|
The lawyers must be drooling over this:
Asiana passengers file lawsuit against Boeing - Channel NewsAsia CHICAGO, Illinois: A group of 83 passengers aboard an Asiana Airlines flight which crash-landed in San Francisco has filed a lawsuit seeking millions from the aircraft's manufacturer Boeing, their lawyers said Tuesday. While a final determination of what caused the deadly crash of the Boeing 777 is years away,Chicago-based Ribbeck Law said initial reports indicate it could have been caused by a mechanical malfunction of the auto-throttle. Boeing could also have been at fault for the design of sliding ramps which deployed inside the plane, "further injuring passengers and blocking their exit to safety," Ribbeck said in a press release. There were also possibly problems with the seatbelts given that police officers "had to pass knives to crew members inside the burning wreckage" so they could cut passengers free," Ribbeck said. The class action lawsuit was filed in Chicago, Boeing's corporate headquarters. It will be expanded in coming days to include Asiana and several component part manufacturers "who may be responsible for this disaster," Ribbeck said. The Asiana jet from Shanghai via Seoul clipped a sea wall with its tail as it came in to land at the US airport on July 6 and skidded out of control before catching fire, leaving three dead and more than 180 injured. Zhang Yuan, who suffered severe spinal injuries and a broken leg, said it was important that victims protect their rights "immediately." "It is terrible that the sliding ramps deployed inside the plane blocking our way to the exit door, trapping us inside the burning plane," she said in the statement. "My husband, my daughter, other passengers and I would not have suffered such terrible injuries if the sliding ramps and the seat belts would not have trapped us in the burning wreckage." Ribbeck filed a motion Monday seeking to require Boeing to provide details about the jet's design and maintenance and will seek access to all of the evidence discovered in the course of the investigation. Swift legal action is "vital" for the victims and their families because international treaties prohibit US safety regulators from making determinations of liability or fault. "Just compensation to these families cannot be provided under the law, until liability of all parties is established first," Kelly said. "Ribbeck Law's independent experts will monitor the official investigation and will conduct our own investigation for our clients to assign fault to each of the responsible parties for this tragedy." |
Well, I managed to cheat fate again in the Boeing death trap yesterday by conducting "dangerous" visual approach :eek:
I think I need counseling, but amazingly, by putting one hand on the thrust levers and the other on the yoke, the aeroplane did exactly as I expected :eek: Should I sue? |
OMG, falcon, how were you able to survive such a stunt?
Did you actually feel something with your bare hands? Yeah, I guess a lawsuit is the correct answer to such problems. We have to eliminate manufacturers who design aircraft with moving controls, because it is too dangerous for some jockeys who forget why they are in a plane when these controls don't, for whatever reason. Redundancy get's a whole new meaning: If something does not work as intended, sue later rather than intervene on the spot (or rather than train the guys who should intervene). And everyone thinks it's ok. Because it can generate money, .... again. I told my son this morning to become a lawyer, it pays more and is safer .... Brave new world. :yuk: |
IButt we differ then, I don't think it's acceptable to use a commercial flight with 500 punters in the back to train a pilot who has just demonstrated an inability to pole the jet....you obviously do, each to their own. By Fliion's reckoning the Asiana Captain could not have failed this training flight, just put him back in another jet and practise on line training flights till he gets it right I suppose?
I do remember my line training...I was a hopeless joke. |
Awww...this thread started so well too:hmm:
I think most of you have missed the subtlety of what likely happened. That means you are still candidates for it. Especially given the fatigue levels I remember in the 'pit;) PS; watch that secondary stall... |
Any Pilot worth his/her salt should know the approximate engine power setting for an approach with whatever flap has been selected and should be included in the constant scan regardless of whether the thrust levers move or not when auto throttle selected.
From my B767/757 days I cannot recall ever using V/S mode and was always told of its dangers. Don't know anything about the B777 which seems to have an inherent problem for those pilots with a lack of awareness of what is going on around them ie airmanship. |
Max AB,
What can I say other than - thank you for so aptly articulating my point. That's the spirit - just fail the 'trainee' in 'training' - " "where we're from you have no business being in the seat if you need training after the sim -- so on back there you go junior" What comes around swings around Chuck. f. |
I don't think that is what he was say F. I believe he was suggesting that rather than train something a trainee is having trouble with in an Aircraft full of fare paying punters, maybe they should be sent back to the SIM, and be retrained there. Nothing sinister about that.
The Don |
As this flight was a training event it's pretty sure that the accident report will allocate pages to that. Consider the previous sector, hypothetically the trainee could have done a similar thing yet the more experienced instructor TRI Fliion took over and safely landed. After a good debrief TRI Fliion sent him on his way to pracitise on his next flight to SFO.... On training you fail to progress, that gets you the extra training you need....how is that a bad thing for anyone? But don't practise with punters if you are below a minimum standard.
The law suit against Boeing reminds me of the mid eighties when Cessna stopped building pistons....apparently if you spun them into the ground you would end up dead??? |
Plenty of times where Trainers/Captains/ & occasionally FOs have had to intervene where the answer is NOT to fail and send to the sim.
If there was a 'dual control' monitoring system in the Boeing, could you imagine the ASRs with the proportionate amount of 777s - 100+ You can shut the sims down...if you guys had your way. f. |
Millerscourt
Agree 100% with your first paragraph. However, the problem with many 'children of the magenta line' is that they do not and could not tell you what are the appropriate power settings. Those that flew 737, DC-9, 1-11 etc had to know them. Today, much faith and trust is placed in automation and aircraft reliability. Modern systems are far more reliable then previous generations so our trust is not misguided. Technology, whether it be phones, cars, TV's etc are expected to work as advertised and a generation is being brought up on trust and expectation. I guess in the context of the modern pilot you could call it complacency. The more senior pilots have a healthy dose of suspicion running through their veins due to many years of less than reliable systems and this is known as resilience. When things do fail, they are less likely to be caught out by the startle factor. They also have the core skills to deal with it because they experienced it more frequently. I guess the art of 'managing' modern aircraft is the ability to adopt both skills into the flight deck. Your last paragraph aptly demonstrates why there is also no place on modern flight decks for those trained by ignorant pilots of aircraft now in museums. This is not a criticism of you, but of the training organisation that put you on the B767,757. The same statement that may well apply to Asiana and the culture that exists there once a full investigation has taken place. Whatever the outcome, Asiana will not be the only airline looking rather nervously at how they train their modern pilots. This accident, along with AF447, may well be a game changer for the industry. |
Fliion,
I think we are debating about if extra training should be done in the SIM or on the aircraft. Don't you think this should be considered on a case by case basis? That is what is done now. I am not sure about the Boeing Airline here, but just because someone has a bad day and gets a two at the Airbus airline does not mean a SIM visit is mandatory. It all depends on the circumstances. What would you suggest as a better way? The Don |
BYMONEK
Never had a problem myself managing modern aircraft despite being brought up on B707's and B737-200's so what is your beef about the training organisation that put me on the B767/757? Same airline as you you ex brownie! On giving the matter further thought I did use V/S from above to get on a glide slope when necessary but not in a climb. Do I pass now??:D As it was a long time ago I reserve the right to have forgotten that. When in GF and watching our leader of the day ( from AUH ) going into LHR and told to maintain 250kts which he duly dialled up but left aircraft in VNav, I watched the speed built up to 280kts before I suggested FLCH. Some Pilots are just not with it regardless of their background. |
Don
Point taken BUT My issue was with MaxAB suggestion that one should be completely competent if they left the training college with a piece of paper 'BEFORE' they go line flying..that's rubbish. What would I suggest? As one poster mentioned before TRI/Es encouraging hand flying in line training both as PM (just as important) and PF without the threat of a punitive outcome. We need to do a lot more of it. I do it when I'm not tired...which is not very often. f. |
fliion
What is this PM thing? Is it an EK thing only or has it replaced PNF worldwide? |
PM refers to Pilot Monitoring. It 'replaces' the term PNF (Pilot Not Flying) as it better encapsulates the role of the 'non handling' pilot. In other words, even the non handling pilot should be actively monitoring. PNF may imply that because you're not flying, you can put your feet up and relax.
To be honest, it makes bugger all difference what it's called and ultimately comes down to the individual pilot on the day, not some fancy term that's fashionable for a few years until the next legally acceptable title comes along. It's not just an Emirates term. By the way Miller, I may have been a scout in my younger days, but never a Brownie! My beef was that trainers in your previous Company, no doubt from a generation before glass cockpits, had taught you the dangers of V/S but not the advantages. As a result of which, you 'never' used it although you did retract that statement later. That was the point of my post, balancing reliability of modern automation against healthy suspicion and resilience. I didn't doubt for one minute that a man of your vast experience, calibre and knowledge would be guilty of anything other than supreme airmanship, whatever aircraft you flew! :E |
Oh dear, sounds like BA and their Monitored Approach which no other Airline in the world uses. I always thought every approach was monitored by the other Pilot regardless of the terminology in use. Who dream't up PM instead of PNF? Did not seem to stop 4 Pilots was it at MEL cocking it up. Perhaps that was in PNF days so that's OK then I guess and now we have PM everything is safe again.
PS Bymonek The brownie bit referred to your old mob at EMA |
Miller
It's an operational philosophy adopted by Boeing. Al their relevant type FCTMs /Manuals etc now reflect this. f. |
Considering that a lot of us are children of the magenta line, I have been asking my fellow pilots in the right seat for a while now, ( line flying not training flights)
At top of climb, "What do you think the box will say for level off altitude and more importantly, the drift down speed will be, before you select the engine out VNAV page?" Or when working it out for the approach, 'what will be the braking distance/FOLD? ' BEFORE they press the magic box! Just so they start to get a feel for the ballpark figure before the box comes out with the answer, because we know the problem with magic boxes is ' rubbish in rubbish out' Hopefully they will then pick up the fxxk up, before they end up in the office for tea and biscuits. Just my little effort to get pilots to think, hope one day it will help someone. Not that hopeful, because none of them have even thought about the figures before, and trust the magic box totally!!! |
Nothing to do with BA's monitored approach. Every approach they do is monitored because the person who does the take off and landing does not 'fly' the climb cruise or initial descent part. There are other airlines that use the monitored approach philosophy and having used both in my career, actually prefer them when landing in poor visibility. That, however, is another subject altogether.
As I said previously, whatever it's called, it's down to the pilot on the day to use the airmanship they have or were trained to have. Some people find it acceptable to use mobile phones whilst the other pilot is taxiing. Some pilots can't see a problem with adding up the times on the flight plan in the climb passing FL200 even though the flight is 8 hours long. Others are happy to do a goodbye PA during descent even though they just had 7 and a half hours on their arse showing photos on their Ipad. And all of the above in a Company with a rigid and enforced culture of SOP adherence. Back to the thread I think. |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 05:58. |
Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.