Pax and Crew File Lawsuit Against Airbus
Thread Starter
Pax and Crew File Lawsuit Against Airbus
This could get interesting.....
Qantas passengers sue Airbus over flight scare - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
Qantas passengers sue Airbus over flight scare - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)
601
The photos of the damage to the interior or the cabin and blood everywhere would suggest it was anything but gentle.
Regarding the law suit being instigated by a US law firm in a US court, apart from Northrop Grumman, I can’t see how any verdict can be enforced against Airbus as it is an EU company and any verdict is only enforceable in the US.
The photos of the damage to the interior or the cabin and blood everywhere would suggest it was anything but gentle.
Regarding the law suit being instigated by a US law firm in a US court, apart from Northrop Grumman, I can’t see how any verdict can be enforced against Airbus as it is an EU company and any verdict is only enforceable in the US.
= 1800 fpm = gentle descent?
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: The cloud
Posts: 409
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Airbus or northrop
It is nothrop they are suing as they are the manufacturer of the system which malfunctioned. So it will be enforcable in the US although they are trying to move it here as we don't have psychological damages here anywhere near the magnitude of the US.
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia
Posts: 311
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Two excerpts from the ABC’s The World Today program . . .
and
The full transcript can be seen at The World Today - Passengers prepare to sue Airbus 20/09/2010
ELEANOR HALL: Now to the lawsuit about a terrifying Qantas flight in 2008 when a jet plummeted towards the ocean off Western Australia before making an emergency landing. More than 100 people on board were injured and it's been revealed that the plane's pilot hasn't been able to fly since.
ALISON CALDWELL: As I understand it, some of the pilots have actually joined this compensation claim. Is that right?
FLOYD WISNER: Yes, all three of three as a matter of fact including the captain who was flying the plane at the time is a former top gun pilot from the US navy. He is an American with also Australian citizenship. He has told me that when the plane went out of control, the computer would not give him back control of the plane and he said it was in a dive. All he could see was the ocean. He has never been as frightened as he was at that point despite all his prior military aircraft training.
ALISON CALDWELL: Has he been able to fly since?
FLOYD WISNER: No. He would certainly like to fly again. He loves flying but this experience has just been traumatising even for a very experienced and capable pilot such as him.
FLOYD WISNER: Yes, all three of three as a matter of fact including the captain who was flying the plane at the time is a former top gun pilot from the US navy. He is an American with also Australian citizenship. He has told me that when the plane went out of control, the computer would not give him back control of the plane and he said it was in a dive. All he could see was the ocean. He has never been as frightened as he was at that point despite all his prior military aircraft training.
ALISON CALDWELL: Has he been able to fly since?
FLOYD WISNER: No. He would certainly like to fly again. He loves flying but this experience has just been traumatising even for a very experienced and capable pilot such as him.
This will be settled out of court, with moderate pay out figures for those concerned.
They are filing the claim now due to a two year statute of limitations which comes in to effect in October.
Pretty sure it WAS NOT an emergency landing.
They are filing the claim now due to a two year statute of limitations which comes in to effect in October.
Qantas flight in 2008 when a jet plummeted towards the ocean off Western Australia before making an emergency landing
Registered User **
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: The Moorings
Posts: 52
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote:
Qantas flight in 2008 when a jet plummeted towards the ocean off Western Australia before making an emergency landing
Qantas flight in 2008 when a jet plummeted towards the ocean off Western Australia before making an emergency landing
At 1249, the crew made a PAN emergency broadcast to air traffic control, advising that they had experienced ‘flight control computer problems’ and that some people had been injured. They requested a clearance to divert to and track direct to Learmonth, WA
At 1254, after receiving advice from the cabin crew of several serious injuries, the crew declared a MAYDAY...............A MAYDAY transmission is made in the case of a distress condition and where the flight crew requires immediate assistance
Pretty sure it WAS NOT an emergency landing.
Not an EMERGENCY LANDING. It was a normal approach and landing following an in flight emergency.
Which checklist was used for the landing? OEI? Nil hydraulics? One gen U/S? Oh, you mean the NORMAL landing checklist. Well how about that?
The landing guys, not the reason for the diversion to a normal landing.
Which checklist was used for the landing? OEI? Nil hydraulics? One gen U/S? Oh, you mean the NORMAL landing checklist. Well how about that?
The landing guys, not the reason for the diversion to a normal landing.
Thread Starter
All the pilots are back flying
Not an EMERGENCY LANDING. It was a normal approach and landing following an in flight emergency.
Which checklist was used for the landing? OEI? Nil hydraulics? One gen U/S? Oh, you mean the NORMAL landing checklist. Well how about that?
Which checklist was used for the landing? OEI? Nil hydraulics? One gen U/S? Oh, you mean the NORMAL landing checklist. Well how about that?
Uncommanded rapid pitch changes - tick
severe injuries - tick
mayday call - tick
diversion to nearest airport - tick
Or maybe they just did a "NORMAL" landing, wrote "NIL" in the tech log and went off to the pub for a few beers and a laugh!
Jack Ranga,
ahhh no,you are incorrect:
4 Distress and Urgency Messages
4.1 Pilots have been advised that, in the event of an emergency situation, an ATSU can
only provide the necessary priority and handling if the controller is made aware of the
emergency by the crew’s formal declaration on the RTF. Pilots have also been
advised that the extent to which an ATSU will be able to offer assistance will depend
on the amount of information provided and on its being transmitted at the earliest
opportunity. Furthermore, it is preferable that if pilots believe that they are facing an
emergency situation, to declare it as early as possible and cancel it later if they decide
that the situation allows.
4.2 There are two classes of emergency message:
Distress: A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and
of requiring immediate assistance.
Urgency: A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of
some person on board or within sight, but which does not require
immediate assistance.
4.3 The message will contain as many as possible of the following items:
MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY (for distress messages)
or
PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN (for urgency messages)
and
Name of the station addressed (time and circumstances permitting)
Identification of the aircraft
Nature of the emergency
Intention of the person in command
Present position, level and heading
Distress: A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and
of requiring immediate assistance.
Urgency: A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of
some person on board or within sight, but which does not require
immediate assistance.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1adv.pdf
(from ICAO Annex 12)
ahhh no,you are incorrect:
4 Distress and Urgency Messages
4.1 Pilots have been advised that, in the event of an emergency situation, an ATSU can
only provide the necessary priority and handling if the controller is made aware of the
emergency by the crew’s formal declaration on the RTF. Pilots have also been
advised that the extent to which an ATSU will be able to offer assistance will depend
on the amount of information provided and on its being transmitted at the earliest
opportunity. Furthermore, it is preferable that if pilots believe that they are facing an
emergency situation, to declare it as early as possible and cancel it later if they decide
that the situation allows.
4.2 There are two classes of emergency message:
Distress: A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and
of requiring immediate assistance.
Urgency: A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of
some person on board or within sight, but which does not require
immediate assistance.
4.3 The message will contain as many as possible of the following items:
MAYDAY, MAYDAY, MAYDAY (for distress messages)
or
PAN PAN, PAN PAN, PAN PAN (for urgency messages)
and
Name of the station addressed (time and circumstances permitting)
Identification of the aircraft
Nature of the emergency
Intention of the person in command
Present position, level and heading
Distress: A condition of being threatened by serious and/or imminent danger and
of requiring immediate assistance.
Urgency: A condition concerning the safety of an aircraft or other vehicle, or of
some person on board or within sight, but which does not require
immediate assistance.
http://www.caa.co.uk/docs/33/CAP493Part1adv.pdf
(from ICAO Annex 12)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: London-Thailand-Australia
Age: 15
Posts: 1,057
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
the plane's pilot hasn't been able to fly since.
by Capt Kremin Mr Wisner is talking through his hat.... but since it is sub-judice right now it is probably best to leave it at that.
Having said that, I think in this case QF management have also demonstrated total support with all the parties involved in this incident.
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: Alabama, then Wyoming, then Idaho and now staying with Kharon on Styx houseboat
Age: 61
Posts: 1,437
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It is nothrop they are suing as they are the manufacturer of the system which malfunctioned. So it will be enforcable in the US although they are trying to move it here as we don't have psychological damages here anywhere near the magnitude of the US.
Australian law doesn't compare with the US in this regard hence the parties involved, ie the aicraft manufacturer and component manufacturer will certainly push for an Australian determination based upon the location of the incident.
