777ER From New Zealand, joined Dec 2003, 12568 posts, RR: 17
Reply 1, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 3214 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW FORUM MODERATOR
This accident will be resolved like a motor vehicle accident would be. If it was found that party A collided with party B and party A was to blame, lets make party A United and party B Air Jamica then party As insurance will pay, but if its both partys 'fault' like an accident that could not be avoided then each partys insurance pays for their own vehicles insurance. I think thats the best way to describe what could happen
If the accident could not be avoided then both insurance companys will have a war trying to make the other party accept the blame so one party doesn't have to pay out.
NZ767 From New Zealand, joined Nov 2001, 1620 posts, RR: 1
Reply 3, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 17 hours ago) and read 2981 times:
According to the report, Air Jamaica was stationery so I'd say that United's insurers would have to pay up although other factors that we may not be aware of may be taken into account.
For example, was Air Jamaica positioned properly while holding? Were those reference points that the United pilot referred to, accurate?
All part of the insurance game!
AMSSFO From Netherlands, joined Feb 2005, 953 posts, RR: 9
Reply 5, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 10 hours ago) and read 2697 times:
I would say UA's insurers have to pay, although they may try to put some of the blame on ATC.
Quote: This serious incident stemmed from a desire by ATC to
maximise the number of aircraft at the holding area for
Runway 27L, which was a consequence of the need to
prevent congestion on the taxiway. The perception in
the minds of the B777 ﬂight crew was that it was not
unusual at LHR to see another aircraft as close as the
A340 appeared to be and their belief that, having cleared
the tail of the A340, they would avoid other obstructions
if they followed the taxiway centreline.
Anyway, damage was minimal in this case and the biggest concern of the investigators was the overwriting of CVR tape, which couldn't be turned of by the crewe without authorization of senior UA employees.
Stealthpilot From India, joined May 2004, 510 posts, RR: 0
Reply 6, posted (9 years 7 months 2 weeks 8 hours ago) and read 2565 times:
Quoting ArniePie (Reply 4): Are these sorts of mishaps usually a reason for one or both of the pilots (of the guilty aircraft) to loose there jobs or are they classified under the "shit happens" rule?
I am not fully aware of the companyï¿½s rules, but I believe itï¿½s uncommon to fire the pilot for something like this. Now if the pilot was too busy with his ipod then yes (not going to happen im just creating s scenario), but from what iv heard about other such incidents the pilots might have to go back for extra training.