This Disgusts Me! - Heathrow emergency: Nine passengers sue
 

BBC News - Heathrow emergency: Nine passengers sue

How can you sue? OK, early reports say that the cowlings were not latched, but the crew got them home safely.... Is that not the most important thing?

I'm only frequent SLF, but have had 2 go arounds, 1 divert (weather) and a medical emergency which resulted in an early landing at an alternative airport. Also had various technical issues that have delayed takeoff or prolonged taxi after landing (no steering gear on A380 after landing).

Also have had first hand experience of clear air turbulance resulting in injuries.

Maybe I am a jinx........

But NEVER have I thought "No Win No Fee"

What is wrong with these people?

I suspect it isn't 'these people' but bottom-dwelling, scum eating lawyers that have solicited the passengers to allow them to be represented.

Notice they aren't seeing BA, as the Montreal Convention doesn't consider this to be an accident, but they are going after the manufacturers.

I would have thought that airbus or p&w's notices to 'please make sure your cowlings are latched' would obviate them from any liability, but it is the US courts whose time is being wasted. We may have a final ruling in the next dozen or so years, so don't hold your breath.

So what? That is their right. If they have suffered damage, they have the right to seek redress for those damages. You can bet there will be plenty of other commercial litigation that will run into large monetary sums, beyond simply damages claims from some of the passengers.

I am not sure why the complaint would be filed in the US, if the complainants are British and Norwegian citizens. The alleged damage was on a British airline and the witnesses and location of the incident are also in the UK. The manufacturer may be an American company, but it is almost certainly going to appoint a British law firm and agree to provide any necessary documents and witnesses to a British court. By doing so the likely result is that the case will be dismissed on a forum non conveniens application (Piper-V-Reyno 1976)

As ExXb says, don't hold your breath.

Sorry Beal,

I disagree, what have they lost? What are they claiming for?

As I said, I had a small injury from clear air turbulance - only bruising and chafing (sp?) - and yes I was wearing a seat belt, but sue???? really? I was brought down safely!

I HATE the claim culture. A hole in the pavement - watch where you are going! An icy pavement - wear suitable shoes! Take responsibility for oneself.

Not having a go at you Beal... trust me.... but everyone seems to want to get compensation for everything these days and it is costing us all!

Yes, as I said, early reports are saying that the cowlings were not latched. That is sloppy, but we have all made mistakes! No injuries resulted from this! Some trauma, yes, but have we not all had that?

Sorry Beal,

Just reread your post..... at first I thought you were defending the claimants! I see you are now not doing that....

Apologies.

...huh???:E

So ..

• Aircraft built in Europe.
• Engines by IAE (HQ in Europe but largest shareholder is United Technologies of the USA)
• Operated by a British Company whose staff [appear] to have failed in some duties (preventing the problem) but succeeded in others (no loss of life or injury)

One country has a reputation for paying people who get scalded by coffee - so let's have a whack at them.

We used to say that "The Americans are out for a fast buck" but it's actually the Brits.

Whatever the merits of their claim, it is unlikely to be either "fast" or "bucks". The links I gave illustrate why this kind of "forum shopping" is unlikely to be successful.

The flip side of this coin, is that the forum this case is likely to end up in, will result in a painfully long case that will favour the defendants and simply wear down the complainants. There is almost no punitive risk to large corporations, insurers, or those with deep pockets. This is why they will ensure that they forego the "convenience" of the chosen legal forum, to ensure it is heard in one where, even they lose, it will hardly matter.

That rather depends on your point of view.

While you may be sanguine about whatever hair-raising airborne experiences you have enjoyed, not everyone reacts in the same way.

BA were lucky, in that there was little collateral damage when the cowls departed (unlike some of the previous incidents), but the pax on one side of the aircraft were still treated to the sight of a flaming engine as the aircraft made its return to LHR.

More importantly, the incident was entirely preventable, being a result of poor design and shoddy maintenance which had resulted in multiple previous instances of the same event. That's what you should be reserving your "disgust" for.

So it seems to me entirely reasonable that punitive damages should be sought, particularly as that is going to provide the single biggest incentive for Airbus/IAE to redesign the cowl latching mechanism and/or incorporate some form of "unlocked" warning system.

Could someone explain what is to stop Airbus and IAE just ignoring any US court action since they are not US companies? Don't bother defending, and don't bother paying if damages are awarded.

IAE are majority owned in the USA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Aero_Engines) and Airbus have many clients there. Neither would wish themselves to be shown up as putting pax at risk. They will both push the blame back on to the operator.

From an interested layman's perspective, it is the Board and senior mgmt of BA that have questions to answer.

Technical correction?
 

ExXb: "bottom-dwelling, scum eating lawyers"

Surely bottom dwelling dregs eating lawyers!:\

(with acknowledgement to WW2 cartoon caption "even Hitler can't be dregs and scum")

Disgusts, but doesn't surprise me.

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. Eg if they are suffering sleepless nights, could they prove beyond a reasonable doubt that it was this flight and not something else causing it?

Like others have said, this will drag through the courts for a long time doing nothing by costing companies a lot of money and making a lot of money for the lawyers.

DaveReidUK,

Thanks for your comments.

Yes, I guess my level of travel and general interest in aviation makes me a little bit more understanding of what is happening when I sit on an aircraft. Especially when things don't quite go to 'plan'.

However, I still hate the fact that whatever happens in any walk of life, the solicitors leap at the chance of claiming a few £ or $ for those "affected".

Yes - there was a :mad: up, but everyone is home safely. As has been said, how do you prove beyond any doubt that those claiming have been affected?

Theviewdownhere............

Have to say I agree with you but it keeps an army of lawyers fully employed. Likewise "security" and "'elf & safety" employ armies of people, often doing pretty useless, pointless activities.

Planemike

How right you are - lawers milk every £ or $ they can (I know that after my divorce!!)

However, the general public still have to buy into the claim culture! I know people that have claimed for whiplash after a 5 mph shunt.... and won!!! how can this be possible? By doing this, they add to all of our insurance. I have voiced my objection to be told 'well everyone does it!'

Time for this to stop!!

DaveReidUk,

You also state:

"More importantly, the incident was entirely preventable, being a result of poor design and shoddy maintenance which had resulted in multiple previous instances of the same event. That's what you should be reserving your "disgust" for."

Yes it was preventable, early indications indicate that:

1. Engineers inspected the engines - maintained the engines and did not re-latch the cowling

2. On 'Walk around' this was not spotted

3. There is almost certainly* a design flaw by Airbus and the engine manufacturers that this was possible

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 :mad: 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!

* disclaimer - no-one has seen the final report - so not casting aspercions (sp?)

And who is going to provide documented evidence to these get rich quick lawyers to say that there is a fault with the cowlings or that a BA engineer failed to check that the locks were secure?

American courts award more money and for lesser trauma. That's why

>>>And who is going to provide documented evidence to these get rich quick lawyers to say that there is a fault with the cowlings or that a BA engineer failed to check that the locks were secure?

Not really needed, as the evidence is that the cowlings obviously were not latched correctly...

If BA don't have a suitable "process" for preventing this and so are putting lives in danger, then they need some "incentive" to make sure it is "safe".

Pay money to get it right, or pay damages if you couldn't be be bothered to make sure it is right and you get caught...

The cowlings were not latched safely - that may be a design fault, or "someone" didn't do this properly. But the walk around "should" have discovered this, so it may be a combination of 2 failings.

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...

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 :mad:-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?

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. :yuk:

They're suing Rolls Royce and Airbus not BA

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

....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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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...............

SJ,
Was that last comment really necessary? It may be your opinion, but it is only that.

Please play the ball, not the player.

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! :D:D

Many thanks for making me laugh out loud hysterically!

when you see places like Southampton Hospital where there is a lawyers office IN RECEPTION you just feel like giving up :ugh::ugh::ugh:

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.