Sponsor Message:
Civil Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Passenger Sues Ryanair Over Tail Strike  
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1196 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 22366 times:

Passenger seeking €38,000 compensation.
http://www.independent.ie/national-n...r-takeoff-tail-strike-3333121.html

84 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1763 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 22356 times:

OK. Why would you need an oxygen mask right after takeoff? And how do you twist an ankle when you're buckled in?


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlineclydenairways From Ireland, joined Jan 2007, 1196 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 22295 times:

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 1):
OK. Why would you need an oxygen mask right after takeoff? And how do you twist an ankle when you're buckled in?

I know. Sounds like a real chancer!


User currently offlineCitationjet From United States of America, joined Mar 2003, 2368 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 22307 times:

The report says:
"Ms Hartshorn (30), who featured in media coverage of the incident at the time, claims that shortly after take-off there had been a sudden loss of cabin pressure and some, but, she alleged, not all, of the oxygen masks had deployed."

At take-off the cabin altitude is the same as the field altitude.



Boeing Flown: 701,702,703;717;720;721,722;731,732,733,734,735,737,738,739;741,742,743,744,747SP;752,753;762,763;772,773.
User currently offlineRussianJet From Kyrgyzstan, joined Jul 2007, 7623 posts, RR: 23
Reply 4, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 22224 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Apparently the flight got up to FL120, is that enough for oxygen to be critical? Please excuse my ignorance if the question sounds silly.


✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1535 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 22204 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 4):
FL120

FL120 is 12.000 feet which is ~4KM, I guess the cabin would be pressurized a bit, but not much.



Live From Amsterdam!
User currently offlineGoldenshield From United States of America, joined Jan 2001, 5845 posts, RR: 15
Reply 6, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 14 hours ago) and read 21954 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 4):
Apparently the flight got up to FL120, is that enough for oxygen to be critical? Please excuse my ignorance if the question sounds silly.

I know that EU and US regulations are different, but anyway, here in the U.S., oxygen is require for the crew above 12,500 feet---but only if you're going to be above 12,500 for more than 30 minutes. Above 14,000 feet, oxygen is required for all occupants.

So, to answer your question, FL120 is not a critical altitude.



Two all beef patties, special sauce, lettuce, cheese, pickles, onions on a sesame seed bun.
User currently offlinecrosswinds21 From Netherlands, joined Jun 2009, 698 posts, RR: 0
Reply 7, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 21789 times:

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm wondering, can't airlines put a clause in the contracts of carriage that says that passengers waive their rights to sue to airline? I believe that cruise ship contracts have this, which is why it's practically impossible to sue them for anything. Can airlines just not do the same thing?

User currently offlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2597 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 21774 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Have a read of the official report, the tailstrike in it's self was not serious and the aircraft turned out to be fully serviceable when inspected afterwards, but the incident was badly handled by the flight and cabin crew resulting in more serious consequences.... Interesting reading.
http://www.aaiu.ie/sites/default/fil...eneral/12484-REPORT_2009_025-0.PDF

Regards
CROSSWIND


User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 13 hours ago) and read 21714 times:

First - I'm glad to see a crazy lawsuit in some nation other than the US.

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 6):
FL120 is not a critical altitude.

Not for most people, but it can be an issue for people with breathing difficult or an infection which restricts oxygen flow.

The issue I see in the article is the psychological one. Some of the masks came down (which was probably a mechanical malfunction related to the G forces of the tail strike). Her mask did not come down.

Thinking like most passengers would - she thought she needed a mask to breathe, and twisted her ankle trying to get to a mask. Until the FAs made an announcement that the mask which dropped were a mistake and that there was no need for oxygen - you can understand the pax concern.

Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 7):
I'm wondering, can't airlines put a clause in the contracts of carriage that says that passengers waive their rights to sue to airline? I believe that cruise ship contracts have this, which is why it's practically impossible to sue them for anything. Can airlines just not do the same thing?

You can sue a cruise line, at least in the US. You just have almost not chance of recovering damages unless you can prove either fraud or gross negligence.

The same with this lady and airlines. Anyone can sue. Almost no one ever collects any money.


User currently offlineU2380 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 321 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 21515 times:

Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 6):
I know that EU and US regulations are different, but anyway, here in the U.S., oxygen is require for the crew above 12,500 feet---but only if you're going to be above 12,500 for more than 30 minutes. Above 14,000 feet, oxygen is required for all occupants.

If I recall correctly, under EU-OPS, oxygen is required for the flight crew above 13,000ft and for the pax it is required at 15,000 ft (continuous supply in a pressurised A/C). So they''re broadly similar.

As for this woman, well, she is rather ignorant.


User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 21441 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 9):
ou can sue a cruise line, at least in the US. You just have almost not chance of recovering damages unless you can prove either fraud or gross negligence.

Not a lawyer, but I believe that you most probably hang in a jurisdiction problem. The ship normally is registered in some convenient foreign country (say Liberia or Panama) and once in international waters, that might be the only jurisdiction applicable.
Maybe easier to sue the manufacturer of the ship, but that might be Italian, and our average civil trial lasts some ten years, for disasters it can take much longer...



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7345 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 12 hours ago) and read 21308 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 9):
Some of the masks came down (which was probably a mechanical malfunction related to the G forces of the tail strike). Her mask did not come down.

After reading the link posted just before my post - I see that I was wrong.

The aircraft leveled out a FL120

The crew did the Tailstrike checklist. This included depressurizing the aircraft. Since the aircraft was under 14K ft, the masks did not automatically deploy though the depressurization alarms did sound. The flight crew FAILED to inform the cabin crew that they were depressurizing the aircraft at altitude, and failed to confirm the passenger oxygen system was activated as they donned the cockpit oxygen masks..

The flight crew was donning their oxygen masks per the checklist and did not respond promptly to concerns/ requests from the FA crew.

Three of the aircraft PSU units failed to deploy - separate issue.

As a result of this incident in 2008, Ryanair has modified their training and procedures in ensure better flight/ cabin crew coordination.

They have also addressed the one serious mistake made by the flight crew - the aircraft should not have climbed to FL120 before the flight crew identified the cause of the problem.

The aircraft is not supposed to be pressurized after a tail strike. Had there been structural damage from the tail strike, there could have been an explosive decompression with severe consequences.


User currently offlinetdscanuck From Canada, joined Jan 2006, 12709 posts, RR: 80
Reply 13, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 10 hours ago) and read 20936 times:

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 4):
Apparently the flight got up to FL120, is that enough for oxygen to be critical?

People with healthy respiratory systems would be fine. People with compromised systems may exhibit some signs of hypoxia after a while but are unlikely to suffer permanent damage.

Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 7):

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm wondering, can't airlines put a clause in the contracts of carriage that says that passengers waive their rights to sue to airline?

They can put anything they want in there...but it's almost certainly not enforceable. In many jurisdictions, you can't waive your right to sue.

Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 7):
I believe that cruise ship contracts have this, which is why it's practically impossible to sue them for anything. Can airlines just not do the same thing?

They can put in the clause but the airlines are *far* more heavily regulated than the cruise lines.

Tom.


User currently offlineTC957 From UK - England, joined May 2012, 699 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19647 times:

Given Michael O'Leary's past record of handling passenger complaints and grievences against his airline, I should imagine his response is something unprintable along the lines of where she can stick her lawsuit and future business.

User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11572 posts, RR: 61
Reply 15, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 8 hours ago) and read 19048 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 9):
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 6):
FL120 is not a critical altitude.

Not for most people, but it can be an issue for people with breathing difficult or an infection which restricts oxygen flow.

Agreed, even a couple of thousand feet can be a struggle for some older people. I've flown in a Dash 8 at FL80-100 which was having pressurisation issues and it did make you feel a little light headed. The cabin crew found this especially whilst doing the service.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 16, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 7 hours ago) and read 18669 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 12):

The aircraft is not supposed to be pressurized after a tail strike.

You would think that the flight crew would know that.


User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 806 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 6 hours ago) and read 17733 times:

Quoting travelavnut (Reply 5):
FL120 is 12.000 feet which is ~4KM, I guess the cabin would be pressurized a bit, but not much.

Having flown at 11,000ft in a non-pressurized light aircraft, I can tell that it's not really life-threatening. However, a little dizziness may occur, nothing serious. And nowhere as hazardous as this woman makes us want to believe.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 9):
First - I'm glad to see a crazy lawsuit in some nation other than the US.

Hahaha. Seriously  
I must admit to my own shame that when I started reading the title I thought to myself "Why would an american fly with Ryanair?"

Quoting U2380 (Reply 10):
Quoting Goldenshield (Reply 6):
I know that EU and US regulations are different, but anyway, here in the U.S., oxygen is require for the crew above 12,500 feet---but only if you're going to be above 12,500 for more than 30 minutes. Above 14,000 feet, oxygen is required for all occupants.

If I recall correctly, under EU-OPS, oxygen is required for the flight crew above 13,000ft and for the pax it is required at 15,000 ft (continuous supply in a pressurised A/C). So they''re broadly similar.

In fact the legislation is much more complex and beaurocratic and covers a lot of book pages for CS-25 certified aircraft, but for this case study the 13,000-15,000 rule you mention does apply.


I am quite annoyed at the naivity of this woman. I don't understand where she takes the right to sue an airline for her own misconduct. "Twisting her ankle"? She wasn't supposed to get up in the first place and she knows it. Having gotten up to reach for some oxygen mask (I presume), she put herself in a position which might have lead to a shortage of oxygen in her body, simple hypoxic hypoxia due to stress. Sitting down and relaxing would have solved the problem. Even if she had become unconcious during the event her body would have regulated the oxygen supply/demand by itself again.
I feel that this woman is taking legal action only because she was informed that the flight crew wasn't dealing with the situation according to procedure. If they had, this case would've never started. Sick world.



// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offlinekcljj From Hong Kong, joined Apr 2012, 16 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16683 times:

Just from reading the article, it seems that the legal issue is to do with her claim for psychiatric injury. I am going to play devil's advocate and say that I don't think that her claim is unmeritorious. I am more familiar with the law in the UK so what I say may not apply in Ireland. However, I do believe that Ireland is a common law jurisdiction so it should not be too far off.

Firstly, both parties agree that there was a tail strike and subsequent investigation shows that the crew mishandled things. If it is proven that the crew were negligent then I don't see why she should not be entitled to damages.

From the report posted above, there was clearly depressurisation in the cabin but the flight crew failed to co-ordinate with the cabin crew. When the oxygen masks did come down, some failed. I don't know about you guys, but if my mask didn't come down, I would be pretty concerned.

Even if she had contributed to her injury by getting up that should not defeat her claim for damages.

In my opinion, this suit isn't as crazy as it seems. If the psychiatric report can show that her mental illness is related, she has a decent case and really should get judicial opinion.

Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 7):
Not to hijack the thread, but I'm wondering, can't airlines put a clause in the contracts of carriage that says that passengers waive their rights to sue to airline? I believe that cruise ship contracts have this, which is why it's practically impossible to sue them for anything. Can airlines just not do the same thing?

Just to confirm what others have said, exemption/exclusion clauses do not apply in contract or tort law if there is personal injury. I think this is standard in all common law jurisdictions, at least it should be for the UK but not sure about Ireland.


User currently offlineYVRFlyer From Canada, joined Oct 2006, 83 posts, RR: 0
Reply 19, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 5 hours ago) and read 16638 times:

Quoting TC957 (Reply 15):
Given Michael O'Leary's past record of handling passenger complaints and grievences against his airline, I should imagine his response is something unprintable along the lines of where she can stick her lawsuit and future business.

That will be a great Christmas present! It will be entertaining for sure... the MOL Smackdown 

Thinking about these kinds of cases, I'm surprised airlines have not proposed adding frivolous litigants and personal injury lawyers to a blacklist of people prohibited from flying. Just as they ban people who are abusive, why not add those who pose risks of lawsuits? With all the court records of lawsuits, it wouldn't be difficult to determine who is likely to frivolously sue them; in fact some people make a living off of it and do it as often as they can. Despite all the human rights/anti-discrimination laws, airlines could argue that these people are just as damaging to them as violent or drunk people who disrupt flights and threaten passengers and crew.

For those who will be affected, let them fly on NetJets. *Eff 'em!   



YVRFlyer
User currently onlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3320 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15423 times:

Quoting Semaex (Reply 18):
Having flown at 11,000ft in a non-pressurized light aircraft, I can tell that it's not really life-threatening. However, a little dizziness may occur, nothing serious. And nowhere as hazardous as this woman makes us want to believe.

you can have serious problems at 11K ft or even lower. It takes a while to happen though. Altitude sickness isn't fun and it can happen to people already used to higher altitudes. I'll agree that it shouldn't be a serious issue on a properly flown plane, but if some joker keeps the cabin alitude at 10Kft+ for an extended duration... Well even healthy athletes can start being in serious trouble.


User currently onlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3210 posts, RR: 26
Reply 21, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 2 hours ago) and read 15156 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Doesn't O'leary charge for oxygen? and the passenger was actually standing to put her Euro in the slot?

User currently offlineprebennorholm From Denmark, joined Mar 2000, 6289 posts, RR: 54
Reply 22, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 5 days 1 hour ago) and read 15004 times:

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 16):
...even a couple of thousand feet can be a struggle for some older people.

   Dear OlymSpotter, take MAD, which isn't a really high airport, it is at exactly 2000 feet. The sort of people you mention would suffer already at the check-in counter. And what if they happened to live in Madrid? A lot of people do. That altitude is roughly equal to the deepest valley in Switzerland.

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 16):
I've flown in a Dash 8 at FL80-100 which was having pressurisation issues and it did make you feel a little light headed.

A dozen thousand airliners cruise each day with millions of passengers at 30-40,000 feet with a cabin altitude of 8,000 feet. I have never heard of any people having problems with that. You may feel it in the ears while climbing and descending, but that's all.

Some tuboprop airliners are certified to max FL250. They have no oxygen masks for pax. They can descend fast enough to safe altitude in case of decompression.

I'm not a mountain climber, but one day I took the lift to the top of Kleines Matterhorn in Switzerland, altitude just under 13,000 feet. People were skiing up there in August with no issues at all. Oldest man in my group was 71. We made a long walk in the snow - into Italy and back, no issues at all. Nobody asked us in advance if we were healthy, but on the top they had put up a signpost telling that in case someone didn't feel well, then excessive physical stress should be avoided.



Always keep your number of landings equal to your number of take-offs, Preben Norholm
User currently offlinegreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1092 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 22 hours ago) and read 13802 times:

Quoting crosswinds21 (Reply 7):

Not to hijack the thread, but I'm wondering, can't airlines put a clause in the contracts of carriage that says that passengers waive their rights to sue to airline? I believe that cruise ship contracts have this, which is why it's practically impossible to sue them for anything. Can airlines just not do the same thing?

No, they cannot. Cruise lines often have forum selection clauses that force passengers to sue in a ship's "home-turf." The argument for this is that it's not fair to subject cruise lines to defend themselves in hundreds of jurisdictions across the world, due to the nature of their international business.

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 11):
Not a lawyer, but I believe that you most probably hang in a jurisdiction problem. The ship normally is registered in some convenient foreign country (say Liberia or Panama) and once in international waters, that might be the only jurisdiction applicable.
Maybe easier to sue the manufacturer of the ship, but that might be Italian, and our average civil trial lasts some ten years, for disasters it can take much longer...

In the maritime world, jurisdiction is usually not a problem. If a US district court finds that the defendant cruise line's forum non conveniens motion will not provide a fair and adequate trial, it can deny the motion and hear the case. Also, the passenger can sue the vessel itself (in rem), in which case whereever the ship is flagged has no bearing as long as the plaintiff can get the sheriff to seize the vessel until a bond is posted or the matter is resolved.

Quoting tdscanuck (Reply 13):
They can put anything they want in there...but it's almost certainly not enforceable. In many jurisdictions, you can't waive your right to sue.

You are right, it's not enforceable. You cannot contract away your liability in many instances.



Now you're really flying
User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 243 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 3 months 3 weeks 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 12731 times:

Quoting greaser (Reply 23):
In the maritime world, jurisdiction is usually not a problem. If a US district court finds that the defendant cruise line's forum non conveniens motion will not provide a fair and adequate trial, it can deny the motion and hear the case.

No doubt this is an interesting possibilty offered from the US law.. It remains to see if the US court decision can be effectively enforced on a foreign carrrier for a fact occoured otside the US .

Quoting greaser (Reply 23):
Also, the passenger can sue the vessel itself (in rem), in which case whereever the ship is flagged has no bearing as long as the plaintiff can get the sheriff to seize the vessel until a bond is posted or the matter is resolved.


This may work well if the ship connects to the US soil at least sometimes. I was thinking to the typical mediterranian cruise, really.
What they do in this case, they send the Sheriff in arms to Tunis to seize the ship? Or would the US Navy take over?
Let's say the ship has Chinese or Russian flag just to level the field. Again I see it tifficult to enforce the right in practice.



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
25 asctty : I regularly fly with Flybe on their Q400 Dash 8s. They fly at around 25000ft and I do not recall any oxygen masks, nor any briefing on how to use them
26 747-600X : You'd have to be in pretty poor shape to need oxygen at 12,000 feet, though, either way. The air is thin, yes, but not unbreathable. Also, I don't thi
27 art : FLnnn is not used below 20,000ft, I seem to recollect. Anyone know why?
28 greaser : So this is a more complex scenario than I let on. You are right, enforcement is another matter. So the easiest case is if a Iranian or North Korean f
29 Aquila3 : Very interesting. I believe I understand how it works now. Only question , is there no extra-territorial issue oat all for a foreign ship (or airplan
30 rfields5421 : Several lawsuits have been filed in the US over the Costa Condordia sinking. The suits are against a US corporation, Carnival Corp - as the corporatio
31 Semaex : Depends on country's legislation. In the US FL starts at 18,000ft, in Germany for examply at 5,000ft. There are quite a number of reasons for that. A
32 brilondon : That is what I thought. You elected to be a passenger on the aircraft, but by accepting you as a passenger they must take the responsibility of trans
33 rfields5421 : No. There is not for civilian ships or aircraft. This isn't just the US. Remember recent threads about aircraft being seized in the UK and France whe
34 Post contains links Semaex : Just to add briefly: In Ireland (where the flight started) the transition altitude is 5,000ft, in England (where the flight was supposed to go) 3,000
35 asctty : This from wiki: Q400 Stretched and improved 70–78 passenger version that entered service in 2000. Its 360 knot (667 km/h) cruise speed is 60–90 k
36 Post contains images PlymSpotter : Then they would be acclimatised to it - which is key. Many older people have ailments which make them struggle for breath when exercising, even relat
37 JoeCanuck : Canadian regs say no oxy needed below 10,000ft for anybody. Crew can fly between 10k and 13k for 30 minutes without oxy. Only 10% of the passengers a
38 Post contains links XT6Wagon : Altitude sickness is different than hypoxia. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMH0001190/ from what I've read on it, it usualy takes a solid
39 Semaex : Oh wow, I didn't know they had two different types just for the oxygen solution. Nice to know, thank you. That is very close to EU-OPS too.
40 JoeCanuck : Ok...hypoxia is a symptom of altitude sickness...but most of the other symptoms take time to occur and result from prolonged exposure to lack of oxyg
41 Post contains links kellmark : No. They are required by EU legislation as to what they must provide to the passenger. Here is a link to the Ryanair contract/conditions of carriage.
42 Mir : Very interesting indeed. The coordination between cockpit and cabin was certainly lacking in this scenario. Really? That means that virtually no airl
43 longhauler : That would appear the be the issue, as the problem was not "identified" until then, and even still it was speculation. A tail strike is a check list
44 JoeCanuck : I looked over the regs and here is what they say about having oxygen available for all passengers; Here are the oxygen requirements for all crew and
45 Antoniemey : Which, if one were suing a cruise ship, would be relatively easy to pinpoint time in port, since those beasties run regular schedules year round. A c
46 type-rated : She should just be happy that Ryanair didn't charge her five euros for the use of the oxygen mask. I think she was probably a fearful flyer before all
47 art : Why did the pilot not ensure that the cabin crew were alerted that the plane was about to be depressurised before doing so? I'm not a fearful flyer b
48 U2380 : I'm not at all familiar with the events of this flight, nor am I familiar with FR's SOP's. However, from day one of flight school we are told fly the
49 rfields5421 : 1) The checklist is very clear. Pilots are not to allow the plane to be pressurized after a tail strike. The pilots in this case climbed too high and
50 brindabella : You cover a few things here. First: if the pax had a serious breathing problem, she should have declared it to the airline, or not flown. I am sure t
51 RussianJet : There's always one...... FR has an excellent safety record. Potentially fatal emergencies have been handled superbly. Ok, this one certainly could ha
52 Post contains links lucce : Just in case anyone is interested, the FR cabin crew training material on decomprssions : http://www.dalmac.ie/zips/Precoursep...ownload11PCSP-Convers
53 nomadd22 : De-pressurization isn't as simple as altitude. Depending of where the leak is, you can get a Venturi effect that can reduce cabin pressure to well bel
54 longhauler : This is excellent advice. You have a problem ... is the aircraft flying? Yes. Now, fly the aircraft, get it out of danger, clear of traffic (and the
55 brilondon : I don't know where you are all getting the information from the article which had no mention that there was mass panic or that she was walking sideway
56 type-rated : There was a lot of detail about what occurred during the incident in the report that Crosswind linked to early in this thread. You had a flight attend
57 art : Excerpts from the official report: "2.1 Tailstrike event The initial event on this flight, the tailstrike with the runway, was not a serious event in
58 longhauler : I am going to say this again, then give up. Crew are not allowed to "remember" anything that is not a memory drill. Period. As someone who has done a
59 Mir : Exactly. And remember that they stopped the climb at FL120 - it's probable that they opened up the QRH prior to that but didn't diagnose the tailstri
60 falstaff : Not even close. Zurich is around 1400 feet above sea level. Geneva is around 1200 feet. I have visited a buddy of mine in Rhinefelden and it is only
61 Post contains images Aquila3 : Yes, but you better gain altitude pretty fast if you are heading south..
62 N1120A : The misunderstanding of the US legal system is astounding sometimes. Generally, they start pressurizing at 6,000 feet or so. 1) In most jurisdictions,
63 Mir : Actually, pressurization starts during the takeoff roll. If it didn't, everyone's ears would pop as a result of the very high initial climb rate. -Mi
64 brindabella : If you watch 737s/320s on T/O, you will note that vigorous rotation is the standard technique, as these types have plenty of ground-clearance. A 777/
65 Mir : And once they diagnosed the tail strike, they depressurized the aircraft. -Mir
66 art : Thanks for the info. Mistakenly I imagined that pressurisation started at an altitude of several thousand feet, so I retract my criticism that the cr
67 Post contains images CXB77L : No they cannot. And you're incorrect about passengers waiving their right to sue a cruise line. Yes, there are very strict limitation periods embedde
68 art : Sounds like the case is being transferred to the High Court. If that is what is happening, I wonder if the judge will rule that the plaintiff is allo
69 LIFFY1A : I don't know what you mean by 'vigorous rotation' but the -800 and -900 definitely do not have plenty of ground clearance. On which 737 are you refer
70 CXB77L : I would be inclined to agree with the lawyer for Ryanair here, that the plaintiff is not entitled to recover for psychiatric injury. She may be able
71 HAWK21M : Wonder how many cases percentagewise in the US are sue cases.
72 rfields5421 : The US has two court systems - the criminal courts and the civil courts. All cases in civil courts are technically lawsuits. Something like the IRS s
73 longhauler : This is a valid critique, and more of a "finesse" item than anything. But one would really have to be in the cockpit at the time to understand why th
74 rfields5421 : The investigation found Ryanair's SOP was insufficient for this instance, and Ryanair agreed. This happened over four years ago, and Ryanair has modi
75 type-rated : It's relevant due to the fact that it demonstrates that she is prone to such attacks. And since nobody else on the flight complained about psychologi
76 Post contains links airmacone : Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 40) Ok...hypoxia is a symptom of altitude sickness...but most of the other symptoms take time to occur and result from prolon
77 Post contains links airmacone : [quote=CXB77L,reply=67] Only if there is a physical manifestation of the psychological injury. The wording in the Montreal Convention only imposes lia
78 CXB77L : It seems to me that the article you linked only showed one case of such an event: Jack v TWA, which was a US case. UK cases after that date have requ
79 brilondon : That was not my opinion, it was a quote from the article which you would have known if you had read it.
80 CXB77L : I did read it. I made a mistake with the quote.
81 airmacone : Quoting CXB77L (Reply 78) It seems to me that the article you linked only showed one case of such an event: Jack v TWA, which was a US case. UK cases
82 CXB77L : It would still seem, nonetheless, that the view that passengers may recover for emotional trauma caused as a result of physical trauma is a minority
83 airmacone : Quoting CXB77L (Reply 82) I note what you say and the sources that you derive your opinion from. My own view of this came from the legal opinion of Di
84 Post contains links airmacone : What is or is not an accident under the Montreal Convention. See following link http://tinyurl.com/akymwak Cases interpreting the terms “accident,
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...
Passenger Sues BA Over Leg Room posted Thu Aug 5 2004 03:07:48 by Squirrel83
Passenger Sues Over Turbulent Flight - Continental posted Tue Oct 11 2011 11:20:38 by begemot
Ryanair Sues EU Over Olympic Air State Aid posted Sun Nov 25 2007 12:29:44 by LAXintl
Ryanair Sues France Over Work Law posted Wed Jan 3 2007 17:28:08 by BuyantUkhaa
University Pres Sues Delta Over Gun Incident posted Mon Jun 11 2012 09:09:28 by nkops
Tail Strike At MAN Today posted Sat Dec 31 2011 06:16:20 by robso2
Airbus Sues API Over Winglet Royalties posted Fri Dec 2 2011 16:17:44 by Aeroweanie
Family Sues TSA Over Screenings posted Fri Dec 3 2010 22:53:04 by cessna2
Jetblue A320 - Dual R/A Failure - Tail Strike posted Wed Oct 13 2010 08:54:10 by AVLNative
UAL B744 Tail Strike Sydney posted Sun May 23 2010 08:09:09 by UTAH744