Pax sue Boeing after DXB Accident
 

From the main thread
Pax sue Boeing in DXB crash
More than a dozen passengers aboard an Emirates airline flight that crashed in August 2016 sued plane-maker Boeing on Tuesday in Cook County Circuit Court, blaming an allegedly defective switch.

The Boeing 777-300 flight was headed to Dubai, United Arab Emirates, from India.

All 300 people aboard Emirates Flight EK 521 survived the crash-landing in Dubai, scrambling down emergency slides before flames consumed the plane, but one firefighter was killed battling the blaze. It was the worst crash in the airline's history.

The lawsuit alleges, among other problems, that the aircraft's system prevented the operation of a switch at a critical moment and that the plane didn't provide any warning to the crew that the switch wasn't working.

The plaintiffs, who are residents of the United Kingdom, Switzerland, the UAE and Turkey, suffered serious physical and psychological injuries that will result in future medical bills and lost earnings, the lawsuit says.


Passengers sue Boeing in Cook County court over worst crash in Emirates history - Chicago Tribune

URL link on the main Rumours and News forum

This autoflight specific, is covered in the operational manuals and known to B777 operators and aviators, for me, the fact that many scape slides did not deploy properly or not held in place after deployment is even more concerning, as for that part, we aviators and operators are not properly warned about.
Slide limitations, not tested with winds above 25kt, or other specifics that we are not aware, this is for me a better reason for a law suit.

Ek have left themselves wide open for years by maintaining very detailed training records on pilots, often with negative comments.

This lawsuit does not relate to the pilots but the next one will.

Many of our management pilots from training and fleet (egt) like their Seattle and orlando flights.
It would be a nice surprise if they were served with court papers as they exited the airport.

Not so much at our outfit, ricfly744.

Having skippered this plane a few years now, this was news to me at the time of the accident. As it probably was for most of my brethren (and please don't all chime in with 'yeah, but you gotta push and aviate, sucker!' It's getting old. Fast. Stating the obvious does not negate the fact).
Our friendly neighbors in the capital have had this in their manual since get-go, so probably not applicable to them.
But deffo applicable to us.

Seriously, and I mean this with a lot of respect for a fellow 777 skipper.

Just because this was "news to you" doesn't mean it wasn't in the manual. Yes it was. It's always been in the manual.

CC: and please don't all chime in with 'yeah, but you gotta push and aviate, sucker!' It's getting old. Fast. Stating the obvious does not negate the fact).

So what do you want us/them to state?

Ummm. Boeing is covered. It's stated in Vol1, and FCTM "ensure go around thrust is set".

That's for you as PF/PM to understand and implement, and it's written for the lawyers.

Do you seriously need educated on how our manuals are produced?

And you utterly misquoted me.

Now we have B vs B ! It's been a hot summer in the ME, beer time!

CC & CDRW:

It's quite simple, really. How about like the chaps down south has written in their FCOM: something like 'Warning: TOGA switches are inhibited if main gear has touched down'.
I saw it in their manual after the accident, but do not have the exact wording.

We have:

FCOM NP.21.56:
At the same time:
• push the TO/GA switch
• call “FLAPS 20”.

Verify:
• the rotation to go-around attitude
• that the thrust increases.

FCOM 11.31.31:
Missed Approach
A missed approach is accomplished by selection of either TOGA switch. The
following features are available: .......

So, I say again, as I did this morning; it would have been nice if it was clearly stated that: • push the TO/GA switch DOES NOT WORK in case of a bounced landing/touchdown.
It was news to me after the fact.

But I guess I'm alone here, and y'all knew better :D

Why does this statement offend you? Is the concept of verifying an aircraft is doing what you want it to really that heavily dependent on the wording in a manual?

Wow.

It may not explicitly state the lack of TOGA after touching down (you'd have to read Vol 2 in Systems to know that, *gasp* the horror!), but I'm pretty sure it has always stated "Verify Go-Around Thrust Set". Not realizing or remembering you won't have TOGA is forgivable. Not verifying you have what you commanded, less so.

Switches and knobs = rumour.

FMA = truth.

Boeing, or the company, could easily have written into the manuals ... "the TOGA switches do not work after touch down, and activation is only possible once the aircraft is above five feet for more than two seconds".

This would, at least, alert all and sundry as to the system limitation. Sure, most of us are flying the jet and watching the FMA, but these guys weren't. They were relying on the system working as advertised.

"Ensuring TOGA thrust is set", or whatever the manual says, is simply dodging the bullet in this case.

Why EK and Boeing didn't, but outfits like Continental, etc did, is beyond me.

FMA = truth
 

FMA is close to truth
Truth is only if your arrows in the display show in the direction u want em' to show and the airplane is pointing in the direction u want it
It's called basic flying

E.g airbus heading
FMA says heading still the dam thing is turning in de wrong direction

engine display and PFD is the real truth

I don't want to state the obvious but they didn't do " some of that pilot sh!t"

Sums all of the threads up succinctly...... Unfortunately both lads were having a less than optimal day on the same day, for whatever reason. Nothing more and nothing less.

Uber-pedantry wins the day again.

Point is pushing buttons is only half the battle. Need to look and see it actually did what you asked. Not much time to try and recall what was or wasn't written in some manual.

Maybe the airline should be counter-suing the passengers who slowed down the evacuation while grabbing their bags and DF shopping.

Pax suing Boeing?
Pah! Good luck with that one!:ugh:

If I'd been the lawyer, I'd try to sue boeing over the RAAS alarm that sounded, where it was clear that they had sufficient runway to stop...

I believe RAAS is not Boeing software.

They would be worried about getting fired/final warning for landing outside the touchdown zone, irrespective of how much runway was remaining. You have to put yourself in the mindset of a pilot operating in that working environment to understand their willingness to use Airmanship. It all depends on natural personality and how much one has to lose... very easy for us all to second guess an action/decision from a comfy armchair with all the evidence at hand.

True indeed. It's the alarming trend in the industry, DFDR monitoring is getting more punitive than improving the overall safety and airmanship.

GA is a simple maneuver, but when done at the end of a 12 hr duty period could be disastrous. Not to mention the previous accumulated jet lag/fatigue due.


Other day a QR pilot was shooting a VOR D ILS (with failed VOR D) and was so bothered about what missed approach to follow instead of concentrating on the approach. He was indeed cleared for Rnav approach and not ILS. :ugh:

Odins Raven, I'm sorry I wasn't more clear in the initial post. What I posted was what I would do, had I been the lawyer. It was an attempt to show how incompetent I deem this lawyer.

For myself, I wholeheartedly agree with you, the angle that will NEVER be looked at, is what influence the attitude of management had on the mindset of these pilots. I'm of the opinion that the blame culture, that is so common in the middle east, plays a big role in this accident. Yet, it hasn't even been mentioned in the preliminary report. I therefore believe that it won't even be looked at, by the investigators.

What I'd quite like to know is, in a hugely automated aircraft, which is supposed to have been designed to make life easier for the crew..

Why doesn't the TOGA button work after touchdown?

Considering you may still need to go around at that phase.

Why introduce a hole into the Swiss cheese?

The philosophy should be simple and unambiguous. If I want to go around, I press TOGA. At any time prior to commanding reverses open.

Too much of the automation is conditionally ambiguous. I'd love to see the results of an in depth tech exam on flight automation given to operating flight crew. Who thinks they would score 100%?

AfricanSkies,

I think the logic is that inevitably somebody is going to push those toga buttons when he is not on the runway, the outcome of which is unlikely to be good.

Of course Airbus doesn't have toga buttons.....really couldn't be any simpler than that. When the thrust lever hits the front stop toga is engaged.

Yes but those non-moving throttles are dangerous, everyone knows that :}

Kingair1978 has come close to identifying the actual reason for the accident as well as the probable result of the investigation. Sad but true.

AfricanSkies, I'm pretty sure that the Boeing engineers made a risk assessment and deemed it safer to NOT make it possible to engage TOGA if the plane was on the ground. If someone would press it on taxy out, you'd probably been asking the question the other way around.

Except for all those times its engaged automatically on the ground without warning, requiring a bulletin to mitigate it..

Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I think the 737 TOGA buttons work after touchdown.

Only for the first two seconds after touchdown and even then “the A/T may command GA thrust” (FCOM quote). Usually for non-LVO approaches A/T will be disconnected together with autopilot, so not really applicable to this scenario here.