Pax and Crew File Lawsuit Against Airbus
 

This could get interesting.....

Qantas passengers sue Airbus over flight scare - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

= 1800 fpm = gentle descent?

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.

That is the average rate of descent, to achieve that from steady state back to steady state requires so pretty big accelerations and peak decent rates.

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.

It is a class action against Airbus and Northrop Grumman. All the flight crew are claimants too.

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

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.:sad:

Excerpts from the ATSB Preliminary -

Definitely not. Severely injured pax from uncommanded sustained full nose down elevator (twice) with nobody knowing WTF the crazed scarebus was going to do next. Nothing "emergency" about that. :cool:

AND..............

A pan-pan call is NOT an emergency, it is an urgency call.

A mayday call is an emergency.

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.

All the pilots are back flying.

That's not the line Mr Floyd Wisner is spinning in the news....he might want to get his story straight before he goes to court.

Well maybe there wasn't a "THE PLANE HAS GONE CRAZY APE BONKERS" non-normal checklist, but I'd call it an emergency landing.

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!

Maybe Airbus should have a " This aircraft has performed an illegal operation and will now land at the nearest airport" checklist...

Mr Wisner is talking through his hat.... but since it is sub-judice right now it is probably best to leave it at that.

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)

What is implied here about the pilots is grossly unfair and a good example of how the media get it so wrong. Yep, the A330 that day did something pretty weird but the pilots did a great job and handled this weird situation extremely well.

I strongly agree, best left for the courts to try and make some sense out of it all.
Having said that, I think in this case QF management have also demonstrated total support with all the parties involved in this incident.

Correct. Most lawsuits in the US focus on the element of 'pschological trauma' etc and that is where the punter picks up the majority of their payout. The punter will also have his/her partner make a claim (even if they were not involved directly with the incident) for additional pain and sufferring, scared of aircraft sounds, nightmares about A330's, no longer being able to throw the leg over etc etc....
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.