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, 1232 posts, RR: 0
Posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 22610 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, 1847 posts, RR: 0
Reply 1, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 22600 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, 1232 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 22539 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, 2432 posts, RR: 3
Reply 3, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 22551 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 Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7695 posts, RR: 21
Reply 4, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 22468 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 onlinetravelavnut From Netherlands, joined May 2010, 1607 posts, RR: 7
Reply 5, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 19 hours ago) and read 22448 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, 6005 posts, RR: 14
Reply 6, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 22198 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 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 22033 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 onlineCrosswind From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2000, 2598 posts, RR: 58
Reply 8, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 22018 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, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 9, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 18 hours ago) and read 21958 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, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 10, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 21759 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, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 11, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 21685 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, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 12, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 17 hours ago) and read 21552 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 8 months 4 days 15 hours ago) and read 21180 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, 850 posts, RR: 0
Reply 14, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 19891 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, 11639 posts, RR: 60
Reply 15, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 19292 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, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 16, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 18913 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, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 17, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 17977 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, 17 posts, RR: 0
Reply 18, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 16927 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 8 months 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 16882 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 offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3394 posts, RR: 4
Reply 20, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 15667 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 offlinekanban From United States of America, joined Jan 2008, 3488 posts, RR: 27
Reply 21, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 7 hours ago) and read 15400 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, 6424 posts, RR: 54
Reply 22, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 6 hours ago) and read 15248 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, 1101 posts, RR: 4
Reply 23, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 14046 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, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (1 year 8 months 4 days ago) and read 12975 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
User currently offlineasctty From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2008, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 25, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 23 hours ago) and read 12749 times:

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.
So, my question is - what altitude doe you need oxygen at?
Anyway, this passenger in purely 'ambulance chasing' Ryanair and seeking publicity for her pocket!


User currently offline747-600X From United States of America, joined Jan 2000, 2789 posts, RR: 15
Reply 26, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 11698 times:

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 think there actually is an FL120.


"Mental health is reality at all cost." -- M. Scott Peck, 'The Road Less Traveled'
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 27, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 21 hours ago) and read 11737 times:

Quoting 747-600X (Reply 26):
Also, I don't think there actually is an FL120.

FLnnn is not used below 20,000ft, I seem to recollect. Anyone know why?


User currently offlinegreaser From Bahamas, joined Jan 2004, 1101 posts, RR: 4
Reply 28, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 20 hours ago) and read 11309 times:

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 24):
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 .

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 flagged ship gets into legal trouble. Unless the operator has personal minimum contacts with the US, obviously enforcing any judgment will be impossible (because there's nothing to collect in the US) without going to overseas assets, which American courts can't do. However, the issue can be raised during treaty negotiations by the state department, etc. A good example of an uneforced judgment was the Passenger lawsuit against the Libyan government after the Lockerbie bombing. Libya was held guilty, but nothing happened until Ghaddafi tried to normalize relations with the US, after which the US gov't tried to collect at least some of the damages as part of a friendship agreement.

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 24):
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.

No, the Sheriff can only seize a ship where he/she has jurisdiction. I'll give you a common scenario: Panamanian flagged vessel is sued in rem. The court issues a warrant for the ship, the sheriff then sends a crew (usually 5 or so) of officers to the ship, AS LONG AS the ship is in that jurisdiction's port. Think of it as a wanted poster, but for a ship. I've never heard of a situation where the ship's master has resisted the ship's arrest - that would certainly lead to his/her personal arrest. But the sheriff can only seize things that are in his/her jurisdiction - i.e. port. So if the Panamanian flagged-ship was not found at port in the jurisdiction (Say California), the ship can never return again to California unless the matter is solved.
Usually plaintiffs are very sneaky about this (for obvious reasons), and will prepare an in-rem suit, but won't act on it until they see the ship is in port, so as to ensure it can't run away in time.

These kinds of suits are regularly enforced against foreign carriers - Chinese and Russians too. They do the same thing to North American ships.



Now you're really flying
User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 29, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10773 times:

Quoting greaser (Reply 28):

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 airplane, of course) when it is moored at an US port?
So could the Sheriff board it with men in arms and arrest the master or the captain?



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 30, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10730 times:

Several lawsuits have been filed in the US over the Costa Condordia sinking. The suits are against a US corporation, Carnival Corp - as the corporation which owns Costa Cruise Lines.

Among the people trying to sue in US courts are hundreds of passengers and approx 1,000 Italian citizen businessmen on the Gigilo Island. The passenger suits of course deal with lost property, medical claims and trauma. The claims of the business owners are that their economic well being was damaged by the disaster, and restrictions on tourism this past summer.

The jurisdiction question has not been settled. The Florida state courts may refuse to hear the cases - deferring to the US federal lawsuits. The US courts could decide there is standing for the lawsuits to continue, defer to admiralty courts, or say the jurisdiction is in Italy.

No matter what - it will take years, and cost Carnival several million dollars for lawyers and such.


User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 31, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10687 times:

Quoting art (Reply 27):
FLnnn is not used below 20,000ft, I seem to recollect. Anyone know why?

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. Amount of overall traffic, amount of VFR and light aircraft traffic, terrain situation, airspace structures etc.



// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 32, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10667 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?
Quoting greaser (Reply 23):
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.

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 transporting you safely. The cruise ship scenario plays out in the Costa Concordia incident. The lawsuits filed are all in Italy where the ship grounded out and even though I believe that like most of the ships in the world, it was registered in Liberia.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 33, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10647 times:

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 29):
Only question , is there no extra-territorial issue oat all for a foreign ship (or airplane, of course) when it is moored at an US port?

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 where were supposedly owned by Iraq. They could be siezed and sold at auction to settle some of the judgements for Kuwait against Iraq for the 1991 war.

Estra territorial issues are only for military and diplomatic vessels/ aircraft.

[Edited 2012-12-22 06:48:01]

User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 34, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 19 hours ago) and read 10615 times:

Quoting Semaex (Reply 31):
Quoting art (Reply 27):
FLnnn is not used below 20,000ft, I seem to recollect. Anyone know why?

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. Amount of overall traffic, amount of VFR and light aircraft traffic, terrain situation, airspace structures etc.

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) 3,000ft in most places. However according to an article from Flightglobal from Jan'11 both nations are working on finding a common level. I don't know how far they are at this point in time.
So for this FR flight they were definitely on a Flight Level already.

Quoting asctty (Reply 25):
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.
So, my question is - what altitude doe you need oxygen at?
Anyway, this passenger in purely 'ambulance chasing' Ryanair and seeking publicity for her pocket!

The legislation is quite tricky and so your question isn't easy to answer. First of all we must destinguish between those aircraft that are able to cruie at more than 25,000ft and those that aren't. As the Q400 belongs to the former category, it has to have the same specs as any jet airliner, meaning, that passengers must be provided with supplemental oxygen for a certain duration of time depending on the altitude you are cruising at.
Or to put it in simpler words: your Dash8 should definitely have oxygen masks ready to use immediately. I'd be worried if it hadn't. The time of useful conciousness at FL250 isn't so small that all people abord were to die immediately after a rapid decompression (it's something like 10 minutes), but sick people, infants and old people would go numb rather fast.



// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offlineasctty From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2008, 117 posts, RR: 0
Reply 35, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 10410 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 22):
Quoting Semaex (Reply 34):
The legislation is quite tricky and so your question isn't easy to answer. First of all we must destinguish between those aircraft that are able to cruie at more than 25,000ft and those that aren't. As the Q400 belongs to the former category, it has to have the same specs as any jet airliner, meaning, that passengers must be provided with supplemental oxygen for a certain duration of time depending on the altitude you are cruising at.
Or to put it in simpler words: your Dash8 should definitely have oxygen masks ready to use immediately. I'd be worried if it hadn't. The time of useful conciousness at FL250 isn't so small that all people abord were to die immediately after a rapid decompression (it's something like 10 minutes), but sick people, infants and old people would go numb rather fast.

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 knots (111–166 km/h) higher than its competitors/predecessors. Powered by PW150A engines rated at 5,071 shp (3,781 kW) at maximum power (4,850 shp or 3,620 kW maximum continuous rated). The maximum operating altitude is 25,000 ft (7,600 m) for the standard version, although a version with drop-down oxygen masks is offered, which increases maximum operating altitude to 27,000 ft (8,200 m).

I didn't think they had masks hence the safety brief doesn't include them.


User currently offlinePlymSpotter From Spain, joined Jun 2004, 11639 posts, RR: 60
Reply 36, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 16 hours ago) and read 10241 times:

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 22):
   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.

Then they would be acclimatised to it - which is key. Many older people have ailments which make them struggle for breath when exercising, even relatively small changes in altitude produces similar affects.

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 22):
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.

It must have been higher then, the flight was a while back and the affects were definitely noticeable for the crew.


Dan  



...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 37, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10177 times:

Quoting Semaex (Reply 17):

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.

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 are required to have oxy available between 10k and 13k. Everybody is required to have oxy available above 13k. Pressurized aircraft do not require oxy for passengers if they can go from cruising altitude to 10k feet within 10 minutes.

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 20):
but if some joker keeps the cabin alitude at 10Kft+ for an extended duration... Well even healthy athletes can start being in serious trouble.

I've flown for hours in an unpressurised aircraft as PIC, while smoking, (ah...the good ole days...but nobody was around to tell on my anyway), without noticing any ill effects at all. That being said, hypoxia is insidious...most people don't notice the onset of hypoxia since one of the first symptoms is impaired judgement.

Helios 552 is proof of that.



What the...?
User currently offlineXT6Wagon From United States of America, joined Feb 2007, 3394 posts, RR: 4
Reply 38, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 10139 times:

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
I've flown for hours in an unpressurised aircraft as PIC, while smoking, (ah...the good ole days...but nobody was around to tell on my anyway), without noticing any ill effects at all. That being said, hypoxia is insidious...most people don't notice the onset of hypoxia since one of the first symptoms is impaired judgement.

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 amount of time to develop, but when it does its quite possible to result in death if the person doesn't get to a lower altitude or oxygen. My own experience is that you get confused, and suffer severe fatigue that only continues even if you stop moving. You never feel out of breath or low on 02. Mind I lived at 7,400ft and experienced it at just over 10K ft so even being used to alitude only helps, doesn't ensure you won't get it.


User currently offlineSemaex From Germany, joined Nov 2009, 823 posts, RR: 2
Reply 39, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10051 times:

Quoting asctty (Reply 35):
The maximum operating altitude is 25,000 ft (7,600 m) for the standard version, although a version with drop-down oxygen masks is offered, which increases maximum operating altitude to 27,000 ft (8,200 m).

Oh wow, I didn't know they had two different types just for the oxygen solution. Nice to know, thank you.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
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 are required to have oxy available between 10k and 13k. Everybody is required to have oxy available above 13k. Pressurized aircraft do not require oxy for passengers if they can go from cruising altitude to 10k feet within 10 minutes.

That is very close to EU-OPS too.



// You know you're an aviation enthusiast when you look at your neighbour's cars and think about fleet commonality.
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 40, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 14 hours ago) and read 10021 times:

Quoting XT6Wagon (Reply 38):
Altitude sickness is different than hypoxia.

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 oxygen and low air pressure. Loss of conciousness due to simple lack of oxygen, (hypoxia) can happen in seconds, and is the symptom of greatest concern while flying at altitude.

Up to 18,000ft, a simple nasal cannulus to supply breathing oxygen is all that's required and pressurized oxygen is necessary above that, for prolonged exposure.



What the...?
User currently offlinekellmark From United States of America, joined Dec 2000, 691 posts, RR: 8
Reply 41, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 13 hours ago) and read 9905 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 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. This is what applies. All passengers agree to this when they fly.

http://www.ryanair.com/en/terms-and-...ns#regulations-aircarrierliability

Note the references to the Montreal Convention of 1999 and EU regulations 2027/97 and 889/2002.

These are what govern the relationship between the passenger and the airline.

The issue here seems to be that of psychological injury. That is not something normally allowed under the Montreal Convention, which is what the EU utilizes. In the article, that is what Ryanair is contesting. She is claiming ongoing anxiety and a panic attack.

It will be interesting to see how it goes.


User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 42, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9876 times:

Quoting Crosswind (Reply 8):
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.

Very interesting indeed. The coordination between cockpit and cabin was certainly lacking in this scenario.

Quoting JoeCanuck (Reply 37):
Pressurized aircraft do not require oxy for passengers if they can go from cruising altitude to 10k feet within 10 minutes.

Really? That means that virtually no airliner would need passenger oxygen masks, as that's not that much more than a normal descent rate.

In the US, you need passenger oxygen if flying above 25,000 feet, no matter how long it takes you to get down to 10,000. And you're supposed to be able to descend from cruising altitude to 10,000 feet in four minutes.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4927 posts, RR: 43
Reply 43, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 9835 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 12):
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.

That would appear the be the issue, as the problem was not "identified" until then, and even still it was speculation.

Quoting art (Reply 16):
You would think that the flight crew would know that.

A tail strike is a check list procedure, not a memory drill, so until they were following the checklist, in theory it is not yet "known". I have seen many errors completing a checklist where the crew "knew" what was coming, out of order and incorrectly.

Quoting kcljj (Reply 18):
Firstly, both parties agree that there was a tail strike and subsequent investigation shows that the crew mishandled things.

"Mishandled" may be a bit harsh. They followed the checklist correctly, in the correct order following the chain of events. The only "finesse" item that could have been added, is to warn the Flight Attendants it was about to happen. But .. sometimes that luxury is not there, namely in a Rapid Depressurization. It would appear that if structural damage is suspected, then you depressurize the aircraft as quickly as you can. Sometimes getting a hold of the F/A's as they are starting their service is time consuming.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineJoeCanuck From Canada, joined Dec 2005, 5421 posts, RR: 30
Reply 44, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 11 hours ago) and read 9752 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 42):

Really? That means that virtually no airliner would need passenger oxygen masks, as that's not that much more than a normal descent rate.

I looked over the regs and here is what they say about having oxygen available for all passengers;

Quote:
(a) Entire period of flight at cabin-pressure-altitudes exceeding 13,000 feet ASL

(b) For aircraft operated in an air transport service under the conditions referred to in paragraph (a), a period of flight of not less than 10 minutes

Here are the oxygen requirements for all crew and 10% of passengers;

Quote:
(a) Entire period of flight exceeding 30 minutes at cabin-pressure-altitudes above 10,000 feet ASL but not exceeding 13,000 feet ASL

(b) Entire period of flight at cabin-pressure-altitudes above 13,000 feet ASL

(c) For aircraft operated in an air transport service under the conditions referred to in paragraph (a) or (b), a period of flight of not less than

(i) 30 minutes (Note 2), and

(ii) for flight crew members, two hours for aircraft the type certificate of which authorizes flight at altitudes exceeding FL 250 (Note 3)

Here are the referenced notes;

Quote:
NOTE 1:

In determining the available supply, the cabin pressure altitude descent profile for the routes concerned must be taken into account.

NOTE 2:

The minimum supply is that quantity of oxygen necessary for a constant rate of descent from the aircraft's maximum operating altitude authorized in the type certificate to 10,000 feet ASL in 10 minutes, followed by 20 minutes at 10,000 feet ASL.

NOTE 3:

The minimum supply is that quantity of oxygen necessary for a constant rate of descent from the aircraft's maximum operating altitude authorized in the type certificate to 10,000 feet ASL in 10 minutes, followed by 110 minutes at 10,000 feet ASL.



What the...?
User currently offlineAntoniemey From United States of America, joined Dec 2005, 1555 posts, RR: 4
Reply 45, posted (1 year 8 months 3 days 1 hour ago) and read 9438 times:

Quoting greaser (Reply 28):
Usually plaintiffs are very sneaky about this (for obvious reasons), and will prepare an in-rem suit, but won't act on it until they see the ship is in port, so as to ensure it can't run away in time.

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 charter vessel or aircraft would be a little harder, of course.



Make something Idiot-proof, and the Universe will make a more inept idiot.
User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4976 posts, RR: 19
Reply 46, posted (1 year 8 months 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 8936 times:

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 this happened. Then on takeoff she heard the bump and then saw the F/A banging on the flight deck door in a panicked state. Then not all the O2 masks dropped. Some people were banging on the access panels to get the masks released. All of this probably contributed to her having a full blown panic attack. And sometimes when people get in these states they aren't aware that in their panicked state they can hurt themselves, hence the twisted ankle, etc. She probably was screaming or walking sideways by the time she got off the jetway. She had already seen the money potential in all this.

But also a lot of times when something is going wrong with an aircraft, people can also just freeze.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 47, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8768 times:

Quoting type-rated (Reply 46):
I think she was probably a fearful flyer before all this happened. Then on takeoff she heard the bump and then saw the F/A banging on the flight deck door in a panicked state.Then not all the O2 masks dropped. Some people were banging on the access panels to get the masks released. All of this probably contributed to her having a full blown panic attack.

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 but I think I would be very alarmed if the inside of the cabin misted suddenly over. Had the PF or a flight attendant explained to the pax that it was necessary to depressurise, people would have been far less alarmed by what then ensued.


User currently offlineU2380 From United Kingdom, joined Dec 2010, 325 posts, RR: 0
Reply 48, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 23 hours ago) and read 8721 times:

Quoting art (Reply 47):
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 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 aircraft first and do not let anything distract you from that until your aircraft is stabilised and out of danger. Communicating with the cabin crew is of very little use as you fly into terrain on the climb out path. (I'm not saying that this was a risk here, just using it as an example.)

Clearly, it is essential to maintain good communication with the cabin crew (and ATC even more so), but in some situations it is essential to: Aviate. Navigate. Communicate.

As I say, I'm not familiar with the case in hand, I'm just giving a general overview from my perspective.



[Edited 2012-12-24 02:59:22]

User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 49, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 20 hours ago) and read 8576 times:

Quoting art (Reply 47):
Why did the pilot not ensure that the cabin crew were alerted that the plane was about to be depressurised before doing so?

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 allowed the plane to pressurize. The investigation found the pilots deficient in their troubleshooting of the problem. To be fair, this is not a memory item, but a checklist that has to be looked up after figuring out there was a tail strike.

2) The pilots apparently did not know that the oxygen masks do not automatically deploy if the aircraft cabin atmosphere is below 14,000 ft. (How many of you knew this before reading this thread? I didn't.) Depressurizing the plane at 12,000 ft of altitude made the cabin crew and some passengers aware that the plane had depressurized.

3) The pilots were putting on their oxygen equipment and did not hear calls from the cabin crew.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 48):
Aviate. Navigate. Communicate.

Yes, however, this was not a safety of flight situation at that point. When the pilots depressurized the aircraft, they had many options to communicate with the cabin crew, communicate with the passengers, request lower altitude immediately from ATC, etc.

This only became a Mayday situation when the captain learned that manually depressurizing the aircraft had subjected the passengers to a few minutes flight at 12,000 ft with no oxygen masks, and that three of the packs had failed to deploy when he manually deployed the masks.

Quoting U2380 (Reply 48):
nor am I familiar with FR's SOP's

The link on the investigation details above clearly shows that FR did not have proper training and SOPs in place FOUR YEARS AGO when this incident occurred.

It also shows that FR did consider the issue serious, and has modified flight and cabin crew training and SOP to address the issues this incident brought to light.


User currently offlinebrindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 50, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8475 times:

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 9):
Not for most people, but it can be an issue for people with breathing difficult or an infection which restricts oxygen flow.

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 that there is heaps of precedent which will protect the airline.

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.

Nah, not silly at all. I haven't flown a 737, but I would be confident that the procedure is the same as other types:
- don't pressurise;
- return.

In other words, climbing to FL120 was not a good idea. Whatever air regs you are operating under, it will definitely require O2 at FL120.

So she had to get a mask.

She didn't get one.

OOps.

Quoting kcljj (Reply 18):
In my opinion, this suit isn't as crazy as it seems.

Yep; however "Psychiatric injury" will take a power of getting-to, IMO;
But if she twisted her ankle?
I, for one, would give her some Vaseline & some money for the pain & suffering from the twisted extremity ...
(I suspect the money might well ease the pain better than the liniment. Especially where the ambulance-chasing lawyer is concerned.)

cheers Bill



Billy
User currently offlineRussianJet From Belgium, joined Jul 2007, 7695 posts, RR: 21
Reply 51, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8463 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting type-rated (Reply 46):
She should just be happy that Ryanair didn't charge her five euros for the use of the oxygen mask.

There's always one......

FR has an excellent safety record. Potentially fatal emergencies have been handled superbly. Ok, this one certainly could have been better, but other incidents could be excellent training examples for other airlines. Given the number of rotations they carry out they have an enviable history.



✈ Every strike of the hammer is a blow against the enemy. ✈
User currently offlinelucce From Finland, joined Jun 2011, 119 posts, RR: 0
Reply 52, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 18 hours ago) and read 8388 times:

Just in case anyone is interested, the FR cabin crew training material on decomprssions : http://www.dalmac.ie/zips/Precoursep...ownload11PCSP-ConversionTopic4.pdf

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 49):
2) The pilots apparently did not know that the oxygen masks do not automatically deploy if the aircraft cabin atmosphere is below 14,000 ft. (How many of you knew this before reading this thread? I didn't.) Depressurizing the plane at 12,000 ft of altitude made the cabin crew and some passengers aware that the plane had depressurized.

"The drop down oxygen masks operate in 3 ways which are detailed below.
• Automatically
If the cabin altitude should reach 14,000 feet, the masks will
automatically drop down. One mask per PSU must be pulled to
supply oxygen to all masks in that PSU."

Sidenote: why is their training material out there for everyone to see?


User currently offlinenomadd22 From United States of America, joined Feb 2008, 1847 posts, RR: 0
Reply 53, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 16 hours ago) and read 8303 times:

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 below outside pressure at any height.


Andy Goetsch
User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4927 posts, RR: 43
Reply 54, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 8208 times:

Quoting U2380 (Reply 48):
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 aircraft first and do not let anything distract you from that until your aircraft is stabilised and out of danger.

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 ground), then when everything is in control, and only when everything is in control, deal with the problem.

It does not take very long for a B737 to reach FL120, I am not at all surprised that they were that high by the time the checklist was addressed. Some aircraft have a "tail-strike" indicator in the cockpit, some do not. Apparently, this one does not. For something as vague as that, it does take some time to troubleshoot.

If it truly were a problem to pressurize the aircraft during the first few minutes of the flight (as it will automatically) after a tail-strike, then Boeing would have made it a memory drill. Clearly in the testing of the aircraft type, this normal chain of events would have been addressed, and expected.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 51):
FR has an excellent safety record.

They do, (touch wood), and considering their size it is very impressive. But I think for reasons not involving safety, people just assume they are not safe.

Quoting nomadd22 (Reply 53):
De-pressurization isn't as simple as altitude.

Depressurizing an aircraft while flying is a very complicated procedure. That is why the checklist MUST be followed. There are many sub-systems that must be deactivated or acknowledged first. And , it is not something one wants to do without all other concerns (like flying the aircraft), addressed first.

Quoting art (Reply 47):
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 but I think I would be very alarmed if the inside of the cabin misted suddenly over. Had the PF or a flight attendant explained to the pax that it was necessary to depressurise, people would have been far less alarmed by what then ensued.

Sometimes the luxury of time is not on their side.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 55, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 8118 times:

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 sideways or anything like that. I don't think some of you even read the article.

Directly from the article,

''She alleges that she twisted her ankle and had suffered from nausea as a result of being unable to breathe until her oxygen mask was released. She had suffered ongoing anxiety about flying and avoids flying as much as possible. On another flight, she had suffered a panic attack and required Valium and relaxation therapy.

Mr Peart told the court that under the Montreal Convention, which covers compensation for injuries on flights, a plaintiff could sue for psychological injury providing they could connect it with the injury suffered during the incident.''

The above statements were what was reported as fact, but I was not in the trial room when the evidence was presented so I don't know what the actual facts were or are.

She or her lawyer is claiming psychological damages, not for any physical damages.

I don't think that there is a valid argument here, but she will probably find some doctor to sign off on her mental state being affected by the incident.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4976 posts, RR: 19
Reply 56, posted (1 year 8 months 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 7915 times:

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 attendant who knew that they had a decompression and she couldn't get through to the cockpit on the first try, then she started banging on the cockpit door. Not all of the masks deployed and passengers were trying to get the undeployed masks to drop by banging on the PSU with their fists. It's all in there.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 57, posted (1 year 8 months 22 hours ago) and read 7715 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 54):
Quoting art (Reply 47):
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 but I think I would be very alarmed if the inside of the cabin misted suddenly over. Had the PF or a flight attendant explained to the pax that it was necessary to depressurise, people would have been far less alarmed by what then ensued.


Sometimes the luxury of time is not on their side.

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 itself. However, the chain of events following the tailstrike led to this occurrence becoming a Serious Incident where many of the passengers were anxious and upset."

"2.2 Subsequent Events
The Commander was correct in handing over control of the aircraft to the Co-Pilot after take-off. At this stage though, it would have been more appropriate to level off the aircraft at a safe altitude, identify fully the nature of the problem, and then complete any checklists as required. At a low altitude the aircraft would not have pressurised to any significant extent, therefore opening the outflow valve as required by the NNC would not have been problematic. In any event the aircraft continued to climb at a high rate.
As the Flight Crew levelled off at FL120, the aircraft was now pressurised. A few moments considering the consequences of actioning the checklist would have shown that the aircraft would be depressurised within seconds upon opening the outflow valve. The caution note in the NNC stating not to pressurise the aircraft, is primarily in case the fuselage has been damaged to such an extent that a sudden decompression may subsequently occur."

My take:

Had the crew remembered that a tailstrike = do not pressurise and had responded accordingly (limited altitude to avoid pressurisation), this would not have escalated as it did.

Having reached an altitude at which the cabin was pressurised, the situation would have been handled far better had the crew taken the time to inform the passengers that they needed to follow a procedure requiring decompression, had manually activated the cabin drop down oxygen mask system and had checked that all pax were wearing them before depressurising,

Whether pax are entitled to sue for "psychlogical damage" is a legal question. If so, whether the plaintiff's case has merit is a further question. My understanding is that the plaintiff has been affected to her detriment by her experience on the flight.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4927 posts, RR: 43
Reply 58, posted (1 year 8 months 17 hours ago) and read 7553 times:

Quoting art (Reply 57):
Had the crew remembered that a tailstrike = do not pressurise and had responded accordingly (limited altitude to avoid pressurisation), this would not have escalated as it did.

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 lot of training and testing, let me tell you, there is a reason for that. Memory drills are short, precise and dire in nature. Good example might be a Rapid Depressurization to an Emergency Descent. Things like a tail-strike are not dire in nature, and when a depressurization is involved a checklist MUST be followed. If someone tried to "remember" a depressurization checklist, it better be right and it better be in the right order.

I will also say again, that given the climb rate of a B737, the non-dire nature of the incident, and the need the fly the aircraft first ... it is not at all surprising that the aircraft was at FL120 when the QRH was opened. Yes, the aircraft was pressurized, probably about 2 or 3 psi, not much ... but I hate to tell you, if they stopped the climb at 5000', and addressed the checklist earlier, the aircraft would be pressurized!!! (It starts as soon as the mains leave the ground, and on some aircraft if starts with the take-off roll).

If you "remembered" not to pressurize the aircraft following a tail-strike, and simply shut off the packs, you'd be in for a world of hurt considering all the other subsystems that must be addressed to first.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 59, posted (1 year 8 months 17 hours ago) and read 7524 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 58):
I will also say again, that given the climb rate of a B737, the non-dire nature of the incident, and the need the fly the aircraft first ... it is not at all surprising that the aircraft was at FL120 when the QRH was opened.

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 tailstrike until somewhere around FL120 (remember the difficulty communicating with the FAs).

The crew's real failing was the lack of communication with the cabin crew prior to depressurizing the cabin. If I'm going to be depressurizing the cabin, I'm at least going to notify the cabin crew first so that they know what's going on, if not notify the passengers. That would have taken away the panic aspect of this incident.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinefalstaff From United States of America, joined Jun 2006, 6088 posts, RR: 29
Reply 60, posted (1 year 8 months 14 hours ago) and read 7407 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

Quoting prebennorholm (Reply 22):
That altitude is roughly equal to the deepest valley in Switzerland.

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 around 900 feet.



My mug slaketh over on Falstaff N503
User currently offlineAquila3 From Italy, joined Nov 2010, 259 posts, RR: 0
Reply 61, posted (1 year 8 months ago) and read 7142 times:

Quoting falstaff (Reply 60):
Not even close. Zurich is around 1400 feet above sea level.

Yes, but you better gain altitude pretty fast if you are heading south..  



chi vola vale chi vale vola chi non vola è un vile
User currently offlineN1120A From United States of America, joined Dec 2003, 26426 posts, RR: 75
Reply 62, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 22 hours ago) and read 7007 times:

The misunderstanding of the US legal system is astounding sometimes.

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

Generally, they start pressurizing at 6,000 feet or so.

Quoting YVRFlyer (Reply 19):
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?

1) In most jurisdictions, they could be sued for that. Its a form of retaliation for filing a lawsuit, or the potential to do the same.

2) As common carriers, airlines need a far better reason than that to deny boarding.

Quoting Aquila3 (Reply 24):
It remains to see if the US court decision can be effectively enforced on a foreign carrrier for a fact occoured otside the US .

There are all kinds of reasons a US court could exercise jurisdiction. If a judgment was obtained against a "foreign" carrier, the US court could order the seizure of any and all assets the carrier has in the US. This could be the impounding of an aircraft that was uninvolved.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 30):
The Florida state courts may refuse to hear the cases - deferring to the US federal lawsuits.

Well, no. They won't refuse. State courts are almost uniformly courts of general jurisdiction. The Defendant, however, could remove.

Quoting RussianJet (Reply 51):

When O'Leary proposes unsafe things like standing room aircraft and the like, there is little wonder this happens.



Mangeons les French fries, mais surtout pratiquons avec fierte le French kiss
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 63, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 6747 times:

Quoting N1120A (Reply 62):
Generally, they start pressurizing at 6,000 feet or so.

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.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlinebrindabella From Australia, joined Apr 2010, 137 posts, RR: 0
Reply 64, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 6684 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 54):
Some aircraft have a "tail-strike" indicator in the cockpit, some do not. Apparently, this one does not. For something as vague as that, it does take some time to troubleshoot.

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/A340-600 is an entirely different matter.

The degree of over-rotation necessary to bang the tail on a 73' is a very, very obvious event. In fact, I may have missed it ... did the tower say anything? They would usually notice immediately.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 58):
If someone tried to "remember" a depressurization checklist, it better be right and it better be in the right order.

I never suggested the crew "remember", let-alone "execute" a tail-strike drill from memory.
But they have to know that the a/c should not be pressurised normally in the event of a tail-strike.

That's part of their aircraft knowledge.

Otherwise you end-up at FL120, as this crew did; and it all got hard from there.
I've done lots of checking/training too.
cheers Bill



Billy
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21558 posts, RR: 55
Reply 65, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 6660 times:

Quoting brindabella (Reply 64):
But they have to know that the a/c should not be pressurised normally in the event of a tail-strike.

That's part of their aircraft knowledge.

And once they diagnosed the tail strike, they depressurized the aircraft.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 66, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 6560 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 58):
I will also say again, that given the climb rate of a B737, the non-dire nature of the incident, and the need the fly the aircraft first ... it is not at all surprising that the aircraft was at FL120 when the QRH was opened. Yes, the aircraft was pressurized, probably about 2 or 3 psi, not much ... but I hate to tell you, if they stopped the climb at 5000', and addressed the checklist earlier, the aircraft would be pressurized!!! (It starts as soon as the mains leave the ground, and on some aircraft if starts with the take-off roll).

Thanks for the info. Mistakenly I imagined that pressurisation started at an altitude of several thousand feet, so I retract my criticism that the crew should have avoided climbing above the altitude where pressurisation started. My criticism concerning depressurising the cabin without first informing the pax remains.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 67, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 1 day ago) and read 6510 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

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. And you're incorrect about passengers waiving their right to sue a cruise line. Yes, there are very strict limitation periods embedded in the contract, and there are limitations of liability, but there is, nonetheless, liability on the part of the cruise line should any injury occur that can be attributed to the cruise line or its employees. This is in addition to the choice of forum clause that greaser mentioned. The limitation of liability, however, is ridiculously low, especially in this day and age.

Also, pursuant to the Limitation of Liability Convention 1976, the limit to a ship owner's liability in the case of passenger injury or death is 46,666 SDRs multiplied by the number of passengers the ship is licensed to carry, but not exceeding 25,000,000 SDRs. Depending on the number of passengers claiming, you may not even get enough to cover your legal costs.

Quoting greaser (Reply 28):
No, the Sheriff can only seize a ship where he/she has jurisdiction. I'll give you a common scenario: Panamanian flagged vessel is sued in rem. The court issues a warrant for the ship, the sheriff then sends a crew (usually 5 or so) of officers to the ship, AS LONG AS the ship is in that jurisdiction's port. Think of it as a wanted poster, but for a ship.

  

I'll add to that and say that in some jurisdictions (Australia, at least), there is a provision for a surrogate ship to be arrested in the event that the ship sued does not enter Australian jurisdiction. Another ship owned by the same company can be arrested in its stead under surrogate ship provisions.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 55):
Mr Peart told the court that under the Montreal Convention, which covers compensation for injuries on flights, a plaintiff could sue for psychological injury providing they could connect it with the injury suffered during the incident.''

Only if there is a physical manifestation of the psychological injury. The wording in the Montreal Convention only imposes liability for bodily injury. A plaintiff cannot recover if the only injury suffered is mental.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineart From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2005, 3382 posts, RR: 1
Reply 68, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6455 times:

Quote:
:
He had asked for an adjournment to facilitate the provision of a psychologist's report to the court, and to allow further consideration of a transfer of the case to the High Court.

Peter Lennon, of Lennon Heather Solicitors for Ryanair, opposed the adjournment. He said it was admitted there was a tail strike incident, which had resulted in a severe jolt. He said Ms Hartshorn was not entitled to recover damages for psychiatric injury.

The hearing is likely to be re-listed for late January.

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 allowed to provide a psychologist's report to the court. Without that being allowed, I presume the plaintiff has no case.

Might it be that the lawyer is betting on Ryanair settling just to make the problem go away?


User currently offlineLIFFY1A From Ireland, joined Jan 2008, 120 posts, RR: 0
Reply 69, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 23 hours ago) and read 6458 times:

Quoting brindabella (Reply 64):
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.

I don't know what you mean by 'vigorous rotation' but the -800 and -900 definitely do not have plenty of ground clearance.

Quoting brindabella (Reply 64):
The degree of over-rotation necessary to bang the tail on a 73' is a very, very obvious event. In fact, I may have missed it

On which 737 are you referring to? Might be obvious on a -500 but not so obvious on a -900.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 70, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6423 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting art (Reply 68):
I wonder if the judge will rule that the plaintiff is allowed to provide a psychologist's report to the court.

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 to recover damages for her physical injuries such as her twisted ankle and nausea, provided that it is the result of an "accident" and can be attributed to the airline and not through any negligence on her part. How she twisted her ankle would be quite relevant.

I don't believe that she will be able to recover for her anxiety and panic attacks. The psychologist's report is, in my opinion, irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.

Quoting art (Reply 68):
Might it be that the lawyer is betting on Ryanair settling just to make the problem go away?

I don't think so. If Ryanair intends to settle, it is unlikely that they would oppose the adjournment. The adjournment would've given them the time and the opportunity to settle. Besides, I doubt the lawyer would be making any "bets" as to their client's intentions.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineHAWK21M From India, joined Jan 2001, 31679 posts, RR: 56
Reply 71, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 22 hours ago) and read 6374 times:

Wonder how many cases percentagewise in the US are sue cases.


Think of the brighter side!
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 72, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6277 times:

Quoting HAWK21M (Reply 71):
Wonder how many cases percentagewise in the US are sue cases.

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 seizing property due to non-payment of taxes, a home foreclosure, etc - are all technically sue cases.

However, to answer what I think is your question - the unconfirmable number I've heard is that about 75% of cases in US civil courts are businesses suing other businesses. The four times I was called to serve as a juror in Dallas County, all were businesses suing other businesses.

Individual lawsuits against other individuals or companies make up the rest of the cases.

Personal injury lawsuits are mostly from auto accidents. Cases like this woman's make up a very tiny percentage of lawsuits in the US - though they grab the biggest headlines.


User currently offlinelonghauler From Canada, joined Mar 2004, 4927 posts, RR: 43
Reply 73, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 19 hours ago) and read 6253 times:

Quoting art (Reply 66):
My criticism concerning depressurising the cabin without first informing the pax remains.

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 this was not done. There could have been a sense of "urgency", or maybe even distraction. One would have to review the CVR transcripts to see why that decision was made, or even if it were considered.

I would never second guess another airline's SOPs, especially one that has as good a safety record as Ryanair, but ... they are a relatively young company, and with age better ways of doing things develop.

There are two SOPs at the airline for which I fly that might have made this incident work a little smoother:

1) Flight attendants are trained to recognize a tail-strike, and are expected to contact the cockpit if they suspect that has occurred. That might have aided in the troubleshooting.

2) We have a cockpit to cabin announcement, that is somewhat coded that would indicate to the Flight Attendants that a pressurization problem may be imminent. If we have advance warning, (often we do not) this announcement is made. It would not have alleviated any passenger panic, but the F/A's would not have been as startled.



Never gonna grow up, never gonna slow down .... Barefoot Blue Jean Night
User currently offlinerfields5421 From United States of America, joined Jul 2007, 7607 posts, RR: 32
Reply 74, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 18 hours ago) and read 6238 times:

Quoting longhauler (Reply 73):
I would never second guess another airline's SOPs,

The investigation found Ryanair's SOP was insufficient for this instance, and Ryanair agreed.

This happened over four years ago, and Ryanair has modified their SOP to ensure prompt communication from the Cabin Crew if they suspect a tail strike, prior communicaiton from the Flight Crew to the Cabin Crew if a non-emergency decompression is necessary as in this case, and a specific requirement for pilots to verify the pax oxygen masks do deploy if the aircraft is depressurized.

Quoting longhauler (Reply 73):
But one would really have to be in the cockpit at the time to understand why this was not done.

The investigation noted that the pilots had not considered the impact upon the passengers - they just saw the item on the checklist and made the setting change which depressurized the aircraft.

When the impact upon the passengers was finally communicated to the cockpit - the Captain turned over flying the aircraft to the FO, and worked immediately on getting the passenger masks down and getting the aircraft to a lower altitude.


User currently offlinetype-rated From United States of America, joined Sep 1999, 4976 posts, RR: 19
Reply 75, posted (1 year 7 months 4 weeks 11 hours ago) and read 6036 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 70):
I don't believe that she will be able to recover for her anxiety and panic attacks. The psychologist's report is, in my opinion, irrelevant and therefore inadmissible.

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 psychological issues after the fact, this can be used to prove her panic was self generated due to her psychological problems. She may just be a person who panics at the drop of a hat. It may even go as far as throwing the case out of court.



Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
User currently offlineairmacone From Australia, joined Dec 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 76, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 5361 times:

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 prolonged exposure to lack of oxygen and low air pressure. Loss of conciousness due to simple lack of oxygen, (hypoxia) can happen in seconds, and is the symptom of greatest concern while flying at altitude.

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 49)

This only became a Mayday situation when the captain learned that manually depressurizing the aircraft had subjected the passengers to a few minutes flight at 12,000 ft with no oxygen masks, and that three of the packs had failed to deploy when he manually deployed the masks.

In this excerpt from the official report a member of the cabin crew confirms the onset of Hypoxia.

1.4.4 Cabin Service Supervisor (CSS)

‘I ran to the front, I needed to inform the Captain that we were having a rapid decompression. When I reach the front of the cabin I saw No. 4 trying to drop masks from our jumpseat, it didn’t work. She was feeling very weak, she needed oxygen.’

Because the flight took place on the anniversary of 9/11 there was widespread media coverage wherein Ryanair denied the oxygen masks failed to deploy? Here is one example from the Belfast Telegraph http://tinyurl.com/b7fzbra

The following is a link to an RTE News interview with a passenger on the flight

http://www.rte.ie/news/news1pm/player.html?tab1

Just press on search/archive then scroll back to 11.09.2008 and then click on the Ryanair article to hear the interview.


User currently offlineairmacone From Australia, joined Dec 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 77, posted (1 year 7 months 3 weeks 12 hours ago) and read 5042 times:

[quote=CXB77L,reply=67]

Only if there is a physical manifestation of the psychological injury. The wording in the Montreal Convention only imposes liability for bodily injury. A plaintiff cannot recover if the only injury suffered is mental.

There is case law which favours recovery for psychological injuries provided such injuries are caused by the physical injuries sustained.

See legal opinion of Dillion Eustace Attorneys at Law on following link

http://www.dilloneustace.ie/download...%20the%20Montreal%20Convention.pdf


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 78, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 21 hours ago) and read 4865 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting airmacone (Reply 77):
There is case law which favours recovery for psychological injuries provided such injuries are caused by the physical injuries sustained.

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 required some sort of a physical manifestation of an injury before the plaintiff could recover. Here are some quotes from the article:

Quote:
Lord Hope in that case said “A peptic ulcer disorder involves the tissues of the body, and it is
not difficult to see that it is a kind of bodily injury…while there is no general right to recover
damages under Article 17 for mental injury sustained by a passenger, damages for the
physical manifestations of a mental injury will be recoverable.”

On this basis, the Plaintiff could recover but only in respect of the peptic ulcer as it was a
physical injury caused by psychological trauma.
Quote:
The majority view in the King case (supra) was that recovery was possible under the
Warsaw Convention if evidence was produced of injury to the brain. Lord Mackay said “I
would apply the simple test, does the evidence demonstrate injury to the body, including in
that expression the brain, the central nervous system and all the other components of the
body?”

It would appear to me that the law still requires a physical manifestation of a mental injury which in turn must be directly attributed to the "accident" before the plaintiff can recover. The big question is whether her "anxiety" and "panic attack" for which she is claiming can be evidenced by a bodily injury.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlinebrilondon From Canada, joined Aug 2005, 4204 posts, RR: 1
Reply 79, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 20 hours ago) and read 4817 times:

Quoting CXB77L (Reply 67):

Quoting brilondon (Reply 55):
Mr Peart told the court that under the Montreal Convention, which covers compensation for injuries on flights, a plaintiff could sue for psychological injury providing they could connect it with the injury suffered during the incident.''

Only if there is a physical manifestation of the psychological injury. The wording in the Montreal Convention only imposes liability for bodily injury. A plaintiff cannot recover if the only injury suffered is mental.

That was not my opinion, it was a quote from the article which you would have known if you had read it.



Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 80, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 19 hours ago) and read 4789 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting brilondon (Reply 79):
That was not my opinion, it was a quote from the article which you would have known if you had read it.

I did read it. I made a mistake with the quote.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineairmacone From Australia, joined Dec 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 81, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 12 hours ago) and read 4599 times:

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 after that date have required some sort of a physical manifestation of an injury before the plaintiff could recover. Here are some quotes from the article:

It would appear to me that the law still requires a physical manifestation of a mental injury which in turn must be directly attributed to the "accident" before the plaintiff can recover. The big question is whether her "anxiety" and "panic attack" for which she is claiming can be evidenced by a bodily injury.

See the following opinion


RUMBERGER KIRK & CALDWELL
United States: Emotional Harm Damages For Personal Injury Claims Under The Montreal Convention
20 February 2012
Article by Marty Fulgueira Elfenbein

In Floyd, the United States Supreme Court left a critical question unanswered – if a passenger sustains a bodily injury, can they recover damages for emotional harm? Federal courts across the United States have considered this issue. In the often-cited opinion of Jack v. TWA, 854 F. Supp. 654 (N.D. Cal. 1994), a district court in California held that a plaintiff may only recover damages for emotional harm under the Warsaw Convention if caused by bodily injury. In reaching this conclusion, the district court rejected an approach that would allow a party to recover for emotional harm as long as the party sustained a bodily injury because this approach would lead to great inequities among passengers. Using such an approach, if one passenger was scratched on the way down the evacuation slide, that passenger would be entitled to damages for emotional harm; yet, the passenger who suffered the same traumatic crash landing but did not sustain a scratch would recover nothing under the Convention. For this reason, the court required a causal connection between the bodily injury and the emotional harm. This latter approach would lead to recoveries that are more predictable and reasonable.

Several courts interpreting the Warsaw Convention and the current Montreal Convention have since followed the analysis and rationale of Jack v. TWA in requiring a causal connection between the emotional harm and the physical injury. Only one published decision has taken an opposite view - In re Aircrash Disaster Near Roselawn, Indiana on Oct. 13, 1994, 954 F. Supp. 175 (N.D. Ill. 1997). In this decision, the district court held that passengers who sustained a physical injury during the accident could recover for pre-impact terror regardless of whether the emotional injury was causally related to the bodily injury. This decision remains the minority view and has been criticized by several courts.

From a practical standpoint, the requirement of a causal connection means that a passenger must demonstrate that the emotional harm he or she sustained was caused by the physical injury. For example, a passenger who breaks a leg will experience pain caused by this injury. There is no doubt that the Montreal Convention allows a recovery for these damages as they are directly linked to the physical injury.


User currently offlineCXB77L From Australia, joined Feb 2009, 2604 posts, RR: 5
Reply 82, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 6 days 2 hours ago) and read 4462 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW
CHAT OPERATOR

Quoting airmacone (Reply 81):
See the following opinion

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 one. I have yet to find one UK or Irish case which have followed Jack v TWA. While I agree that this approach would lead to more "reasonable" recoveries, I disagree that it was within the ambit of the Convention which specifically states "bodily" injury, meaning to exclude mental trauma.

The example cited in the article about the passenger who suffered he same traumatic crash landing as another but could not recover because this passenger did not receive a scratch may be a harsh result, but it is nonetheless the law. In Olympic Airways v Hussain, Justice Scalia in his dissenting judgment noted that:

Quote:
A legal construction is not fallacious merely because it has harsh results. The Convention denies a remedy, even when outrageous conduct and grievous injury have occurred, unless there has been an ‘accident’. Whatever that term means, it certainly does not equate to ‘outrageous conduct that causes grievous injury’. It is a mistake to assume the Convention must provide relief whenever traditional tort law would do so ... Unless there has been an accident there is no liability, whether the claim is trivial or cries out for redress.

Now, in this case, whether or not this is an 'accident' is not in question, but I think substituting 'accident' with 'bodily injury' wouldn't make this any less true:

"The Convention denies a remedy, even when outrageous conduct resulting in injury have occurred, unless that injury is bodily in nature .... Unless the plaintiff has suffered a bodily injury, there is no liability, whether the claim is trivial or cries out for redress."

I agree with the UK courts quoted in the previous article you linked to, in which they stated that damages for mental injury is only recoverable under the Convention if there is a physical manifestation of that injury.

I'll retract what I said in an earlier reply about the psychologist's report not being relevant to this case. It absolutely is relevant to determining whether she can recover, and that will depend on whether there is enough evidence to suggest that there has been a physical manifestation of her "anxiety" and "panic attack" for which she is claiming. I think this is the prevailing view in UK and Irish courts, despite Jack v TWA.



Boeing 777 fanboy
User currently offlineairmacone From Australia, joined Dec 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 83, posted (1 year 7 months 2 weeks 3 days 17 hours ago) and read 4048 times:

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 Dillon Eustace that sets out some of the salient points which govern this area of law with particular emphasis on the law in Ireland, wherein they state that “The generally accepted view would be that damages are recoverable if a claimant can prove that his psychological injuries were caused by his physical injuries”.

In addition I took note of a newspaper report in which a Dublin based Barrister Mr. James Peart told the court hearing this matter that under the Montreal Convention, which covers compensation for injuries on flights, a plaintiff could sue for psychological injury providing that they could connect it with the injury suffered during the incident.

This impressed me simply because both Mr. Peart and Dillon Eustace are highly respected members of the Irish legal profession. I also took the view that a man of the eminence of Mr. Peart, who would be very familiar with Irish law as it relates to these matters, would not be saying this in court, and would not be seeking to move this case to the High Court unless it was legally safe to do so.


User currently offlineairmacone From Australia, joined Dec 2012, 5 posts, RR: 0
Reply 84, posted (1 year 7 months 6 days 14 hours ago) and read 3603 times:

What is or is not an accident under the Montreal Convention. See following link

http://tinyurl.com/akymwak

Cases interpreting the terms “accident,” “agent,” “embarking” and “disembarking” under the Warsaw Convention are largely applicable to Montreal Convention cases. Because the case law interprets these terms broadly, most unexpected injury-causing events external to the passenger are considered an accident within the meaning of the convention. As a result the following incidents have been classified as accidents compensable under the convention: significant turbulence, falling baggage, malfunctioning seats, injuries on shuttle buses transporting passengers to aircraft, assault by an airline agent, slippery air stair steps, runaway beverage carts, lavatory doors, contaminated meal service, and improper wheelchair transfers. Some events that are not considered accidents under the Montreal Convention are deep vein thrombosis, heart attacks and intoxicated-passenger injuries.


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