View Full Version : negligent in not preventing the plane crash

14th May 2002, 08:59
Another silly court case, how would Vigin know that the plane would crash?.

http://www.reuters.co.uk/news_article.jhtml;jsessionid=BYBUM1HF35SYUCRBAEZSFEYKEEATII WD?type=entertainmentnews&StoryID=954888

Alpha Leader
14th May 2002, 09:13
It's great to see how even the dumbest are given a fair go at becoming multi-millionaires in the US - just let them sue someone :D :D :D

14th May 2002, 09:35
The frightening thing is that they will probably win......... next thing all planes will have to carry a Govt. health warning!!

14th May 2002, 12:09
I did read somewere the rumour that the pax insisted on all of their baggage being loaded, although it was too much weight for the flight to operate safely...sounds like six of one and half a dozen of the other, as my dear mum used to say!

Wing Commander Fowler
14th May 2002, 12:44
Well no of course Virgin couldn'thave known the aircraft was going to crash but hasn't there been a lot of speculation over the type of aircraft used for public transport over the last few years??
Seem to remember it was a cessna 402 involved over the airtours crew tragedy few years back and so I'm rather surprised they put a megastar on one myself but there we go. Guess that's me back in the firing line again ..... hehe :(

14th May 2002, 13:03
Saw a Vauxhall Vectra broken down on the motorway the other day. I'm amazed that people are still driving them, clearly they are all usafe and unreliable etc. etc. Same logic.

I'm afraid that a large corporation will always look at the bottom line, and will put their "megastars" on whatever they think they can get away with.

I think the saddest part of this whole story was when they flew the body back to the States in a Gulfstream 4! Shame they couldn't have dug a bit deeper in their pockets in the first place, then this whole sorry saga could've been avoided.

14th May 2002, 13:37
Surely the oparator is at fault for employing the guy who had a shady record, and the pilot for causing the crash by overloading his aircraft. How can the blame pass any further than that? Perfect information does not exist, and if the company operated to SOPs, then there is surely nothing to argue about?!

Wing Commander Fowler
14th May 2002, 13:58
Fair point Drogna..... sad all the same.

14th May 2002, 14:14
Remember when Leeds United put its multi-billion pound squad on an ancient turboprop at STN, operated by a tiny regional mail/freight/adhoc charter company, then wondered when the engine went on fire after V1/ it was put back down on the runway/ went off the end/ they came no-where in the league afterwards?:(

The beancounters rule the world.

14th May 2002, 14:43
BTB.........bit unfair, Emerald aren't that small, and they are a good turbo prop operator with a good safety record.

14th May 2002, 16:47
Sorry, but if that is the Emerald Airways that operated two 748 nonprecision approaches into the IOM that went badly wrong then the Caa reports on thoes approaches were bad enough not to put a charter with them IMHO.

Nigel Nearly
14th May 2002, 17:31
I changed my mind about flying with Emerald ever again after that. They were soooooooooooooo lucky, they owe IOM ATC a huge debt. As to Stansted, they broke every rule in the book landing that aeroplane instead of continuing, that's what V1 is for. Survival = hero pilot, but oh, so un-necessary.
I bet Leeds Utd don't use them any more !!

Wing Commander Fowler
14th May 2002, 18:40
were you there Nigel ......... or just "nearly"? Clearly don't have a clue what you're on about since once you're airborne V1 is history........

Tin Kicker
14th May 2002, 20:26
scanscanscan, you don't mean the Emerald which nearly flew two 748s into the same cliff on the same morning? :eek:

Doctor Cruces
14th May 2002, 22:29
I may have been misinformed re the Emerald 748 business at STN, but I am led to believe that if the pilot had continued and attempted a circuit to land, that the main spar would have burned through long before touchdown with (likely) total fatalities rather than whatactually happened.

Doc C.

15th May 2002, 00:35
1998 HS-748 crash @ STN (http://www.aaib.detr.gov.uk/formal/gojem/index.htm)

Ignition Override
15th May 2002, 04:29
As for questionable aircraft certification for takeoff performance: in the 80s, I heard about a sudden engine failure on a Metroliner II or III during rotation at Little Rock, AR (LIT: US) at about V1 speed. The Captain, knowing that the FAA required no Part 135 airliners at max allowable takeoff weight(in contrast to Part 121: required 2.4% gradient) to be able to begin/maintain a positive rate of climb, pushed the nose back down and was able to stop with no problem on the remaining runway. So many Part 135 aircraft, until they were included under Part 121, had no regulation requiring them to be able to climb out at max takeoff gross weight, even after gear retraction and autofeather etc.

We taxied a plane (max allowed takeoff weight=121,000lbs) back to a gate once (you know where...) due to the actual weight being about 1800 lbs over the structural takeoff max. That plane was sent to the hangar due to a fluid leak seen at the gate afterward. Maybe it had been overloaded in excess of the 1800 lbs? Even if a Long Beach/Seattle test pilot had been at the controls using the best abort procedures, would the brakes and tires have operated with max anti-skid braking at V1, as advertised?

This may have nothing to do with the British pilot's decision to abort the takeoff, however with questionable baggage/passenger weights or other factors, the decision might have been the safest.

Our US FAA has mostly required average pax and baggage weights, so imagine the thousands of pounds over the max allowable weights which can be boarded in many situations regarding aircraft with 100 passengers, or even less.

Wing Commander Fowler
15th May 2002, 14:06
Doc C - you are SO right.....

15th May 2002, 14:34
Nearly Nigel, your information is totally incorrect, your conclusions therefore incorrect as well.

It was not a simple engine fire. It was a catastrophic failure resulting in an uncontained fire within the engine nacelle and then the wing.

SOP's state that, in the event of an engine fire, you fly a circuit, and land back on. You also expect a captain to use his judgement, which this captain did, and the rest of the crew and passengers are probably thanking their lucky stars to this day that he did.

Let us know when you become a Nigel instead of being "Nearly".