Hard Landing...

[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?

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 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 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), 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]. But hey, what do I know?

[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.

[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

[CaptW5]

From that page:

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