In sum, if you don't know what the heck you are talking about, keep it to yourself!"


I suggest you read through the thread slowly and see what is being said about incidents such as this. Educate yourself. There is a lot of helpful information there.

The only other thing I will comment on is that I have no idea how you were 'handled' by Skyservice. If it was as cold and unhelpful as you state, that is unfortunate. However, I'll take it with a grain of salt given the inconsistencies in the rest of your posts.

It is fair to say that this was no doubt a frightening experience for someone who doesn't fly regularly, but to start your comments with accusations causes you to lose some credibility immediately.

Good luck with everything.

[YYZ]

crys8494

Regardless of there age, these pilots will be fully qualified and more than competent to fly that type of aircraft. Are you aware of the amount of training any pilot must go through prior to being allowed to fly for money, and the continued evaluation on everything from that day forward, health, skills, etc!

Pilots are probably the most tested, checked and evaluated profession on the planet.

Obviously they had a bad day, everyone has them at work, just not everyone is in the public eye. You did sustain some injuries? Therefore make your claim if that’s what your after and let the correct authorities make there judgment on the incident.


YYZ

[Jetman28]

"No...we did not realize the extent of the damage of the plane until we saw the outside and reviewed our own photos of the exterior, but we did know that something went very wrong. I also know that I was in tears, in fear for 2 days before getting back on the plane"

I highly doubt that you got back on the same plane, apparently has been announced that the aircraft must be repaired in place (no surprise) and in fact will probably be written off due to repair costs.

I do agree with I need a name though, if you have the injuries you describe, you should have seen a doctor upon your arrival in the Dominican Republic, which I am sure would have been covered by Skyservice due to the nature of the injury.

[crys8494]

First and formost, I did not ask for any information from the flight attendant. It was volunteered to me as I was in tears and upset over the next flight.

But in the end, there is code of blue here. One statement was made regarding the pilots. All else was regarding Skyservice and their treatment. I am a Canadian, not an American and suing is not in our nature, nor will this route be followed. You seem caught up on that idea from me. Yes, if I was going to sue, I would have been examined right away and I definately would have taken more pictures that I did. Instead, I merely took pictures of the masks that fell and in looking at these pictures afterwards, other items very clearly showed up.

I don't care how much training they had and I have better things to do that to go back through your posts and "quote you". If I did though, I am sure that I would find your so called holes as well. My story has never changed, nor has my intent.

I am angry, I am hurt. Yes. Will I persue Skyservice? No. However, they do need to be accountable. People were hurt. It is a bold faced lie to say otherwise. Yes, they put us on a different plane, 2 different ones infact. I would be an idiot to feel that they would to otherwise. My terror was not in the particular plane, but in the general plane that I would boarding. On that note, Skyservice did not even notify us on what was happening. We showed up at the airport and checked in. While we were waiting for our plane, we realized that people were at both gates 6 and 7. It wasn't until planes were called that we realized for certain that there were different ones, both numbered 561, but one was obscurly referred to with an 8 in front of it. People were still confused upon boarding as to why their friends were on another plane and wondering if they got on the right one.

Skyservice staff was short and unfriendly both coming and going, but this was worse on the return flight.

With that, I feel no further need to defend myself. I was there. I know what happened. I know what the reprocutions were. I know what the actions of Skyservice were. You stick to your code of silence, but be warned that the further you take this, the further your profession is suffering as a number of individuals who were on the plane are following the insensitive and ignorant conversation and comments that you are making here. Boats are more and more looking like a better option.

Cheers (as I have discovered I am supposed to sublimly state after I throw a knife in here)

Crys

[Inuksuk]

Crys:

I've read all of your posts, and I think it might be best if you refrain from posting in future...

Whilst the internet is an excellent medium, you can easily make a complete hash of it, by immature, conflicting and wayward comments which don't produce facts, evidence nor rational ideas.

That said, I am sure all professional aircrew feel for you during this incident, and hope you feel better soon.

In the meantime, let's just stick to the facts - which include the fact that maritime travel is many times more dangerous than travelling by air...

[crys8494]

Once more I reiterate what you all fail to read and comprehend....the danger is not so much the issue as insensitive and poor handling of situations is.

[heat38cda]

Hello Crys.


"I also know that I was in tears, in fear for 2 days before getting back on the plane"


I was just wondering why you didnt stay for your whole vacation like all the other passengers aboard this flight.... im sure they were in fear for the 7 days they were in punta cana.

I think u may be a fraud

[Inuksuk]

Crys I suspect is a journalist, although the poor English grammar suggests otherwise.

Why would a passenger on the flight sign up to the Professional Pilots Rumour Network (no reason to, really) to tell us about an incident where hard facts are required - and they will come out in due course.

It is as you say Heat38cda, extremely fishy and I suspect Crys needs to either be ignored (when the posting will stop), or we basically just roll our eyes at another faltering member on internet boards and discuss logically between the rest of us.

The childish posting doesn't do Crys any favours either, and just makes us even more suspicious. Right ?

[rsavage]

Inuksuk, I was a passenger aboard that flight as well. My name is Richard Savage. I'm not a journalist.

We (the passengers) have been paying a great deal of attention to your site. Many of us are starved for answers, and when you're not sniping at each other you're pretty interesting.

We've set up a web site for ourselves to to exchange information: http://www.afterfivestudios.com/flight560/

I think we'd welcome input on or site from a professional pilot.

Thank you.

Richard

[Inuksuk]

Good luck with your site Richard.

As I am sure you are aware there will be a full enquiry into the incident carried out by the relevant authorities when the answers you require will be made apparent - and at that point Rochon - the lawyer seeking fame and fortune engaged by Maggisano, will have facts at his disposal.

I am of course, assuming at this point the $$$ signs in all of the passengers eyes are flashing furiously in gleeful anticipation.

Brucelee/Safety Guy - you're both quiet on this - what do you say to Mr Savage and his cronies ?

[20driver]

I'm not sure what to make of the actual landing etc etc. The report will cover the facts and hopefully the required changes\training will make this an even rarer occurance. Everyone walked away which is great.

The real problem here for Skyservice and the lesson to all is the PR disaster that is developing.

People were scared - I would have being too. Get off a plane that has bounced and you see crumpled metal - that is scary. If I'd been on that plane I'd have spent a few days wondering how close I'd being to checkout. It is not normal to bend metal on landing - this was a major mistake. Trying to brush it off is really bogus and makes the people doing it look either very dumb or very dishonest.

This is a different day and age - people won't be treated as mushrooms - kept in the dark and feed crap. Wait 6 months or a year for x hundred page report that will satisfy the technical need is not what the people most effected need. A void has being created and all sorts of hysterical crap and rumors will fill this.

People believe what they hear first - you don't give an honest sincere explanation and build some trust people will get their info elsewhere. You will never regain the pole position on the (dis) information superhighway.

The fault for this lies with Skyservice - they needed to be 100% proactive here. The VP operations should have being on the next plane down and personally, with a team addressed every passenger. Set up shop in the hotel (bar) for a day or two. Show people - yes we do care. We don't like things like this happening (expensive and bad for the balance sheet) - we want you to have a good vacation and we will provide you with means accessing all the information we have. An oh - another drink?

Sounds expensive - peanuts compared to the cost of the bad publicity. How much a year does Skyservice pay to advertise their company? Well it is all down the crapper. They will pay out some minor money - a small fraction of the legal fees but it is the damage to the company name that will cost.

By extension the industry hurts. The next time pilots or the industry want to take any issue public this incident how this is handled will impact the reception. Some day pilots will want the public to empathize with them - how about a bit going the other way here.

A few years back a flight here hit some turbulence and had was very badly tossed around. Plane diverted to check for damage. The pilot stayed in the lounge with the passengers and even dead headed on to destination just to reassure the passengers. That action by the pilot made all pilots and the airline look great. It undoubtedly saved many a lawsuit.

Reading a lot of these posts I would not want most of these posters having anything to do with my customers. Screw-ups happen – it’s how you deal with them that makes the difference.

[in limbo]

You are right.
Small price to pay in the short term for sure.
Makes you wonder if the tour company may look at dropping them.
Not the time to drop the ball.
It all revolves around business.:rolleyes:
:ouch:

[Inuksuk]

I must admit myself to being puzzled as to why Rob hasn't done a damage limitation exercise on this, and had his team soothing the ruffled feathers of passengers on the service who appear t0 feel they were treated in an off-handed manner, which is the crux of the matter or so it seems. This could have been so easily sorted with a definitive PR effort and discussing the issue on a one-on-one basis with those affected.

The last thing any airline needs is rumour and counter rumour propogated by those who don't know the facts, an internet site running on the incident which has no real factual content to it (I looked), as it is simply a collection of experiences of those on-board.

20driver - I am in full agreement with you. The inquiry that is under way will produce the facts which we are all interested in I am sure.

I personally feel that passengers on the service should await the findings, rather than populate this forum with their observations.

Comments ?

[CD]

I personally feel that passengers on the service should await the findings, rather than populate this forum with their observations.
Well, we're choosing to populate this forum with our thoughts and observations... so I personally feel that we should let others do the same.

To this point in time, the only "facts" that have been seen here or on other forums are the photographic evidence and the witness statements of those that were actually on board the aircraft at the time.

You may not like what these folks have to say and, obviously, they may not reflect the technical observations that may be preferred and that will come out in a final investigative report. However, I believe that their experiences and observations should not be summarily dismissed.

[Inuksuk]

Indeed CD - a valid point, as witness statements are taken, they will provide a point of view.

How is TSB these days ?

[brucelee]

From CNW.
Skyservice class action commenced on behalf of victims of Punta Cana landing accident
TORONTO, June 3 /CNW/ - A class action lawsuit has been commenced on
behalf of passengers who were on Skyservice Flight 560 from Toronto to Punta
Cana, Dominican Republic on May 22, 2005. The class action also includes the
claims of the passengers' family members.
The lawsuit arises out of a landing accident involving Flight 560, which
was carrying 318 passengers. As the Boeing 767 approached the landing strip in
Punta Cana, it descended suddenly and crashed into the runway. The landing was
so forceful that the airplane's fuselage sustained significant structural
damage and resulted in the airplane bouncing off the runway three times before
finally coming to a stop.
The class action was commenced by Linda Maggisano, a passenger on
Flight 560, who was travelling with her 2 month-old and 2 year-old sons, as
well as seven other family members.
For the passengers of Flight 560, the ordeal was terrifying. "I thought
my life was over," stated Ms. Maggisano. "I was especially frightened for my
infant son, who was nearly thrown from my arms."
Another passenger, Patricia McLean said: "This was the most traumatic
event in my life. I am very concerned about my injured back and the crack to
my neck found on an x-ray."
To Mukesh Mehta the accident was "a near death experience. We were thrown
around the plane like rag dolls." Mr. Mehta was also critical of Skyservice's
handling of the incident: "Skyservice failed to even apologize - this is no
way to treat airline passengers." Michelle Armstrong also directed
disappointment at the charter carrier: "I am terribly upset that no one
appears to be taking this seriously - especially since so many of us have been
injured."
Joel Rochon, one of the lawyers retained by Ms. Maggisano, commented:
"The passengers are very upset and are looking for answers from Skyservice as
to how such a serious accident and near disaster happened."

[Lost in Saigon]

Many of the passengers felt the aircraft was going too fast.

I wonder which runway they landed on and also what the wind direction and speed was at the time of the accident.

[Inuksuk]

I have had passengers ask me if we had landed too fast - when in fact the aircraft touched down at the correct speed - and the approach was flown on the correct speed also.

Sometimes, passengers look out of the window with incorrect visual reference and actually, if you look out of the window, at an angle, it gives the impression of much higher approach and landing speeds than in reality.

It could well be the speeds were high - but let's wait for the incident report - that'll reveal all.

I am still baffled with Rob at the helm why this is turning into a PR circus, not helped by the passengers on the flight with rolling dollar signs in their eyes.

C'mon Skyservice - head it off, before it hurts more...

[Dick_Fitzwell]

Well....I am a first time poster, so NO FLAMING THE ROOKIE!!! hahaa

Anyways, I was on the flight, and I posted to that "other site" set up by rsavage last night. This morning...my post was gone, and I was banned from the forums!!! Wanna know why??? I ripped into the other poor poor passengers about being opportunists who want to sue the company for a hard landing. It was a pretty long, detailed email, and I guess they couldn't handle it. I kind of wish I had of saved it, because I would have cut and pasted it here for you all to see.

Anyways, I just wanted to let you all know that the site administrators are deleting any posts that they don't like, even though I was a passenger. I guess only negative posts will be left on there.

Oh well....welcome to the land of biased webmasters.

Hey Richard Savage.....I know you are reading this.....thanks for deleting my post on that other site. I guess calling out the opportunists who want to sue for "having bad dreams" and "never being able to fly again" was too much for you. I guess I also wasn't well liked for sticking up for the flight attendants who handled the situation just as they are trained to.

I am not an expert on planes, nor do I profess to be. I just wanted you guys on this site to know they are crying a river on that other site, but not letting anyone else post who disagrees with the lawsuit.

Lawyers and opportunistic money grubbing whiners...a match made in heaven.

Thanks in advance for letting me post on here, even though I am not a pilot. Let hope Skyservice clears this all up so that people won't lose their livelihood due to another airline shutting down from not being able to handle a 10 million dollar lawsuit. Actually, I think I read someone post a reply to me telling me to stop playing big brother for Skyservice, and they would be alright in the end. *sigh* I hate whiners.

Good day.

[V2+30 Flaps Up]

YYZ Wrote:


Passengers were not too aware of the issue, just thought it was a heavy landing?

Wow,

for pax that were unaware, they seem to have come up with quite a list for their class action lawsuit:

The action accuses Skyservice of failing to properly maintain the aircraft and failing to hire sufficient staff to do so, failing to perform adequate safety checks before take-off, failing to hire competently trained pilots and failing to train its flight crew to deal with an emergency and to comfort passengers in the face of crisis.

Give me a break. One pax in question came up with this great idea that this was an excellent opportunity to gang up in a class action lawsuit and is simply using victim numbers by getting everyone involved to create a firm foundation for the case.

[rotornut]

If allowed to proceed, the action would seek $10 million in general damages and $1 million in punitive damages, as well unidentified amounts for special damages and the costs of the lawsuit.
CTV News:
http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/1117820732802_79

What crap! I'm willing to bet that this will be settled for an undisclosed amount - substantially less than the amount claimed. Ontario is still a relatively conservative jurisdiction when it comes to high damage awards.

[DCS99]

20driver should be in management:

"The fault for this lies with Skyservice - they needed to be 100% proactive here. The VP operations should have being on the next plane down and personally, with a team addressed every passenger."

It's our whole industry getting tarred when an incident like this gets out of control.

[Inuksuk]

Great post from Dick_Fitzwell.

I had sussed out what Mr Savage and his cronies were up to on the first post - doubtful we'll see him or his like here again - hopefully:}

[airbuff]

great message - Dick_Fitzwell

Perhaps others like you should contact Skyservice to provide your feedback on the experience. I bet the folks there would like to hear a different point of view or comments on the actions/antics of the savage cronies.


Skyservice Airlines
Statement to Media
June 3, 2005



Skyservice Airline’s top priority is the safety of our passengers. We regret that those aboard flight 560 from Toronto to Punta Cana, Dominican Republic, on May 22 experienced what is known in the industry as a hard landing. Our dedicated professionals strive to ensure that all our flights are as smooth and comfortable as possible, and we apologize to flight 560 passengers for not meeting that standard. On June 2, we sent a letter of apology and a travel voucher for $500 to all those whose addresses we have on file.

Skyservice is taking this matter very seriously and is fully cooperating with the authorities that are investigating the incident to determine the cause. The results of the investigation will be made public in due course. We are aware that the flight-data recorder has been sent to the Canadian Transportation Safety Board on behalf of the Dominican authorities who are conducting the investigation.

The facts indicate that the Boeing 767 aircraft conducted a normal approach, but, for reasons presently unknown, the landing resulted in damage to the fuselage. The aircraft was taxied to the designated parking area where passengers deplaned in a normal manner. No injuries were reported at that time.

Skyservice has always maintained a strong safety record. Transport Canada’s most recent safety audit, conducted in 2003, resulted in no major findings.

We pride ourselves on the highest customer care and sincerely hope that these valued customers will allow us to welcome them onboard future Skyservice flights where they will experience the level of service we are proud to offer.

[Tan]

This is a copy and paste from another web forum however in this instance I know of the poster who is a very straight arrow;

b767jetmec
Rank 0



Joined: 03 Jun 2005
Posts: 5
Location: North of Nowhere
Posted: Sat Jun 04, 2005 7:58 pm Post subject:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

One of my co-workers happened to be on that flight with his wife. He is an AME with another Canadian Airline. By his accounts, yes the landing was harsh, some overhead bins and O2 masks did open and deploy. The mood was generally calm, until one of the passengers thought, hey wait a minute, we can sue and get large coin. This was done in the terminal area . Everyone walked out by themselves, and no one complained about pain or injury until one dumbass decided lets all get together and sue Skyservice. Now my co-worker claims that he has been getting nothing but calls from Skyservice and their lawyers along with the group action lawyers. He was originally offered $500 to forgive and forget, along with the reimbursement of the cost of the trip. He has now heard, though unofficially, that the offer now stands at 5 Grand. He has yet to confirm this with company lawyers.

[STC]

The action accuses Skyservice of failing to properly maintain the aircraft and failing to hire sufficient staff to do so, failing to perform adequate safety checks before take-off, failing to hire competently trained pilots and failing to train its flight crew to deal with an emergency and to comfort passengers in the face of crisis.

I'm surprised that the ambulance chasers who are convincing the passengers that they have suffered extensive damages, haven't included the Wright Brothers in the suit. That would be just as relevant as questioning the maintenance of the aircraft at this point in time.

There is always the possibility that a particular pre-existing condition may be aggravated by a hard landing or some minor injuries can occur. However, its quite telling when I read that many passengers didn’t feel the pain until they saw the damage to the fuselage.

Furthermore, many are upset about the airline’s handling of the situation thus far. Some are just looking for an apology.

In matters such as this where litigation is always a possibility, it would be quite inappropriate and foolish to issue a formal apology until all the facts are in. Lawyers love formal apologies. They miss the touchy feely sentiment and see the obvious declaration of liability.

Anyone who is in a similar situation, would be wise to never say “sorry” with a lawyer around until all the facts are in.

Overall, travelling in Canadian registered airplanes is safe. The industry must defend against unsubstantiated, unfounded, and uninformed claims based on such preliminary data.

One poster on Mr. Savage’s site states:

Also, please contact your local papers and news stations. We are all trying to keep this in the media. If it is out of sight, it is out of mind!

Spoken like a true opportunist. Or should I say "proffesional victim".

Perhaps this story should stay alive in the media with information from the aviation community at large. Perhaps Skyservice has a good case considering the slanderous defamatory information being presented on that website.....

[rsavage]

The lawsuit is a bone of contention right now with the passengers. There are a lot of passengers attacking the rationale for it. I think most feel this is too premature.

I started a poll on our discussion board to see what the passengers think. You can feel free to follow along. It's in the early stages.

We've always wanted pilot input. Some of you have been quite helpful. For example, I had been concerned about whether we had too many passengers. They really pack them in on the planes, and someone was able to show me that it was within spec. I find I'm learning a lot.

There is the downside of this communication. I had no idea I had cronies. I'm sure there's a shot for it.

Thank you to those of you who have taken my requests at face value.

A few additional points:

- It is not my web site.
- There is no leader to this group. If there was it would be someone more effective than myself.
- I am not interested in a lawsuit against Skyservice.
- My only complaint is in the service we received after the landing.

Please consider those points when you discuss slander on this site.

[3holelover]

Well I wouldn't know slander from dander, but I know censorship when I see it. As one who's also had relatively benign posts zapped there, I'm happy to be seeing some of you reading here.

Crys, darlin'.... You experienced a mighty jolt when your airplane "landed"... that's right m'dear, "landed" is the correct term. Sorry to hear your previous back injury was aggravated by that jolt, but maybe with such a condition you ought to avoid situations that could result in more injury? Clear air turbulence could even subject you to similar results. (as for boats, don't try small one's, they can play hell on sore backs)

No one denies that landing was an unfortunately hard one, but those on that web site who insist on calling it a "crash" have their heads all muddled up with thoughts of a lottery win! And for those who've been unfortunate enough to experience a real "crash", your gang is looking rather despicable in trying to make this little event into such a big deal.

As for your crying, ...well, I admire sensitive folks, but my experience is they'll cry at the drop of a pin anyway... Not to minimize your emotions, but it's hardly relevant. Folks who cry easily will usually find something to cry about.

The biggest loser here was the airplane (unless there will be repercussions of a serious sort for the crew?). Sad to see a good machine in that state. But didn't she do her job? Yessiree, she did! She brought you all to where you were going, even with her genuinely serious injuries!
Wish I could be there to help with her recovery.

[airbuff]

Very well said. Couldn't agree more.

[puff m'call]

Very sad to see, just looking at my log book and i have lots of flying and very fond memories of G-SJMC, first flown in 97 and last in 03 and did'nt bent in once!

"She was a great ship" :{

[Safety Guy]

puff:

You make it sound like she's been written off. I don't believe that's been decided yet. Most others have been repaired, many with worse damage than this one apparently suffered. I'd say there's a good chance she'll be back in the air in a few months. From what I remember of the Airtours 757 that was damaged at POP, the Boeing AOG team did yoeman's work in getting it airworthy again. Yes, that was a much newer aircraft but "MC" must have several good years in it yet!

Oh, and for what it's worth, the previous accident reports all stated "there were no injuries to the passengers and crew on board". And as I said, some of those aircraft were much worse off than the SSV machine. I hope the SSV lawyers do a good job of separating the wheat from the chaff before they sign any cheques.

[Jerricho]

Richard, I have been watching this with some interest over the past week or so, as well as periodically checking in on the Flight560 site. As somebody who has worked closely with Skyservice, I find the whole situation unfortunate.

There does seem to be some major censorship going on over there from passengers who were on the flight, yet disagree with what is going on.

You mention:

- It is not my web site.
- There is no leader to this group. If there was it would be someone more effective than myself.

Not having a go mate, but I am very curious as to who the Flight560Admin actually are? They are doing a great job of keeping things very one sided. I have read some of the posts you have made, especially in the thread regarding is a law suit premature and where you postulate the situation of perhaps and "air current". Some of the responses have been interesting.

[in limbo]

Richard.
I have to agree with Jerricho on this completely.
I too have been lurking on the site with interest but have held back on posting because we were asked not to, even though we as pilots were invited to post on the pilot discussion thread.
Very disappointing to say the least. Good luck with everything.;)

[CDNFA]

I've been watching both sites as well and find it very funny, not the situation but the bickering back and forth between the parties. From what I can see it's the same 6-10 people....there were 318 on that plane from what they claim. Where is everyone else?

[in limbo]

Well I have been banned from the site as well. I never said a thing to piss anyone off so I imagine anyone who was invited to join and was not a passanger is booted.
Well this is a slap in the face Richard.
First you invite pilots to offer their point of view, ask us to refrain from posting anywhere but the pilot discussion thread then your admin bans us from reading the site?
I did as I was asked and still get treated this way?
Unbelieveable!!!!!!!!!!!!
You guys don't like what was stated and your soccer mom experts seem to have a grip on reality :roll: .
Good luck with your censor ship deal here.
You guys are really going to need it.:rolleyes:

[STC]

We're dealing with lawyers here. Slimey ones at that. What makes you think they are going to risk their case by exposing facts?

[CDNFA]

I think that the forum has been shut down/locked out. So that no one can get in.

If this isnt the case, i wonder if I can sue the administration for censorship? Im sure some lawyer would pick it up for the right price. :O

[I need a name?]

It seems that I've been banned from the site also, and I certainly didn't post anything to offend anyone. I suspect that the passenger(s) who set up that site had hoped that it would be full of support for their situation (not to mention the lawsuit). I think that when many professional airline personnel , as well as their fellow passengers, offered a different perspective to theirs, the plan back fired.

Obviously we are sympathetic to what they went through, but as CDNFA said, I was actually enjoying the bickering that was going on between the passengers themselves. I feel as though my favourite tv show has been cancelled mid-season!:*

[rsavage]

In Limbo:

I haven't been to the site in days, and I'm locked out of the discussion boards too. I think everyone is.

It's not my site by the way. I'm a user like everyone else.

The fellow who generously offered us the site is probably getting worried about getting sued, and closed it off. Some discussions were getting a bit too much.

Do you think you guys (not everyone; just the angry-without-a-cause ones) could use a little more imagination and give a little more leeway when trying to figure out why things are the way they are? Humans...Geesh (Before you say it, I've given the same lecture to some people on our site.).

If I find out what the reason for the site closure is, I'll let you know.

Thanks.

Richard

[rsavage]

The site is back, and the webmaster has posted his reasons. You should take a look.

http://www.afterfivestudios.com/flight560/forum/viewtopic.php?t=31

[Safety Guy]

Unfortunately, non-passengers are still being locked out, so whatever "reasons" he has for trying to control the site, his real motives are totally transparent. He is trying his best to keep the spin totally one-sided on this incident. If my name were attached to an $11 million dollar law suit, I'd be doing it too. Like the statement of claim in the law suit, I found most of the claims from those who were allowed to post on the site to be baseless and inflammatory.

[rsavage]

It may be that only passengers are now able to see what's been posted, but none of us have access to add anything more.

Here is the reason for the closure, and I don't blame him:

Due to the fact that this Passenger Forum has turned into a giant name-calling contest between Passengers and Non-Passengers alike, this forum has been disabled for a few days.

The purpose of this board was to keep the passengers informed on the results of the investigation and what was being done about it. That is clearly not the case anymore.

The Pilots Forum discussion thread will be deleted Sunday night. Some people posted novels recently and I don't want them to go to waste, but most of the bad banter on this forum comes in that thread.

Discussion boards drift away from civil behaviour because of the anonymity of the participants. I think he did the right thing.

[CDNFA]

Well I think that there was allot of name calling between all walks of life in that site. Not just pax vs Non-pax but pax vs pax as well.

I'd like to know how he is going about determining the likes of those who were actually on the plane and those who were not. Does he have a complete passanger manifest...with the list of all the names and their respective IP addresses?

Cust curious.

[rsavage]

Hi CDNFA:

There's a lot of name-calling on this site too, unfortunately.

About your question...IP's can be traced to reveal the originating domain. You can try it if you have an IP you know, and use tracert or other command. It's not that he knows who the passengers are. The domains reveal people who cannot be passengers.

I hope that helps.

[CDNFA]

Well I knew IP's could be searched, I just wasnt sure how he was determing if they could or could not be on the flight. Thats very interesting though. Seems like allot of work to me. I think I'd just shut down the site and let people bicker elsewhere.

Yes, lots of name calling going on everywhere. I guess people are just passionate about their opinions. Shouldn't have to lead to that though.

[CD]

In verifying whether members on this forum are truely passengers or not, I have found instances of people saying they were passengers yet when looking up their IP, you can clearly see they are coming from a network associated with the Airline industry.
The domains reveal people who cannot be passengers.
Well, to be fair, individuals assciated with the airline industry do take vacations as well and may have been a passenger on that particular flight. Personally, I don't feel that this association alone should be a reason to dismiss a contribution to the discussion.

[rsavage]

From what I'm told that's not the case, CD. Careful language is being used here.

[STC]

Well, to be fair, individuals assciated with the airline industry do take vacations as well

Really? Could you tell my boss that please!

:8

[MLS-12D]

A copy of the Statement of Claim can be seen here (http://www.skyserviceclassaction.com/docs/Statement%20of%20Claim.pdf). Lots of boilerplate allegations. :suspect:

[STC]

I read the statement and in my opinion, the law firm needs to research the word "crash". Its fairly obvious they don't know what it means.

Many of the statements are just typical uninformed rhetoric. I have no problem with someone being compensated to recover losses but the manner in which the lawyers seem to be handling this seems quite frivolous to me and personally I hope it gets thrown out of court.

We really don't need to become a society that sues at the drop of a hat and certainly not for outrageous amounts as seems to be the case here.

[Tan]

Wouldn’t justice be served if the lawyers and the complainants of this class action were banned from flying by all the airlines of the world? IMHO it’s long overdue..

[McDoo the Irish Navigator]

Hello Tan;

Good idea...Last time I saw your name you were giving me advice about flying to India, in my previous life , working for the big-beaked Englishman who only wished he had a Neverland Ranch of his own.
Was that you?

I would like to suggest for everyones' consideration that the SSV landing has been talked to death and we should put it in the "There but for the grace of God, go I" column.

Aloyious H. McDoo

[rsavage]

Does anyone know if there actually is a proper textbook definition of the term "crash" in the airline industry? I have asked about this with the airline rep, and the answer starts off with "Well, I imagine..." I know I can crash my car without loss of life or having wreckage strewn across the road, but I'm curious if it's different in this case.

Thanks.

[Lost in Saigon]

To me, crash is the same as collision. I don't hink it is really correct to call this a crash, because it didn't collide with anything.

There is no "airline" definition of "Crash". The word is never used in the airline business.

Only the words accident or incident are used. Skyservice was clearly an accident as there was substantial damage to the aircraft.

[rsavage]

I think you're right. When looking up "crash" with the NTSB web site I get bounced to "accident". The Canadian TSB doesn't address the word "crash".

In the absense of a definition, I guess it's left to anyone's interpretation. We cant really deem someone to be wrong or right.

In the case of Skyservice, the plane did collide with something. It hit the ground. That's what caused the damage to the plane, and some less sturdy passengers, experiencing different levels of force across the length of the plane as they were levered up and down.

[STC]

In the absense of a definition, I guess it's left to anyone's interpretation. We cant really deem someone to be wrong or right.

Is the the kind of language you want to see in a legal document? Especially a statement of claim? Ambiguous language is all the more reason to throw it out.

We all know the lawyers carefully chose the word "crash". As in "I was involved in an airplane crash and survived" when in reality they experienced a hard landing.

I find it odd that many passengers are trying to measure the potential for injury directly to the proximity of the damage on the airplane. If anything, those passengers closest to the fuselage damage experienced the least amount of force since the fuselage absorbed a great deal of it.


some less sturdy passengers

This statement is quite significant. If you are somewhat fragile or have a pre-existing ailment that makes you particularily susceptible to injury, you really shouldn't be riding in an airplane. Or a car for that matter.

[rsavage]

some less sturdy passengers

Here we get into slicing words. I say "less sturdy", it gets interpreted as "fragile". Someone says "crash", and someone else says "hard landing".

With a hard landing, I expect to be shaken, and feel some heavy force. I also expect the plane can fly away again.

With a crash, I expect severe force, and a collision with the ground that renders the plane inoperable, probably to the point of write-off.

I'm partial to the term crash myself.

Maybe the courts will work out a definition for the term. I think you have to expect the defendants to understate the occurrence, and the plaintiffs to overstate it. Everyone has something at stake, don't they?

[YYZ]

As McDoo said
I would like to suggest for everyones' consideration that the SSV landing has been talked to death and we should put it in the "There but for the grace of God, go I" column.

Come on guys, it's starting to sound like a court room in here!
Move onto another topic, please.

YYZ

[rsavage]

STC, I didn't mind hearing to your point of view at all.

[DoubleD]

I think the "hard landing" that passengers experienced onboard Flight 560 may have been what the industry calls a derotational accident, something that is not all that rare in a B767, and also including DC-10 and MD-11 aircraft (reference NTSB bulletin A-93-119).

Just how many hard landings (or should I say, derotational accidents), can one plane take before it shows visible damages and crumple on the tarmac? I do believe that this can happen MANY times without VISIBLE structural damages and therefore go unreported. Unreported accidents carry no history.

I hope someone with expertise in this topic can add their constructive comments on this.

[MLS-12D]

Is the the kind of language you want to see in a legal document? Especially a statement of claim?There is nothing especially wrong or incorrect with that choice of word. Plaintiff counsel typically use dramatic words like that, while defence counsel prefer more low-key words like "incident". Similarly, a plaintiff counsel will talk about a "traumatic brain injury", whereas a defence counsel will say "closed head injury".

Move onto another topic, please.Surely people have the right to decide for themselves when they are ready to "move on". If you are bored with the topic, may I suggest that you simply not follow the thread.

[3holelover]

Mr Savage... Every aircraft impacts with the ground upon landing. It's a necessary consequence of having departed terra firma and it's one of the most stressful events for an aircraft. The degree of that stress varies, and from time to time, it becomes "a hard landing". Aircraft are, obviously and by necessity, designed to fly... They become awkward beasts on the ground. Stresses of all sorts take their toll... Aircraft designers have to balance the need to absorb those awkward stresses with the need to remain light enough to be useful. They could do more, including building them to withstand the same landing you experienced without damage, but the resulting weight increases would result in an aircraft with much less useful load carrying capability, and would cost you far more to fly on.

Hard landings, from which the aircraft cannot fly away without some work, or at least some inspection, are not as uncommon as you appear to believe.

The term "crash", if it were ever to be applied, would certainly not apply to an incident so mild as this one. Talk to some of the relatives of those no longer living who actually experienced something deserving the term.

You and your fellow passengers were delivered safely to the terminal by that aircraft. You all then walked off the airplane and evidently some began to hear music by Dire Straits... "Money for Nothing"

[c150driver]

I think that there has been way to many people treating this accident way too lightly....I understand sticking up for your fellow pilots, but how many of you were actually there and know what went on....NO ONE!

I know a pax on the flight who suffered a broken ankle and injured neck. She repeatedly tried to get a flight home to Canada after the accident and both her travel agent, AND Skyservice refused to do anything about it...now that's customer service! Sky wouldn't arrange a flight to go pick up the pax who wished to leave, so those of you arguing that the pax just went right out to the beach and had a few drinks...you don't know what you are talking about.

I'm sure that there are those who are not injured or traumatized who are trying to cash in...that is just shameful American behaviour...but for those who were injured...I hope they get their settlement!

[3holelover]

I know a pax on the flight who suffered a broken ankle and injured neck.

That's either an outright lie, or this lady made no attempt to inform any SSV people immediately after the flight. Had anyone reported injuries immediately, SSV would be surely be legally obliged to act, and wouldn't they now be facing criminal charges for not doing so? :rolleyes:

Nice try though.

[rsavage]

Let's not call anyone a liar. That's a little inflamatory.

I hadn't heard about a broken ankle. I don't know how the person could have gotten down the stairs. I have heard about some neck trouble. Some of these things don't present themselves for days, so seeking immediate help doesn't always happen. Some passengers also (rightly or wrongly) had reservations about seeking medical aid in the Dominican.

Regarding the whole "crash/hard landing" issue, I accept whole-heartedly the assertion from the pilots who have followed this discussion that you can't judge the speed of an aircraft by looking out the window. I think some people need to also consider that you can't judge the force the passengers experienced without having been one.

Talk to some of the relatives of those no longer living who actually experienced something deserving the term.

Does someone really have to die to make you ok with that term?

[3holelover]

Lets be clear please, I called no one a liar. If you read again, you'll see that I was very careful not to. Either that story is a fabrication OR the ankle injury was not reported immediately, as it should have been.

...as for this: "Does someone really have to die to make you ok with that term?" .... when it comes to flying, yes! It's a tricky business Mr. Savage. It's not like jumping in a car, or riding a bus... and a "crash" has disasterous consequences.

Have you not been paying attention? Do you think the phrase "any landing you can walk away from is a good one" is a joke? Have you ever really given any thought to what has to go right in order to get an airplane from 500 kts at 35000 ft. down to zero on the ground? Happily, aviation wizards have got it all down to a fine art and the vast majorioty of the time, it all does go right... sometimes though, there are degrees of not so right... up to, and including times when not everyone walks away. That's exactly why that phrase is no joke.

[YYZ]

MLS-12D

Surely people have the right to decide for themselves when they are ready to "move on". If you are bored with the topic, may I suggest that you simply not follow the thread.

I totally appreciate your statement, however until more information becomes available to the public I am in agreement with the Moderator, this subject has now been beaten to death!

Until a report into the incident is issued it's all just hearsay & people repeating the same points until somebody decides to agree with them?

YYZ

[airbuff]

Broken ankle???? Everyone refused to fly them home???? What a load of :mad: As if they were held prisoner and Skyservice was the only way home. If someone wanted to get home they would have been home. Get real...

[BL]

There are smooth landings and there are hard landings. Even with a serious impact, no damage is done if the aircraft lands on the main wheels first.

If it lands on the nose wheel first it will probably sustain damage.

When the official report comes out it will probably say that there was a nose-wheel-first impact.

It is quite possible that the passengers and crew have all experienced harder landings than this (the crew would have almost certainly!) - but on the main wheels first and therefore no damage was sustained by the aircraft.

It is also quite possible that the passengers are getting all excited and sueing SSV simply because they have seen the damage to the aircraft, not because of any injuries or extraordinary impact.

[rsavage]

YYZ, the best way to change the topic is to change the topic. Get on with what you want to talk about. Don't tell everyone to move along because they're boring you.

What's your topic?

[MLS-12D]

Had anyone reported injuries immediately, SSV would be surely be legally obliged to act, and wouldn't they now be facing criminal charges for not doing so? I have no understanding what the above is meant to convey.

There is no legal obligation that an injured passenger immediately report an injury. It would be common sense to do so, but it is not required.

If a broken ankle was reported, Skyservice would be under no legal obligation to "act" (whatever that means), although it would be prudent for it to offer first aid and appropriate assistance in disembarking. If the airline's employees just said "too bad" and ignored a complaint of a specific injury, Skyservice would likely have be pillored in the press, but no criminial charges would be laid: that's a rather ridiculous suggestion.

Speaking of matters legal: this development (http://www.goodmancarr.com/pdfs/toronto%20star%20airtransat.pdf) in the Air Transat case just came to my attention, although it was apparently reported almost four months ago.

$40,000+ per passenger seems like a heck of a lot to me; especially since, to the best of my knowledge, only 10 or 11 passengers were slightly injured (during the emergency evacuation).

I always thought that recovery for pure emotional distress is not allowed under the Warsaw system [see generally Eastern Airlines v. Floyd, 499 U.S. 530 (1991) (http://www.mmhlaw.com/mmhlaw/499us530.htm), a case involving almost identical facts as the 2001 Azores incident]. Post-traumatic stress disorder doesn't qualify for compensation [Bobian v. CA Czech Airlines, 232 F.Supp. 2d 319 (2002)], nor do other forms of pure mental illness [King (AP) v. Bristow Helicopters Limited (Scotland), In re M (A Child by her Litigation Friend CM) (FC)], [2002] 2 All E.R. 565 (http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk/pa/ld200102/ldjudgmt/jd020228/king-1.htm)]. But hey, what do I know? :rolleyes:

[STC]

BL,

From what I understand so far the airplane landed on the main wheels and bounced a few times, but the nose remained up until the flight crew decided they needed to coax the nose down with some down elevator. That seems to have caused the harder than usual forces on the nose wheel, causing the damage. The scenario is indicative of a landing attempted at a higher than normal speed.

This type of damage to the 767 has been seen before. It would be interesting to see if litigation followed in the other instances.

With respect to the use of the word "crash", most people, including the judge and potential jurors know what an airplane
"crash" is. And I think generally, those people would not consider this a "crash". Not all damage to a car during normal operation is a result of what people generally call a crash. Its just overly colourful language.

[3holelover]

MLS-12D,

Thank you for the clarification on my legal questions... For someone who claimed to have "no understanding what the above [was] meant to convey" It's almost impressive how well you guessed. :rolleyes:

[IHL]

Technically, according to the TSB act it was an accident.

“reportable aviation accident" means an accident resulting directly from the operation of an aircraft, where
(a) a person sustains a serious injury or is killed as a result of
(i) being on board the aircraft,
(ii) coming into contact with any part of the aircraft or its contents, or
(iii) being directly exposed to the jet blast or rotor downwash of the aircraft,
(b) the aircraft sustains damage or failure that adversely affects the structural strength, performance or flight characteristics of the aircraft and that requires major repair or replacement of any affected component part, or
(c) the aircraft is missing or inaccessible; (accident aéronautique à signaler)

link (http://laws.justice.gc.ca/en/C-23.4/SOR-92-446/73030.html#rid-73075)

[CaptW5]

From that page:

"serious injury" means an injury that is likely to require admission to a hospital; (blessure grave

[airbuff]

(a) a person sustains a serious injury or is killed as a result of

That is exactly why it wasn't an accident - No serious injuries or for that matter NO injuries were reported upon landing and none till passengers arrived home from their trip. How ironic is that?

[3holelover]

No, it was indeed technically an "accident"... read it again... the aircraft did sustain damage to it's structure requiring major repair.

...but that means nothing, in my mind, in terms of whether passengers deserve any reward beyond what SSV offered them.

If there were injuries that cost anyone anything at all, those people ought to be compensated, otherwise I think SSV has already been generous in their response.

[rsavage]

I hope no one minds if I interject a different topic for a moment.

When I was on the plane the flight crew were collecting our customs cards and putting them into the first-aid boxes for storage. Two things struck me about it at the time. First was that it obstructs one's ability to get to first-aid materials in a timely manner, and second I wondered why there was enough room in the first-aid kit for a large stack of these cards.

Is that a normal practice on aircraft? I imagine it's probably not an issue, but it seemed a little odd to dual purpose the first-aid kit.

Thanks.

[CDNFA]

Well, are you sure that these cards were placed in the first aid kit seeing as these kits are usually sealed unless it was used on the flight. As well I dont think it would hinder an f/a that much to open the kit to remove the cards to get something like gauze. If there was a serious problem then the doctors kit would have been used and not the first aid kit seeing as the only thing that is stored in those kits are things used to wrap cuts treat burn etc.

Using the first aid kits to store these cards would be more work then what it is worth. Are you sure it wasnt the documantiation container, or a container that housed these docs?

[WJman]

I agree, I doubt it was a first aid kit unless it was on old empty one used for this purpose, even then they are not very big.
First aid kits are sealed,serialized and tagged with expiry date sickers or equivalent. It is a required piece of equipment for flight.
In my experience with over 5 airlines the flight attendant's are very quick to call mntc when the seal is broken or if something from the kit was used.
As well all first aid kit's, most of which are standard and the same manufacturer from company to company would have no room in them to stack anything.

[Tan]

The Doctors’ kit is locked with the Captain being the only crew member with the key. To make a statement that any first aid kit was being used for any other purpose other then its intended use is foolish and just magnifies the stupidity of the lawsuit..

The F/A’s sometimes use the overhead bins where the first aid kits are stored to place paperwork or other items which is perfectly safe and normal.

[STC]

I agree with the "accident" designation. Its much more accurate than "crash" and doesn't carry the degree of hyperbole.

Accidents don't always result in injury to occupants, or damage to the airplane. There seems to be a degree of both in this case.

Most of us however understand that the cause of the accident has nothing to do with some of the sources stated in the statement of claim.

Perhaps the lawyer should have consulted with someone in the aviation industry prior to preparing the statement of claim. Or perhaps accuracy isn't their main concern.

[rsavage]

It's certainly possible I was assuming what I saw was a first-aid kit. I was sitting by the emergency exit, and the compartment I saw wasmounted around the floor on the dividing wall in the center aisle. It had a sticker with a red cross on it, and it opened from the aisle side.

Any ideas as to what the compartment is?

[3holelover]

Yep, it's a stowage compartment that contains one of the first aid kits, among other things.

[rsavage]

Perfect. Thanks.

[YYZ]

rsavage,
As per you earlier post, at no stage did I state I was board nor that I had another issue to cover, All I stated, as from the beginning, "wait for the relevant authority’s to give there judgment" I feel this is a logical approach to this unfortunate situation. Obviously you disagree and are now looking for further problems with this company?

You must have a hidden agenda other than the one you say you want to keep flogging.

Incidentally, aside from my opinion, I was agreeing with the Mod as well?

Whatever you are after, I hope you get it without ruining the reputation of what is in general, a good company.

YYZ

[rsavage]

YYZ, you got me. I have a hidden agenda. You're going to have to tell me what it is, but I'm sure it's there. What brand of McCarthyism do you practice?

I've gotten good answers to every stupid question I've asked. The only real area of debate is the crash/accident/hard landing. I'm on record as saying a lawsuit is too soon. We don't know what the whole thing was. I can only describe it as I perceived it.

Are you trying to muzzle me? Am I touching a nerve with you for some reason? Explain it to me because you've certainly hit a nerve with me.

[rsavage]

This is my last post on this site.

I want to thank the pilots who helped make things so much clearer, and remove those nagging thoughts about what turned out to be non-issues. A month ago terms like "seat pitch" or "pax" were completely foreign to me. It's been a good learning experience.

I'm not very happy about how I felt in responding to the last post. I don't want to participate somewhere where I have to worry about motives being attached to everything. I can only bounce back from that so many times without losing my cool.

Thanks again.

For the conspiracy theorists in this thread, have fun with this post.

[STC]

I want to thank the pilots who helped make things so much clearer, and remove those nagging thoughts about what turned out to be non-issues.

What makes you think that everyone who responded is a pilot?

[drageraser]

:8

He's only thanking the pilots - not any of the other posts and posters. Can't you read?

Just be glad Crazzzie Crystal isn't posting anymore.:ok:

[Mr A Tis]

Anyone got any update on what is happening to GSJMC ? Have flown many times on this bird when it was Airtours International.
Shame if it gets written off.

[zorx]

Accidents happen its part of the game and anyone who judges another for such an event isn,t fit to be called a pro no matter how arrogant he thinks he is .Perhaps the Lord with ram a aluminum stake through your pee brain next time you judge another pilot.

[Gilligan]

No Zorx...accidents are not part of the game and a very poor attitude and excuse for incompetance. Anyone that thinks that accidents are part of the game and accepts that thought process is not very professional. In fact if I recall the details of this accident and another simular training accident that SSV had in the UK a couple of summers ago shows the incompetance and lack of professionalism in the organization. Rather than making excusses, you should have a hard look at your orginization and see how the safety there can be improved so that accidents are not an accepted part of the culture at SSV...actually kinda scary to think that for a professional you think that way...BTW is it true that the Capt on this said flight has been sacked.

[Jerricho]

Sooooo........anybody got any news on how the court case is going?

[zorx]

Gilligan Yep the less flying humans do the better.Should have stayed with airbus to do some professional work eh Gilligan.When you mess up I wonder what you will say ,if you live.I knew a guy with a mouth like yours.He put a citation into a carpark:p A little slow on the brakes I guess eh?

[Dick_Fitzwell]

Just a little note to Crazy Crystal and her cohorts......Air France Flight 358 from Charles de Gaulle to Pearson, August 2. THAT was a hard landing. Perhaps seeing that will make you realize how petty and foolish your lawsuit for pain and bad dreams really is!!!

Nuff said.

Thank god everyone got out safe and sound on Tuesday. A true miracle.

[CD]

Speaking of which, did you catch the latest?

Law firm planning passenger lawsuits
Possible class action

Scott Stinson
National Post

August 4, 2005

A Toronto law firm that is partnered with one of the largest class-action specialists in the United States plans to hold a public meeting next week to inform passengers of Air France Flight 358 of their legal rights after Tuesday's fiery crash.

Paul Miller, a lawyer with Will Barristers in Toronto, said yesterday the 297 passengers who scrambled out of the burning wreckage of the Airbus A340 appear to have a strong case for financial damages from the Paris-based airline.

"Just imagine going into that gully and the plane's coming apart," Mr. Miller said. "Those people must be freaked out like crazy today."

He noted that in March, Air Transat settled a class-action lawsuit stemming from a 2001 Toronto-to-Lisbon flight forced to make a hard landing in the Azores after running out of fuel. The settlement paid 175 passengers a total of $7.65-million.

Speaking of Tuesday's accident, Mr. Miller said: "This one is a lot worse. In terms of legal perspectives, it's a nice case."

Full article here... (http://www.canada.com/national/nationalpost/news/toronto/story.html?id=fd80c6a6-7807-49ca-9bcc-ec2e6e298ac6)

[zorx]

Hey "Gilligan"what do you call that French episode????"Reality tv"?:E