Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Boeing, CKS Airpot Could Be Defendents In Crash  
User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Posted (13 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 1687 times:

CNA

Taiwan airport, SIA, Boeing potential defendants in SQ006 crash
by Farah Abdul Rahim


Taiwan's Chiang Kai Shek International Airport is a potential defendant in a suit brought by 44 survivors of the SQ006 crash and the next of kin of those who died in the disaster.

Singapore Airlines and Boeing are the other potential defendants.

12 Singaporeans are among the 44 who are suing, including eight cabin crew members. (Oh dear)

According to American attorney Manuel R Ribbeck, who'll be representing them, eight lawsuits have been filed in the United States so far and more can be expected.

Mr Ribbeck, a partner with Nolan Law Group, is in Singapore and has met some of his Singaporean clients, including cabin crew members.

He said that the Taipei airport authorities might be a potential defendant, especially after last week's release of a factual findings report by Taiwan's Aviation Safety Council.

"Based on what we see in the report, it's too early to blame anybody but you can see that the runway was not properly closed, perhaps the lights which were not supposed to be switched on were on, the area where you were supposed to have a light to indicate a turn wasn't working properly. So, there are lots of issues that have to be addressed, regarding liability," the lawyer said.

Mr Ribbeck added that his legal team was also carrying out its own investigations into the October 31 crash, but the trial would have to wait till after the final investigation report is released at the end of the year.

The first hearing for all 44 clients will be held at the end of March in the United States.





Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
19 replies: All unread, jump to last
 
User currently offlineWatewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 1, posted (13 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 1619 times:

How did Boeing get dragged into this mess? Damn these lawyers with their tasteless bloodsucking website.

User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 2, posted (13 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 1618 times:

What the heck is this? If a terrorist blows a plan out of the sky, Boeing is blamed. When the Concorde crashed, I predicted somehow Boeing would get blamed and they did. Now these a**hole lawyers are trying to sue Boeing because a pilot turned onto a closed runway that was not properly lighted or marked?

Lets follow the advise of Shakespeare and kill all the lawyers.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 3, posted (13 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

Oh yeah, they are suing all the airlines in the Star Alliance.


"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8047 posts, RR: 54
Reply 4, posted (13 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 1611 times:

2 thoughts. It was clear from the cockpit displays that they weren't on the right runway. The copilot tried to point this out but was interrupted by the captain. Also, the runway was too short with the flight's weight to allow a safe takeoff. The outcome wouldn't have been any different if the runway had been open - in fact it might have been worse if it HAD been open if they'd run through the approach lighting at the far end just before rotation speed.

In my relatively uninformed view, nearly all the blame rests with the airline for it's well-documented lack of Cockpit Resource Management and a contributing factor being the unsubstantiated info about two CI flights on the taxiway who saw the SQ flight start it's t/off roll on the wrong runway and didn't take any action (although I can understand why, if they questioned what was happening among themselves, they must have assumed the runway had been opened and the SQ flight was acting on instructions from the tower).



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineWN boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 5, posted (13 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 1612 times:

By the way, what exactly is an "airpot?"

If I remember my Shakespeare correctly, the quote to which B757 alludes is in Henry IV and is uttered by the conspirators who seek to overthrow the king and institute anarchy. In order to facilitate anarchy, one of the co-conspirators suggests, "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." The view of attorney-cide is therefore not one that Shakespeare condoned and certainly not one he proposed, but rather the first step towards creating anarchy.

To this specific case, I would like to see the evidence before I jump to any uninformed conclusions along the lines of lawyers are "bloodsuckers" and "a**holes." If the suit is as frivolous as it originally appears, it will be thrown out of court and the attorneys sanctioned. So quit freaking out.


User currently offlineWatewate From Canada, joined Nov 2000, 2284 posts, RR: 1
Reply 6, posted (13 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 1602 times:

WN boy,
Perhaps you haven't seen the tasteless website these lawyers set up immediately after the crash. It was a disgusting piece of work. And guess what, it seems that everytime there's an accident, it's the lawyers who get to the accident scene first- even before the investigators and authorities. I just think that they could have handled this (and countless other incidents) in a more professional manner. It's just wrong to see lawyers at hospitals trying to talk victims' families into sueing anyone remotely involved in the case.


User currently offlineWN boy From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 7, posted (13 years 5 months 4 hours ago) and read 1597 times:

Well, Watewate, don't hold out on us, what is this disgusting web site? Please attach a link so that we may all see the depths to which my profession may sink.

To be clear, I do not condone ambulance-chasing. Indeed, I wish the state bar would crack down on what is, in my view, often borders on barratry (illegal solicitation). And I whole-heartedly applaud any federal judge who uses Rule 11 to dismiss frivolous suits and sanction the attorneys responsible therefor.

But my point was simply that (I suspect) no one on this board has seen the pleadings in the case, has any idea what evidence the plaintiffs may present, or knows the legal bases for their claim. Therefore, it is inappropriate to characterize someone as a "bloodsucker" when one does not have a factual basis to support that conclusion.

Nevertheless, you may be correct and the facts may turn out that these individuals are the scum of the earth. But, if it's all the same to you, I would like to see the evidence first.


User currently offlineAvilitigator From United States of America, joined Aug 2000, 214 posts, RR: 0
Reply 8, posted (13 years 5 months 3 hours ago) and read 1587 times:

B757300 and Watewate,

Does killing all the lawyers include the lawyers who will be defending Boeing, Singapore Air, and all the other defendants in the suits? How about the judges who will be presiding over the cases, because they're lawyers too? If in fact you were directing your comments to particular lawyers in the particular law firm that set up that website you referred to, then you'd have a more sympathetic and understandable position. To label all lawyers as ambulance chasers that deserve to be killed is an insult to the majority of lawyers who do not practice personal injury law, and to those personal injury lawyers who allow clients to initiate first contact. As WN Boy aptly pointed out, an attorney showing up at a victim's hospital bed without a prior client relationship is illegal. Furthermore, courts have the power to sanction attorneys for filing frivolous lawsuits, and I've seen such cases in the federal appeals court where I work, so why not leave the penalties to the proper channels?


User currently offlineCapt.Picard From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 9, posted (13 years 5 months 3 hours ago) and read 1580 times:

Apart from all the "where there's blaim, there's a claim"
arguments, it will be interesting to see what the upcoming case will do to SQ's public reputation...

...after all, it's about to get a lot of public and media attention for the wrong reasons...


User currently offlineChiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 942 posts, RR: 1
Reply 10, posted (13 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 1566 times:

Lawyer should be a profession banned from this earth.

P.S. For the concord crash, boeing could be charged based on those damn lawyers. Broken parts from DC-10->defective design by Douglas->douglas is owned by boeing. Therefore Boeing should be charged.

MORON!!!! WHY CAN LAWYERS JUST DIE OFF FROM THIS PLANET!!!!!!!!!1


User currently offlineB757300 From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 4114 posts, RR: 23
Reply 11, posted (13 years 5 months 2 hours ago) and read 1560 times:

Dang, no one can take a joke. I know some very nice lawyers. The only ones who should be banished are the bloodsuckers.

As for the Concorde, there should be a limit on how long the manufacturer should be held liable for an accident unless it is an obvious design flaw. If an airline doesn't take care of it aircraft or commits a maintenance oversight, the airline should be at fault, not the manufacturer.



"There is no victory at bargain basement prices."
User currently offlineSIN_SQ From Singapore, joined Oct 2000, 80 posts, RR: 0
Reply 12, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1546 times:

SIA has accepted the responsiblities.

Boeing has nothing to do with the crash - the manfacturer just builds planes for airlines! SIA SQ 006 plane was excellent in all aspects on board prior to the ill-fated crash.

So far there is no further comment implying their responsbilities in the crash from Taiwanese authorities which insist that it was SQ 006 pilots' faults.

It is even ridiculous that the greedy people want to get more money by sueing these poor managements and authorities. Even their lawyers are adding fuel to fire.

The final conclusion of air crash at CKS Airport has not been finalized and yet these so called professional lawyers jump into action and start processing in United States.

Do not tell me that they took liberty to sue, too much.



User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Reply 13, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1532 times:

Well, sorry for leaving this.

My stance on lawyers is this. Let them live. HOWEVER, lawyers like DAN NOLAN and his bloody NOLAN LAW GROUP should be shut down under taste and decncy. How dare he set up a website "7 hours" after the crash of SIA6!?

All the other lawyers, fine, at least they don't push it around saying "WE're here! Come to us! We'll get loads of money for you (and ourselves when you sign the contract without looking at it first)"

I abhor Dan Nolan. F word him.

Now then? How the hell did boeing get into this. Poor Boeing. Dodo! Techincal faults have been ruled out? What's the f ing point? Oh forgot. Dan Nolan decided that as it was a Boeing jet, Boeing should be sued.

Pha! Stupid Dan Nolan. Let's start a Hate campagin.



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineGreg From United Kingdom, joined May 2005, 0 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1525 times:

In most cases, counsel advises prosective clients about the legal rights they not otherwise know about. You can hardly trust SQ to settle claims with victims without representation! Lawyers are essential in settling these types of claims. Yes, there is a lot of money involved, but the victims will have considerable higher settlements if they have aggressive counsel (it's true..even after legal fees).

It's interesting to see how enthusiasts are quick to defend the airline. SQ has shown considerable negligence in this incident. The captain of that aircraft is ultimately responsible for the safety of this passengers. He blatantly ignored their safety and well being.

Also....Boeing is a party to this lawsuit because their airplane burned. It's a tactic often used since lawyers can have a field day asking why there isn't better fire suspression equipment or smoke masks, etc. on board. In most these cases, I believe manufacturers settle very quickly to avoid the negative publicity.


User currently offlineSingapore_Air From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 13738 posts, RR: 19
Reply 15, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1521 times:

Oh there weren't enough smoke alarms or whateva! The plane was on the wrong runway and crashed? What the hell has that got to do with smoke alarms? Laywers! (Some of them anyway)


TAIPEI AIR CRASH PASSENGERS SET TO SUE SIA, BOEING: REPORT
Asia Pulse; Feb 27, 2001



SINGAPORE, Feb 27 Asia Pulse - At least 44 victims of a fatal air crash in Taipei that killed 83 people last October are preparing to sue Singapore Airlines (SGX:SIAL), a news report said today.

Also being sued are aircraft manufacturer Boeing and the Taiwanese airport authorities, the Straits Times reported.

Attorney Manuel Ribbeck of Chicago-based Nolan Law Group, which is representing at least 40 of the victims of flight SQ006, had met dozens of victims in Singapore and Kuala Lumpur over the past week.

Four of eight Malaysian passengers onboard the Boeing jumbo jet bound from Taipei to Los Angeles perished in the Oct 31 tragedy. Ninety six of the 179 on the flight survived.

"Some clients can no longer travel for work as they are scared to fly. Some families have lost their breadwinners through death or injury," Ribbeck was quoted as saying.

Ribbeck said he had been counselling clients, some of whom felt SIA had treated them insensitively, according to the report.

The law firm, which has claimed millions of dollars for victims of other major commercial air crashes, had advised them against accepting SIA's compensation, describing it as "inadequate".

SIA had offered US$400,000 to the families of those killed and US$20,000 to those unhurt.

At least 10 of the 13 cabin crew members who survived have engaged Nolan.

The report said Nolan has so far filed eight civil suits while other United States' law firms have filed at least four others, all in California



Anyone can fly, only the best Soar.
User currently offlineWinds Aloft From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 38 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1517 times:

I share in some of the anger at the possibility of Boeing being named in this potential lawsuit. I think it would be a shame if Boeing got dragged into this when there hasn't been any evidence that they were partly responsible in any way for the crash.

That said, I wouldn't worry about Boeing too much. I'm certain Boeing has a very good group of lawyers at their disposal for these kind of things and if these guys decide to sue Boeing without any basis in fact, I would anticipate Boeing's legal team will make quick work of them.


User currently offlineGearup From Canada, joined Dec 2000, 578 posts, RR: 1
Reply 17, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 1510 times:

Some people on this thread need to calm down. For those of you who are so offended by the lawsuit against Boeing regarding this crash, it is normal procedure and something Boeing will be fully prepared for as would Airbus or any other airframe manufacturer. How do you know if an exit failed to open, a slide failed to deploy, a fire extingusher failed to operate or emergency lights or half a hundred other things did not work at a critical moment. I agree that Boeing did not cause the accident or there is nothing about the 747 that did but let me ask you something: If you lost a loved one or were terribly injured yourself in an accident involving a Boeing machine would your loyalty stop you from sueing them (or Airbus)?


I have no memory of this place.
User currently offlineChiawei From United States of America, joined Nov 2000, 942 posts, RR: 1
Reply 18, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1501 times:

I can understand the right to sue if you are permanetly injured or killed.

But the cabin crew should be ashamed of themselves. If they are physical fit to work, they should return to work. I don't believe the "I am afraid to work in a airplane!!! bohoo bohoo". I need psychological help.

If you are well enought to be on a SQ flight from TPE to go back home to chengi (4 hour flight), you are clear to work.

One thing that I hate about lawyers is that things tends to get invented during trial. American jury system generally bows down to the so called expert comment.

Overall, I reall believe that US judicial system should be changed. Lawyer should be a profession that is banned.


User currently offlineJAL From Canada, joined Apr 2000, 5083 posts, RR: 8
Reply 19, posted (13 years 4 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 1493 times:

How could Boeing be responsible for the crash?

There was no mechanical problem with the aricraft!!
Damn those lawyers!!!



Work Hard But Play Harder
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
US Airways Could Be Bankrupt In A Few Weeks posted Fri Aug 13 2004 12:35:27 by 777ER
Sonic Cruiser: Boeing Signals It Could Be Scrapped posted Wed Jul 24 2002 23:38:18 by Singapore_Air
Seattle PI: New A380 Delay Could Be Boeing Boon posted Wed Oct 4 2006 06:51:56 by Leelaw
Boeing Could Be Re-designing The 7E7 posted Sat Jul 10 2004 14:54:34 by 777ER
It Could Be Important How You Die In A Aircraft... posted Sat Jul 10 2004 00:38:19 by Bofredrik
200 7E7's To Be Ordered In 2004: Boeing posted Tue May 25 2004 10:56:02 by United777
When Is The Boeing 7E7 Supposed To Be In Service? posted Thu Aug 21 2003 22:11:50 by Chicago757
Boeing "Bat Jet" Could Take Off In 2006 posted Tue Jul 9 2002 19:40:50 by Jiml1126
Boeing 747x To Be Built In Japan posted Thu Jan 4 2001 07:55:38 by Kevin
Boeing Could Offer 747X In Six To Nine Months posted Tue Jul 11 2000 00:43:35 by BA744
Could UA/CO Ever Be Interested In NK? posted Mon Jun 14 2010 07:15:49 by 2travel2know2
LHR 2020: 1 In 10 Flights Could Be A380s posted Wed Mar 3 2010 03:01:15 by N14AZ
Baggage Fees Could Be In Southwest’s Future posted Wed Jul 22 2009 13:38:07 by KarlB737
Delta 764s - Could More Be Converted In 2008? posted Sun Jan 7 2007 03:47:34 by 1337Delta764
Seattle PI: New A380 Delay Could Be Boeing Boon posted Wed Oct 4 2006 06:51:56 by Leelaw