Rant Commences
Sounds like a horriffic experience and I wouldn't want to be in the fron LHS in that situation. Reckon they did well.

However I do get upset at leach Lawyers and their "psychological trauma" claims as unlike a broken leg it is an intentionally difficult to quantify claim and an easy target. There were probably people who slept through the whole thing (my wife could sleep through a bomb explosion) but who will be pushed by the lawyers to jump into the class action.

It's amazing the human race can achieve anything anymore such are the constraints of litigation. All these stupid litigation claims will do is create a generation who never achieve but derive income from trying to get money from those who do/have achieved. Just imagine this headline: "Neil Armstrong sues NASA for psychological damage caused by failure of computer during decent to surface of moon". Won't happen because Neil Armstrong is a doer.

These lawyers are leaches. They not only do nothing towards progressing human achievement they actually impede it. Great contribution to society that is. Perhaps in this case there should be some compensation but it's the overall litigation mentality that makes me sick and deservedly gives lawyers a very bad name.

Rant Terminates

I wonder how much an individual payout will be reduced if it is shown that passengers did not have their seat belts fastened while seated as recommended.

Or will that be glossed over?

Edited to say what I meant:O

Al E. Vator the difference being that Neil was in an experimental (at best) aircraft and knew that there were increased risks, where as the Pax on the Qantas were led to believe that the aircraft was safe (not the best word, but I can't think up a better one). However I agree with 601 , if you don't have your seatbelt on then you were asking for trouble.

What people really need to be reminded of is that they are hurtling through the air at 600Khr over 10K from the ground, this is not natural and nothing like a bus doing 60khr to your local shops. When the crew say leave your seatbelts on while seated there is probably a good reason for it.

rmcdonal,

:ok:

If it's good enough for the professionals to do it (leave their belts on and fastened), then it's good enough for me the punter SLF in the cheap seats.

Maybe the outcome of this will be a forceful demand for SLF to put down their papers and PAY ATTENTION to the safety video / demo, as well.

Is that what you meant to type?

Surely if you did have your seatbelt on as recommended then you are complying with a safety directive. If you are then injured that would increase the size of the payout.

If you did not have your seatbelt on then I agree that it would probably decrease the size of the settlement.

Why should the flight crew be joining this action against Airbus and Northrop? I could understand it if they had been physically injured....fair enough. But come on...really? What next? Have any flight crew involved with other inflight incidents suffered by Qantas aircraft (eg, the engine failure out of SFO recently) lined up to sue the respective manufacturers of the failed component? Not that I've heard.

Not taking away from the serious nature of this incident, but if this gets through and is successful, where does it stop? Will we see pax & flight crew suing engine manufacturers every time an engine so much as puffs out the tiniest bit of smoke?

The only winners in this scenario are the lawyers.

Cheers

People have a right to sue. You cannot bar them from that right on the basis of the fact they were flying the aircraft at the time.

If no other crew have sued over other incidents it is because of their personal choice; the right remains however.

According to the lawyers website, the action is on a no win/no fee basis, so the lawyers are not guaranteed of coming out of this ahead.

QF72 – Singapore to Perth – Information site for Passengers

QF72 Website
 

Photo - "standard plane photo" rather than anything to do with a QF hull or an A330 :ugh: (more like LH or CO);

Spelling - flight was operated by a carrier based in a country which employs 'aeroplanes' and not 'airplanes'; likewise was operating between two such countries.

Wasn't it several minutes between episodes?

"entitled to"? "Entitled" by whom, mate?

At what point did the instant flight have a US nexus? Why are you casting aspersions on Australian law? Australia has generally managed very well to date without ambulance-chasers of your sort, who only lead to higher prices for just about anything.

So why does this home page make comments against "the carrier"?


For the avoidance of doubt, I am not ranging against any litigant (including crew - if I operated faulty equipment and it bit me, I'd be looking for someone to be held to account), but against these ambulance chasers, their 'entitlements' and their greed, all apparently in the name of helping the battler get a fair deal from these big, nasty corporations.

Conversely, the lawyers fees in no win/no fee class action cases of this nature can be up to 40% to 50% of the total damages awarded. No guarantee .... but the attorney could walk away with a princely sum!

Because a traumatic event occurred, I suspect the US attorneys are on a good bet with only the quantum of damages to be decided.

Nobody's talking about removing an individuals rights to sue, but surely as a professional pilot one would expect that things are going to go wrong at some stage during your career....it goes with the territory. A reasonable person wouldn't expect to go suing the pants off everyone every time something goes wrong.

To put the shoe on the other foot, consider the situation if an airline was to sue a pilot for something they had erroneously done during a flight that damaged the reputation of the airline?

Again, I don't want to understate the seriousness of this particular situation. It could have ended up a lot worse if the crew didn't get the aircraft under control and they clearly performed exceptionally well in what would have been a very hairy period of time on that flight deck. I just find it interesting that when things go wrong these days the first thing people think about is "Who can I sue?".

It seems to me that there is some difference between having (say) an engine fail, and having the aircraft (because of the maker's arrogance) decide that it knows best and ignore pilot inputs.

Having had my share of events in the 747 and 767, I was always happy to get back onto the horse. On the other hand, if the 380's flight controls gave me the demonstration that was given to the crew of the 72, I doubt that I'd be prepared to set foot in an Airbus again.

Outrageous, I can understand PAX looking for a quick dollar, but CREW? Come on, there is not one of us that has not had the S%it scared out of us on more than one occasion, mine being having a donk injest a bit of tyre on rotate out of CBR, dusk, poor visability, full tanks, and a full aircraft, and the Brindabella's just out there, and Lake George straight ahead and one donk. I should have sued the tyre company, TAA, and the refuelers for filling her to the limit, instead a go around (being a DC9 she pulled like a trojan) we got back in, and all we got was a beer at the Hyatt. enough all ready, THAT is your job mate, a disgrace to the profession.:*

Dual input
 

Approximately two minutes after the autopilot disconnected, the aircraft had climbed several hundred feet.

Most experienced Airbus pilots are aware of this design trait.

According to the NTSB report, there were 'dual inputs' i.e. both pilots ‘pushing or pulling’ the sidestick at the same time. Dual inputs are algebraically added which results in double the input, or a very severe rate of change if the push or pull is in the same direction.

Leave you with it.

Quote ie73
DOH. Wrong! You don't understand it then and obviously don't know all the facts.

Do you and Teresa (who has just disgraced himself) want to bet me your houses that one of the pilots wasn't physically injured.

I'll split it with you Pete.:ok: I think one of 'em has a house on the coast.

You guys who are having digs at the captain are doing so on the basis of a report written by a journalist who quoted statements by a lawyer (at least one of those statements we know to be factually incorrect). Personally, I'd trust my colleague's judgement - especially as I know him to be of impeccable character.

Watchdog, you are quoting me CAA UK references. Please quote Australian references (as we all know, Australia knows best when it comes to aviation, especially when it comes to documentation and it's prolific production).

I still stand by PAN-PAN equalling URGENCY and NOT EMERGENCY :ok:

How is their “fee” calculated?


Pursuant to the agreement, the lawyers will take one third (33.33%) of your compensation. They will also recover their expenses on a pro rata basis across the entire client base – but no expenses will be recovered where your pro-rata share is more than four percent (4%) of your compensation payment.

On that basis you would receive no less than that sixty-two percent (62.66%) of the compensation made to you by the above parties.:ouch:

This thread and comments critical of the captain, speculating of his potential dispute origins, family status and financial position typify everything that is wrong with PPRUNE. :mad:

Keg old chap, it looks like my post, which made it clear that it was asking a question on the basis of what was reported, and whether what was reported was true, has been deleted, presumably by the moderator. The post was relevant and within the 'rules of engagement'; maybe it was deleted because it touched a nerve or two.

One little step toward making PPrune 'right' for you.

Well said theresa :ok: You'd be the bloke (are you a bloke or sheila?) I'd want up front on such an occurence. Too many princesses in cockpits these days and too many politically correct wank@s in the world.

You would have got several more beers if I was on that flight :ok: