MK Airlines blames others for fatal crash
 

MK Airlines is blaming its 2004 fatal crash on the Halifax airport, a cargo-handling company, the federal government, the nation's airspace regulator and even a concrete berm !
http://thechronicleherald.ca/Metro/548297.html
What to think about that ?

Well I blame the lawyers! :*

The article mentions they were carrying more than 239000kgs of cargo... That in itself would have prevented the liftoff := I'm sure they meant "lbs" :E

RE: Concrete Berm......

Isn't it a bit like saying that the airport authority pointed the runway at a distant mountain - an obstacle which operators take into account during their performance calculations - and it is reasonably foreseeable that someone would hit it if they didn't gain enough altitude after takeoff.

Just Lawyers trying anything they can think of to reduce the companys liability.

I like the way their lawyers here keep banging on about this concrete berm as if it had been maliciously placed there.

As stated elsewhere the berm was actually the foundations for the localiser aerials.

What else would you expect to find adjacent to a runway ? Of course, if they stated that "The aircraft hit the foundations of the ILS aerials and we are sueing for placing an ILS adjacent to the runway" then people would see this statement for the stupidity it is.

Minkie ?
 

Is the concrete berm an explosive device?

Only when accompanied by a gateaux from the chateaux and the candle with the handle.

On a more serious note, harping on about the fact that the a/c hit the berm seems to me a bit like saying "Well, yes, I was out driving at 100mph through the town centre, and I hit another car. But its not my fault you see, because if the other car hadn't been there, there would have been no accident."

What does their lawyer want? All aerodromes to be constructed on a flat plain of a 50 mile radius just in case something (for whatever reason) cannot gain height? :ugh:

Arrestor Nets
 

MK's lawyers are to be complimented for their solicitude for fatigued crews that miscalculate thrust settings.

I await the erection of arrestor nets to catch a/c that find themselves with insufficient climb performance:}

So... The aircraft was just standing there, minding it's own business, when suddenly....:rolleyes: :ugh:

I'm surprised they don't try and sue god, for the earth being where it was, in relation to the airframe. After all, in their eyes, the plane did not sink into the ground, the ground came up and crashed into the airframe.

Stupid :mad: Lawyers.

Police officers have a special place for lawyers.....deep space. We just haven't found a rocket big enough to cart them all up there yet. The search continues.......

Wonder why they didnt blame themselves for the duty hours they required the crew to operate....funny all these pilots getting arrested for alcohol, when data exists that current duty time regs permit the crews to operate to the point that their cognitive abilities are degraded to the level of being legally drunk.....

When the Titanic struck the iceberg, was it the iceberg's fault?

The lawyers will be up against other arguments.....

"A lengthy investigation by the Transportation Safety Board of Canada found that crew fatigue and inadequate software training led the crew to input incorrect information and caused the plane to set the throttles too low for a good takeoff."

"The ill-fated Boeing 747 arrived at the Halifax International Airport in the wee hours of Oct. 14, 2004, carrying more than 239,000 kilograms of cargo from Bradley, Conn. The plane refuelled, loaded another 72,000 kilograms of cargo and tried to take off."
..... so they were carrying 311 tons of freight according to the journos? That makes it around 200 tons above MTOW. No wonder they didn't get off!:ooh:

Some further info:
http://www.tbs-sct.gc.ca/rma/dpr1/04...BSTd4505_e.asp

This year, the TSB undertook a major investigation into the crash of an MK Airlines Boeing 747-244BC during takeoff from Runway 24 at Halifax, Nova Scotia. Considerable resources were required for this investigation, and the TSB sought incremental funding from Parliament through Supplementary Estimates. To date, more than $700,000 has been spent on this investigation. The initial phase of the investigation raised a concern about the accuracy of published runway slope information. The aerodrome information for Halifax was reviewed as part of the accident investigation, and it was discovered that the slope information for Runway 24 published in Canadian flight information publications is incorrect. Transport Canada subsequently issued a Notice of Proposed Amendment to the Canadian Aviation Regulation Advisory Council to strengthen and streamline the aerodrome data verification process as a result of advice contained in TSB Safety Advisory A040059.

In the past I've seen a couple of lawsuits in aviation and transport industry which may looks stupid and unsupported, nevertheless sometimes the outcome is quite surprising. I wouldn't hold my breath if MK will actually win some of these cases or at least will get some sort of compensation. Watch this space...

As crazy as some of these lawyers' tactics appear to us... they know something that many out there do not.... That the rulings of the courts are often even more crazy.

If they win this there are a number of other airfields that will have to look at what hazards are adjacent to the runway and might damage a plane if it skids off or overshoots. At MSE (which MK use regularly) the runway runs in parallel with a busy road about 150metres away. As if that wasn't bad enough, there's a fuel depot between the road and the runway, adjacent to the threshold at the Eastern end. If MK think these sorts of things are dangerous, why are they still using the airfield ?

Hysterectomy aside (was that the right word? ;) ) . . . . .

We see ILS, RVR etc equipment beside the runways at all airports, and they are not mounted on a raised concrete plinth, but on a concrete base that is flush with the ground.

Okay, had the concrete been flush, the aircraft might have passed through the metal antenna support system, but still impacted the trees beyond that, or maybe not, but I (criticize me if you like) feel that the airport authority is in part to blame. Did it save money on metalwork by using a plinth a few feet high to mount the antennas and get the necessary antenna height?

Why was it done this way?

http://i64.photobucket.com/albums/h1...incoming-1.jpg

Why not???

It was an obstacle, properly promulgated and taken into account in performance calculations. What next? Only build airports on the edges of cliffs? Make a 200' excavation at the end of every runway, in case someone stuffs up their performance figures?

When someone runs into a known, fixed object, it is not the fault of either the object OR the people who put it there, and it is ridiculous to suggest so.