Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Misc. Forums > Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight)
Reload this Page >

This Disgusts Me! - Heathrow emergency: Nine passengers sue

Passengers & SLF (Self Loading Freight) If you are regularly a passenger on any airline then why not post your questions here?

This Disgusts Me! - Heathrow emergency: Nine passengers sue

Old 16th Jul 2013, 07:46
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: Back of beyond
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I wonder how many of these passengers would actually be able to prove in a court of law the distress this incident has caused them.
You don't need to PROVE anything - yopu just have to convince a jury comprising people brought up on the Shock! Horror! Hysterics! garbage that passes for news in the US that you suffered distress.

A shoo-in...
RevMan2 is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2013, 21:17
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: UK
Posts: 2,067
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Pax suing BA for engine fire.

So I see in the news that a consortium of passengers have filed a class action to sue BA for the engine fire on the Heathrow to Oslo flight, because the engine cowl flaps were inadvertently left unsecured?

This was for sure a -up of fairly major proportions, albeit one resulting in only a minor emergency and inconvenience. However, given that the aircraft returned and landed safely; can I just ask any pax involved reading this; what is the point of bringing such an action against BA?

Last edited by Uplinker; 16th Jul 2013 at 21:18.
Uplinker is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2013, 22:05
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: norfolk
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Why

Probably because some ambulance chasing compensation leech has persuaded them (as a group) it would be worth a punt, for a no win, no fee arrangement.
acmech1954 is offline  
Old 16th Jul 2013, 23:13
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: England
Posts: 730
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
They're suing Rolls Royce and Airbus not BA
Fargoo is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 00:30
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: SEA
Posts: 35
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Edit:

This is from a legal source:

A group of British and Norwegian passengers who were involved in the emergency landing of a British Airways flight at Heathrow earlier this year are filing a lawsuit. The nine passengers claim the experience, when an engine caught fire, has left them with severe psychological trauma, including post-traumatic stress disorder, and a fear of flying which interferes with their personal and professional lives. They say they believed they were about to die when Flight BA 762 from London to Oslo was forced to make an emergency landing at Heathrow on May 24. As the Airbus A319 took-off, the fan cowl doors from both engines detached, puncturing a fuel pipe on the right engine and causing an external fire to break out. One of the passengers, Alexandra Townsley, said of her ordeal: "It was absolutely terrifying. My sister and I had a clear view of the engine fire. I remember thinking to myself that I was going to die."I am angry to now discover that this had occurred so many times before and the airlines and manufacturers do not appear to have done anything about it." According to an interim report by the Air Accidents Investigation Branch (AAIB), BA had during maintenance checks the night before. But the passengers have filed a lawsuit in Illinois against the aircraft manufacturer Airbus and International Aero Engines (IAE), who designed and manufactured the engines, not against British Airways. The law firms representing the group - Chicago-based Wisner Law Firm and London-based Stewarts Law - said the issue with the cowl doors had occurred over 30 times before but both Airbus and IAE "did not appear to implement adequate corrective measures for this issue".The two law firms recently resolved similar claims against Boeing and Rolls Royce brought in the US on behalf of 65 passengers and crew of BA Flight 038 which crashed in January 2008 while attempting to land at Heathrow a result of the fuel to the engines freezing. They also successfully resolved claims against Airbus and others on behalf of more than 175 passengers of Qantas Flight 072 which went into two uncommanded dives due to a computer malfunction during a flight from Singapore to Perth, Australia in October 2008. They are currently representing over 100 passengers in a US lawsuit against Boeing and others who were involved in the Lot Flight 016 gear-up landing at Chopin airport in Warsaw, Poland on 1 November 2011. Other passengers who may have suffered similar injuries on board BA Flight 762 are invited to contact the law firms in relation to any assistance they may require. - See more at: Stewarts Law LLP (via noodls) / Passengers file lawsuit over BA Heathrow emergency landing

Last edited by UAVop; 17th Jul 2013 at 00:35.
UAVop is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 00:45
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2011
Location: FL410
Age: 21
Posts: 98
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
....and if you look into the settlements of such lawsuits, the ones gaining the most are the lawyers. This is one of the worse things about having anything to do with the US at all.....lawsuits for hot coffee, because someone rummaged in your garbage and cut themselves, a playing child runs through a glass door.....sane people distance themselves from this sort of thing. Note that these are British and Norwegians, flying a BA aircraft in the UK.....and yet they seem to think that the suit can be filed in Illinois. There will be some legal argument as to why a court in Illinois has some sort of jurisdiction....the same sort of arguments that get convicted murderers and rapists back on the street sooner rather than later.

I hate this kind of crap.
mushroom69 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 05:48
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: South of France
Posts: 1,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Taking a different view from some commentators:

You're sitting on the r/h side of the aircraft with your kids, the engine is in full view. First, on take-off, you notice the engine cowling fall away. From the other side of the aircraft, you hear from fellow passengers that the same thing has happened on their side. Then, smoke starts to appear from the engine you are looking at. Next, a fire breaks out and remains there all the way to the ground - despite the deployment of extinguishing systems. After landing, you and your kids are required to exit the aircraft down the slides under full emergency conditions. You were able to see everything. Others at the front and back of the plane had little idea what was going on.
Afterwards, you hear that licensed engineers carrying out maintenance didn't latch the cowling's and this error was also missed on the pre-flight inspection.
On balance, as a 1000 hour GA pilot and a passenger with a few trips under my belt over twenty plus years, I'd be pretty frightened by that experience. Afterwards, I think I'd also be angry that it happened. This incident wasn't caused by an "Act of God" or a bird strike, it was negligence that put people at risk.
That sort of mistake has consequences.
strake is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 06:07
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: by the seaside
Age: 73
Posts: 388
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Good luck to them

Pity they can't sue the DGAC for not instigating a change in design after an earlier AAIB report. Or similarly for not forcing AF to change the Thales pitot probes. Then we could sue the IAA for allowing Manx to make three approaches below minimums into Cork. Then the whole lot of Europeans for the ridiculous Flight Duty Regulations...
About time the authorities did the job of protecting the public instead of their mates ...
Whilst distasteful in some respects litigation is sometimes the only language those in authority understand.
blind pew is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 09:07
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Eastern Anglia
Age: 73
Posts: 130
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Well, if I ran an airline I would be helping them out with one of their problems anyway, 'fear of flying'? No problem, guess which nine names I've just added to my 'No fly' list?

It's so sad we have fallen into this culture and even sadder that Blind Pew is right, it does seem that litigation (or threat of ) is what it takes to make things change.
fenland787 is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 10:04
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Wherever Carmen says...
Posts: 274
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I'm not a fan of today's compensation culture, I can't stand those no win no fee vultures, especially the ones in shopping centres/towns.

However in this situation(from what facts I know) a mistake was made by someone that put a lot of people's lives at risk. Only through skill and luck did they survive.
BlueTui is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 16:11
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
With as many as 20 to 30 percent of people apprehensive about flying and 2 to 10 percent having a phobia about flying we'd have claims for pre flying stress disorder, post flying stress disorder, wrong kind of turbulence disorder, missed approach disorder..... a legal disclaimer written into the general conditions of carriage?
Sober Lark is offline  
Old 17th Jul 2013, 17:00
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 67
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Actually we have the Warsaw and Montreal Conventions. However, much to the chagrin of the legal community 'mental stress' or 'anguish' has never been considered to be a valid legal claim. The Heathrow incident doesn't qualify as an accident (under either treaty) either.

So we see the lawyers going after the manufacturers, the airports, the engine makers instead.

I've had a couple of diversions, and a couple of shut down engines in my flying days. 'You can cut the silence with a knife' type of incidents, but no flames that I saw.

But if somebody came to me and said 'sign here, and I'll do all the work' costs me nothing and might mean some cash in my pockets. I think I'd still decline, hating the bottom feeding scum lawyers, but a bit of revenge for the crap (lack of) service is always appealing.
ExXB is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2013, 07:00
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: London
Age: 46
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
However - the fact that passengers and greedy lawyers are sueing does not rectify this!!! I believe, and please correct me if I am wrong, as I am just SLF, the fact that an incident has occured, a recommendation will be made by the powers that be!

I do believe that the greedy are just taking a punt at winning some compensation! As I said, maybe that is just me being more chilled with aviation - but I would have the same view with the railways, underground or any other form of transport!
Pretty narrow view of things. Can you not concede that not everyone is going to be able to brush off turning left, looking out a window and seeing a flaming engine on the plane they are traveling in? Maybe if you can concede that then you can accept that it could be enough to put someone off flying entirely?

So what if that person needs to fly for work? Or visit family abroad? Or has any other need to fly that can't be dealt with by another form of transport?

If someone loses, or has to give up a job because of this entirely avoidable incident then shouldn't that person be compensated? If a person has to incur extra expense to travel by ship rather than fly due to a fear of flight induced by this entirely avoidable incident then shouldn't that person be compensated?

I'm not saying everyone involved in the action has a genuine claim, but I doubt they are all trying it on either.
MonsieurMalchance is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2013, 09:30
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
M.Malchance

years ago it was called taking your chances in life

now everyone expects they should be able to do anything and if they can't for one reason or another they deserve "compensation"

i think I should be able to climb Everest - the fact I couldn't make Base Camp is no bar - I shall sue the Govt of Nepal for not building an expressway to the top...............
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2013, 15:30
  #35 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Confoederatio Helvetica
Age: 67
Posts: 2,847
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
SJ,
Was that last comment really necessary? It may be your opinion, but it is only that.

Please play the ball, not the player.

Last edited by ExXB; 1st Sep 2013 at 08:35.
ExXB is offline  
Old 31st Aug 2013, 19:12
  #36 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Banbury
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
i think I should be able to climb Everest - the fact I couldn't make Base Camp is no bar - I shall sue the Govt of Nepal for not building an expressway to the top...............

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA!

Many thanks for making me laugh out loud hysterically!
Leftofcentre2009 is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2013, 10:00
  #37 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: London
Posts: 7,071
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
when you see places like Southampton Hospital where there is a lawyers office IN RECEPTION you just feel like giving up
Heathrow Harry is offline  
Old 1st Sep 2013, 10:18
  #38 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Poole
Posts: 12
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Not a fan of ambulance chasing, or compensation culture either. I don't know how far this will get, or if anything will change as a result, but I can see a reason.

In numerous threads here to apportion blame, we have seen the can kicked between design, manufacture, bean counters cutting everything except management, toothless regulators and where to even start because of geographical boundaries. If I was a passenger on that flight watching the drama unfold (I usually have a window seat so the chances of seeing it are high) and I found out it has happened before, and not just the once I'd be pretty angry. Especially with the can kicking. I would possibly join the class action not for compensation, as I'm sure that would get soaked up by lawyers but because I'd feel a sense of frustration that there seemed no other way to get things changed to stop it happening again.
GreekIslandLover is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.