G500
Topic Author
Posts: 1269
Joined: Tue Oct 18, 2011 11:45 pm

SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:04 am

In a situation like this, do all of the following need to lawyer-up?

Asiana
Boeing
Pratt & Witney
SFO airport authority



Or do the passengers normally go only after the airline?
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10651
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:42 am

Most likely just Asiana, but SFO could also be a target if infrastructure design deficiencies are proven to be a contributing factor.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
DFWHeavy
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:35 pm

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:18 pm

All judges should order that P&W and Boeing cannot be sued in this situation. They were in no way at fault. This was pilot error and the lawsuits should be focused on Asiana (and maybe SFO as mentioned above).
Christopher W Slovacek
 
brilondon
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:20 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 1):
Most likely just Asiana, but SFO could also be a target if infrastructure design deficiencies are proven to be a contributing factor

They are definatly culpable as the runway apparently did not have all it's available guidance systems available and the rookie pilot that had a total of 44 hours on this aircraft and never landed at SFO had to do a VFR landing. Not mitigating any liability to the pilots, as it was their poor training and flying that caused the incident but by not giving the pilots all the assistance that should have been available the airport is also a contributing factor. If there is not a huge lawsuit here I would be surprised and that both Asiana and SFO are named as well as the FAA who oversees the aviation system. Boeing should be commended for their design of the aircraft and PW should not be included if their engine is not a factor and by all reports it wasn't.

[Edited 2013-07-08 05:23:01]
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
User avatar
scbriml
Posts: 18534
Joined: Wed Jul 02, 2003 10:37 pm

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:21 pm

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 2):
All judges should order that P&W and Boeing cannot be sued in this situation. They were in no way at fault.

I didn't realise the final report was out already. Do you have a link to it?
Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana!
There are 10 types of people in the World - those that understand binary and those that don't.
 
DFWHeavy
Posts: 518
Joined: Thu Jul 21, 2011 5:35 pm

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:25 pm

It's very obvious that Boeing and P&W are not to blame.. However, if that changes in the final report, then I'd change my statement. My frustration is that this sue happy culture will sue everyone remotely involved, even when they have nothing to do with the incident at hand. It is wrong and immoral to do so.
Christopher W Slovacek
 
oly720man
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:32 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 3):
They are definatly culpable as the runway apparently did not have all it's available guidance systems available

If that was the case and it was unsafe the runway would have been closed wouldn't it? Every other aircraft ahead of OZ214 landed perfectly safely with the same lack of guidance systems and presumably the same advance notice of the lack of guidance systems so I can't see why SFO should carry the can if they were operating legally.
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
wingnutmn
Posts: 522
Joined: Thu Jan 08, 2004 10:27 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:42 pm

Saying SFO is at fault because they did not have a glide slope for the pilots to follow is pure assignine! If you as a pilot can't land a plane in DAY VFR, you have ABSOLUELY no place sitting in a cockpit. IF this is truly pilot error (a better description would be imcompitence) then these two fools up front just damaged the reputation of every airline pilot in the publics eye.

Wingnut
Any landing you can walk away from is a good landing! It's a bonus if you can fly the plane again!!
 
brilondon
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 12:45 pm

Quoting oly720man (Reply 6):

Quoting brilondon (Reply 3):
They are definatly culpable as the runway apparently did not have all it's available guidance systems available

If that was the case and it was unsafe the runway would have been closed wouldn't it? Every other aircraft ahead of OZ214 landed perfectly safely with the same lack of guidance systems and presumably the same advance notice of the lack of guidance systems so I can't see why SFO should carry the can if they were operating legally.

Maybe it should have been or at least the aircraft been given the option of using another runway.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
oly720man
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:01 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 8):
Maybe it should have been or at least the aircraft been given the option of using another runway.


Why? It was safe, as the very many aircraft that landed earlier in the day demonstrated. When you learn to fly you have no ground based instruments telling you where you should be, it's all done visually, and you get a feel for what landing looks like. If you can't maintain that on a more advanced aircraft then something's gone wrong somewhere.
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6065
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:12 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 8):
Maybe it should have been or at least the aircraft been given the option of using another runway.

The aircraft crew never ask for a different runway.

They also had the option to choose to divert to a different airport if they felt the runway/ approach was too difficult.

Even though very low time in the B777, and his first landing at SFO in the B777, the pilot flying did have extensive experience landing at SFO in B747 aircraft.

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):

In a situation like this, do all of the following need to lawyer-up?

Asiana
Boeing
Pratt & Witney
SFO airport authority

All of the above and Honeywell, the manufacturers of the seats, the bins, the cabin interior components.

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
Or do the passengers normally go only after the airline?

Lawsuits are filed in a 'shotgun' manner.

Any company who every had any involvement in the aircraft design, building components and operating the aircraft will be sued.

The lawyers will let the courts decide which company bears the most reponsibility. The news stories will hilight the suits againt the airline - but the actually lawsuit will be against several companies.

In the general aviation market - small companies who make instruments and components usually do not survive a couple crashes. Not because they are at fault, but the cost of defending themselves through the discover stages of a lawsuit are more than the company can afford, forcing them into bankruptcy.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
Bongodog1964
Posts: 3542
Joined: Wed Oct 18, 2006 6:29 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:17 pm

Unfotunately anyone with even the smallest involvement will need to "lawyer-up" The sharks will be circling having smelt blood. Its worth their while as any settlements are likely to be so large that their cut makes speculative writ issuing against manufacturers of the airframe, engines, instruments etc, plus airport operators, airline and anyone else a good bet. It just takes a court to find in their favour and its hello easy street. We know that its mostly unworthy claims but thats the way it is.
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10651
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:21 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 3):
They are definatly culpable as the runway apparently did not have all it's available guidance systems available and the rookie pilot that had a total of 44 hours on this aircraft and never landed at SFO had to do a VFR landing.

For me that would not be the reason, as the decision to land lay with the pilots. But if the deficient runway undershoot area contributed to the crash (personally I can't see how it didn't) then I can see SFO and the FAA having a case to answer.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
User avatar
n229nw
Posts: 2031
Joined: Sat Sep 04, 2004 4:19 pm

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:28 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 10):
Lawsuits are filed in a 'shotgun' manner.
Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 10):
In the general aviation market - small companies who make instruments and components usually do not survive a couple crashes.
Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 11):
Unfotunately anyone with even the smallest involvement will need to "lawyer-up" The sharks will be circling having smelt blood.

That just makes me sick.
All Glory to the Hypnotoad!
 
catiii
Posts: 3313
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:58 pm

Quoting g500 (Thread starter):
In a situation like this, do all of the following need to lawyer-up?

Asiana
Boeing
Pratt & Witney
SFO airport authority



Or do the passengers normally go only after the airline?

Since they all have counsel both in house and on retainer, none of them need to "lawyer up."
 
1400mph
Posts: 1051
Joined: Wed Jan 16, 2013 11:29 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 1:58 pm

I still don't understand this. None of it makes any sense. This isn't some tin-pot airline we're talking about.

I have not read the entire thread but is the general consensus that the pilots were simply not up to the task of manually landing the aircraft ?

There must have been someone up there that knew what they were doing ?

Surely they would have just taken over the SPLIT SECOND the aircraft was out of position / at the wrong speed ?

[Edited 2013-07-08 07:00:37]
 
FrequentFlyKid
Posts: 1097
Joined: Thu Nov 22, 2001 5:04 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:12 pm

Saying that landing on 28L at SFO with the glideslope not functional (remember, the localizer was functional) is like saying all landings on 31 at LGA or 27 at SAN are inherently unsafe and if there is an accident the airport should be sued. Sorry for the cliche, but at the end of the day, if this turns out to be pilot error then Asiana will have to answer to that and not the airport, the manufacturer, etc. This is all very preliminary, but most indications point to a decay in the airspeed, followed by a stall warning and late attempt to go around. It seems as if, for whatever reason, the speed got away from the pilots and corrective action was initiated too late. We shall see...
 
0newair0
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:21 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:14 pm

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 15):
I have not read the entire thread but is the general consensus that the pilots were simply not up to the task of manually landing the aircraft ?

Yes, that's the consensus. The captain was flying. He was previously a 747 FO and had been with the airline for many years. He only had ~40 some odd hours in the 777 though and this was his first time landing (well, trying to land) the 777 at SFO. Of the 4 pilots in the cockpit, it appears that none of them realized something was wrong (too low, too slow) until 2 or 3 seconds before impact.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 15):
There must have been someone up there that knew what they were doing ?

Apparently they were busy looking at something other than their airspeed and the PAPI lights.

Quoting 1400mph (Reply 15):
Surely they would have just taken over the SPLIT SECOND the aircraft was out of position / at the wrong speed ?

It did just take a split second to see that the aircraft was out of position and too slow. Unfortunately, that judgement was several seconds too late.

[Edited 2013-07-08 07:35:29]
That's not how this works! That's not how any of this works!
 
AA94
Posts: 723
Joined: Fri Aug 19, 2011 1:37 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:16 pm

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 2):
All judges should order that P&W and Boeing cannot be sued in this situation. They were in no way at fault. This was pilot error and the lawsuits should be focused on Asiana (and maybe SFO as mentioned above).

Oh good! So you have a copy of the NTSB's final report, correct?
 
GentFromAlaska
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:21 pm

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:18 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 1):
but SFO could also be a target if infrastructure design deficiencies are proven to be a contributing factor.

I can't help put think about the tens of thousands uneventful landings at SFO. Even with the problematic sea layer of fog.

Both SFO and OAK have maritime Nav-Aids anchored on concrete anchors embedded in the sea floor. The only fault I could foresee would be the if the lights were not working or burned out or hindered by an obstruction. This brings up another question of who is responsible for maintaining the navigation warning lights;the airport or the FAA

The area nearest the seawall should be colored either red (warning) or off-red commonly referred to as international orange which is the same color as the Golden Gate bridge.
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
 
0newair0
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:21 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:23 pm

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 19):
The only fault I could foresee would be the if the lights were not working or burned out or hindered by an obstruction.

I think it's already been confirmed that the lights were working propertly. The only thing that was not working was the glideslope for the ILS. Asiana could have put in an RNAV approach and that would have given them a glideslope to follow. I don't see any way SFO could share, reasonable, blame for the accident
That's not how this works! That's not how any of this works!
 
User avatar
garpd
Posts: 2513
Joined: Thu Aug 11, 2005 9:29 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:25 pm

Boeing will already be getting funds ready for several lawsuits. Their legal team would have started the paperwork the second news of the accident came out.

The aircraft manufacturer is almost always sued and almost always looses. They apparently have slush funds for this.
Even in the event the aircraft is destroyed by a bomb or such, a lawyer will always argue the manufacturer could have constructed the aircraft better, more resilient, etc.

The airline will be expecting payouts too and would be foolish not to start the ball rolling on making sure the money is there for it and the legal team warmed up.
arpdesign.wordpress.com
 
flymia
Posts: 7122
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:36 pm

They all already have lawyers. Of course as of now the way it looks Asiana will be the one who gets sued the most. They will likely settle with many. I can see SFO involved and SFO and SF Fire Dept with the one girl who may have been killed by being run over.

Here is something to keep in mind. This was an international flight. The Montreal Convention applies, unless South Korea is not a signatory. I am not sure. So getting millions for emotional distress and items such as that may not be on the table. The Montreal Convention does not allow claims for emotional distress. Just actual damages, so I assume everyone lost property, that will be reimbursed and anyone with physical injuries will also be reimbursed. However, people asking for emotional damages I think are out of luck. I believe this is the case. It is complicated though, especially with the issues of suing in state court. It gets complicated but my gut feeling is that Asiana won't be paying out millions to every passenger. Only the most seriously injured will be getting the money, which of course they most certainly deserve.

Just my two cents. I maybe be interpreting this incorrectly though.
Either way I think the airline may settle fairly large amounts either way to avoid the high cost of litigation in the U.S. So it would not surprise me if someone who was not injured get $100,000 or so. That's what insurance is for anyway.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
 
0newair0
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:21 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:41 pm

Quoting flymia (Reply 22):

Your right about the Montreal Convention. But, something else to keep in mind, if it can be proven that Asiana flight did not conform to ICAO standards, the Montreal Convention will not apply and then it will be a freeforall.
That's not how this works! That's not how any of this works!
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10651
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 2:47 pm

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 19):
I can't help put think about the tens of thousands uneventful landings at SFO. Even with the problematic sea layer of fog.

Both SFO and OAK have maritime Nav-Aids anchored on concrete anchors embedded in the sea floor. The only fault I could foresee would be the if the lights were not working or burned out or hindered by an obstruction. This brings up another question of who is responsible for maintaining the navigation warning lights;the airport or the FAA

It is the undershoot area (shorter than ICAO recommendations) which will come under scrutiny, not the lighting pontoons. There are many valid comparisons to the BA crash landing at LHR, which resulted in few to no life changing injuries. I can see it being arguable/demonstrable that, if a fully compliant undershoot RESA were provided, the tail would not have impacted the sea wall, would not have separated at all or as it did, and the subsequent accident would have unfolded differently with less severity.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
oly720man
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:17 pm

Quoting PlymSpotter (Reply 24):
I can see it being arguable/demonstrable that, if a fully compliant undershoot RESA were provided, the tail would not have impacted the sea wall,

It may also be arguable/demonstrable that in CAVOK, the plane shouldn't have landed short in the first place. My amateur understanding is that undershoot areas are more aimed at bad weather conditions where there is the risk of getting the approach wrong, not a safety net for all circumstances.

There has to be some common sense somewhere. On another day with a 5kts or 10 kts tailwind the aircraft would have made it. Legal nit picking over a runway that's fully legal and has operated completely safely but is not quite right seems to be losing sight of the bigger picture. The pilots have a length of ground to land on and, all things being equal, they should be able to land on that ground.

And even if the touchdown point was moved 250m further away from the runway end, to give a longer touchdown undershoot safety zone, there's still no guarantee that an aircraft won't undershoot with a similar outcome. It would have been safer (possibly) if the sea wall, a 13ft step, was replaced by a gradual slope so bits of the plane weren't snapped off, but that brings other issues; the risk of sea water getting on the runway if it can get blown up the slope, perhaps, or a reduction in flat ground as the overshoot area for aircraft landing in the other direction.
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
Norcal773
Posts: 1059
Joined: Sat Feb 10, 2007 8:19 pm

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:20 pm

Quoting DFWHeavy (Reply 5):
My frustration is that this sue happy culture will sue everyone remotely involved, even when they have nothing to do with the incident at hand. It is wrong and immoral to do so.

It's the America we live in. What a shame really, makes me sick!
If you're going through hell, keep going
 
PlymSpotter
Posts: 10651
Joined: Thu Jun 17, 2004 7:32 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:41 pm

Quoting oly720man (Reply 25):
My amateur understanding is that undershoot areas are more aimed at bad weather conditions where there is the risk of getting the approach wrong, not a safety net for all circumstances.

They are based on the statistical likelihood of an event happening. The point of runway strips and RESAs is to contain a statistically acceptable number of these events, occurring for whatever reason.

Quoting oly720man (Reply 25):
And even if the touchdown point was moved 250m further away from the runway end, to give a longer touchdown undershoot safety zone, there's still no guarantee that an aircraft won't undershoot with a similar outcome.

There is no guarantee about accidents, but statistically yes this would be safer by containing a greater percentage of potential accidents.


Dan  
...love is just a camouflage for what resembles rage again...
 
avek00
Posts: 3233
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:48 pm

1. In the event of a crash, managers at major airlines will contact their attorneys and insurers before they even bother to find out whether the pax are dead or alive, so don't cry too hard for the carriers.

2. The Montreal Convention (and the laws of most countries) bars the self-insurance of international air carriers, so in the end the payout of claims from the crash will be a matter of the insurers involved.

3. Those ranting about lawsuits can be freely ignored in this discussion as knowing not of that which they speak. Why? As passengers, we want airlines and manufacturers (and their insurers) to face massive liability in the event of a disaster, largely to prompt and pressure the industry to maintain a strong safety regimen. Aviation safety is primarily run through cost-benefit analyses, and as much as possible you want operators and manufacturers to fear massive liability if they opt to cut corners.
Live life to the fullest.
 
flymia
Posts: 7122
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:49 pm

Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 23):
Your right about the Montreal Convention. But, something else to keep in mind, if it can be proven that Asiana flight did not conform to ICAO standards, the Montreal Convention will not apply and then it will be a freeforall.

Good point. I guess that must be the way to go to get any emotional damages. But this only applies to the airlines if I understand correctly. The manufacturers and airports are up for grabs and because litigation is so costly would likely settle in many case unless they are just asking for crazy amounts and don't want to settle.

I would not be surprised if Asiana has already offered settlements so the passengers who walked off uninjured.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
 
avek00
Posts: 3233
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:52 pm

Quoting flymia (Reply 29):
I would not be surprised if Asiana has already offered settlements so the passengers who walked off uninjured.

Airlines and their insurers resort to all sorts of despicable acts to reduce liability after an accident.
Live life to the fullest.
 
D L X
Posts: 12659
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 3:59 pm

Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 11):
The sharks will be circling having smelt blood.

The sharks.

You do realize that there are two dead, and scores more with life-altering injuries?

I'm no ambulance chaser, but your dismissal of the victims' very obvious needs is appalling.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 28):

1. In the event of a crash, managers at major airlines will contact their attorneys and insurers before they even bother to find out whether the pax are dead or alive, so don't cry too hard for the carriers.

Large airlines are in constant communication with their preferred lawfirms for a variety of non-crash related daily matters.

Quoting flymia (Reply 22):
So it would not surprise me if someone who was not injured get $100,000 or so. That's what insurance is for anyway.

This.
  

People with more severe injuries will get more, the families of the deceased will get more.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:06 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 8):
Quoting oly720man (Reply 6):

Quoting brilondon (Reply 3):
They are definatly culpable as the runway apparently did not have all it's available guidance systems available

If that was the case and it was unsafe the runway would have been closed wouldn't it? Every other aircraft ahead of OZ214 landed perfectly safely with the same lack of guidance systems and presumably the same advance notice of the lack of guidance systems so I can't see why SFO should carry the can if they were operating legally.

Maybe it should have been or at least the aircraft been given the option of using another runway.

,

Give me a break! Lets shut down every airport in the world that doesn't have an ILS approach!!
,
 
avek00
Posts: 3233
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:12 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 31):
Large airlines are in constant communication with their preferred lawfirms for a variety of non-crash related daily matters.

And the accident plans of said carriers call for contacting the lawyers before doing most anything else, including releasing statements to the media.
Live life to the fullest.
 
D L X
Posts: 12659
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:16 pm

Quoting avek00 (Reply 33):
And the accident plans of said carriers call for contacting the lawyers before doing most anything else, including releasing statements to the media.

Got a link to this?
 
soon7x7
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:16 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 3):
They are definatly culpable as the runway apparently did not have all it's available guidance systems available and the rookie pilot that had a total of 44 hours on this aircraft and never landed at SFO had to do a VFR landing

When ones flying career reaches the level of being typed in a 777, having 9k hours in 737,'s A-320's, 747's and whatever other types flown by the PIC at the time of the incident, am I to believe that basic flying skills to land on a weather perfect day no longer have value?...another words...If you know your approach speeds, altitudes, have a perfectly functioning instrument panel...why can't you land the aircraft just like any other type. If I heard correctly this aircraft was 6 miles out @ 18,000 ft. Also had a descent rate 50% faster than published? This pilot has been at SFO before in other types...Something isn't right here. Regardless of what type aircraft you are flying, the art of identifying your touch down spot on the runway and having the ability to judge, once established if you will fall short or over shoot are fundamental skills of flying. With the high automation of today's aircraft and this particular accident, it concerns me to think that basic flying skills erode after a point in time when flying heavy iron. I really don't think this is the general case...am I wrong here?
 
brilondon
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:19 pm

Quoting whiteguy (Reply 32):
Give me a break! Lets shut down every airport in the world that doesn't have an ILS approach!!

I read a report in a previous post that indicated that not only were the ILS not operational, but also the glide scope indicator.

I also did not suggest that every airport be shut down that doesn't have ILS.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
avek00
Posts: 3233
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:23 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 34):
Got a link to this?

Of course not, no good airline publishes their accident plans online.
Live life to the fullest.
 
D L X
Posts: 12659
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:24 pm

Quoting avek00 (Reply 37):
Quoting D L X (Reply 34):
Got a link to this?

Of course not, no good airline publishes their accident plans online.

Well, you have to give us something to let us judge that this is not purely conjecture.
 
avek00
Posts: 3233
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:26 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 38):
Well, you have to give us something to let us judge that this is not purely conjecture.

I don't have to give anything, I took the time and effort to learn about airline post-accident responses by reaching out to primary and secondary sources, not hoping others would spoon feed me.  
Live life to the fullest.
 
0newair0
Posts: 362
Joined: Fri Jun 01, 2007 12:21 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:33 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 36):
I read a report in a previous post that indicated that not only were the ILS not operational, but also the glide scope indicator.

The only non functioning item when Asiana crashed was the glideslope for the ILS. The localizer was working. The pilots could have input an RNAV approach and had a glideslope to follow. There's no way the glideslope being inop at the time of the crash will be a reason for this crash. They were given a visual approach and the pilots accepted a visual approach. End of stoy. It's pilot error.
That's not how this works! That's not how any of this works!
 
D L X
Posts: 12659
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:35 pm

Quoting avek00 (Reply 39):
I don't have to give anything, I took the time and effort to learn about airline post-accident responses by reaching out to primary and secondary sources, not hoping others would spoon feed me.  

Sorry, that's not going to cut it. You may well have, but there's no way for any of us here to corroborate anything you've said, which quite frankly, sounds like conjecture. There is simply nothing in anything that you have said that actually suggests you called any airline, and that an airline was kind enough to tell you what their accident plan was. It is hearsay.
 
Whiteguy
Posts: 1465
Joined: Sat Nov 29, 2003 6:11 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:44 pm

Quoting brilondon (Reply 36):
Quoting whiteguy (Reply 32):
Give me a break! Lets shut down every airport in the world that doesn't have an ILS approach!!

I read a report in a previous post that indicated that not only were the ILS not operational, but also the glide scope indicator.

I also did not suggest that every airport be shut down that doesn't have ILS.


The ILS consists of a Localizer and a glide slope indicator. The Localizer provides lateral guidance while the glide slope indicator provides vertical guidance. The Localizer was working, the glide slope was not.

No you didn't suggest every airport but you did suggest the runway should have been closed!
 
User avatar
Aesma
Posts: 12554
Joined: Sat Nov 14, 2009 6:14 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 4:53 pm

In the case of AF447 Airbus knew they would be sued no matter what, so they put 30 millions euros on the table to find the wreckage, showing that they very much cared about finding the truth.
New Technology is the name we give to stuff that doesn't work yet. Douglas Adams
 
flymia
Posts: 7122
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:00 pm

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 35):
With the high automation of today's aircraft and this particular accident, it concerns me to think that basic flying skills erode after a point in time when flying heavy iron. I really don't think this is the general case...am I wrong here?

There was an article not too long ago in flying magazine. I think it was under the "I learned a lot about flying from that" stories. It was a major airline 737 captain who went out in small single Cessna with his old CFI and his stick and rudder skills were not up to par for a Cessna. He flew the 737 fine. But the point of the article if I remember correctly was that with so much automation, pilots are starting to lose those stick and rudder skills, pilots even flying 777s or A330s need to practice hand flying the actual airplane.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 33):
And the accident plans of said carriers call for contacting the lawyers before doing most anything else, including releasing statements to the media.

Whether this is true or not I have no idea. However, I see zero problem with wanting to contact your companies counsel before initiating communication about an incident. I imagine Asiana has their own in house counsel. General Counsels at companies have a lot of authority and our a big decision makers in everything a company does. It makes perfect sense to give your top attorneys a call and make them aware of the situation so they can get the process moving.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
 
GentFromAlaska
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:21 pm

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:02 pm

Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 20):
The only thing that was not working was the glideslope for the ILS

See below.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 30):
Airlines and their insurers resort to all sorts of despicable acts to reduce liability after an accident.

As do the ambulance chasers.

Quoting avek00 (Reply 33):
And the accident plans of said carriers call for contacting the lawyers before doing most anything else

Having worked with the NTSB in HNL when the U.S. Nuclear submarine surfaced on a Japanese training vessel in 2000; A good public relations firm or individual is on the U.S. agent for the company speed dial; in this case OZ. .

An Asian maritime company hired a prior Coast Guard public affairs member well known in the public relations circuit in Alaska when their ship broke apart in the Gulf of Alaska. They found this individual living in rural Oklahoma. I wouldn't be surprised if OZ agent hired an ex NTSB public relations person.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 36):
I read a report in a previous post that indicated that not only were the ILS not operational, but also the glide scope indicator.

Today (Monday) the airline guru for Fox Business News also reported SFO approach Nav system was down; at least that was my interpretation of the story. I don;t know if was all runways or specifically 28L

Mike Boyd is being interviewed momentarily about the crash.

[Edited 2013-07-08 10:34:21]
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
 
eastern747
Posts: 579
Joined: Tue Oct 17, 2006 5:34 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:08 pm

I have the feeling the blood sucking;lawyers were on their way to the airport and hospitals the minute the news hit the airways. The crew was well aware of the situation at the airport-notams. FOUR cockpit crew and nobody was looking out the window or the instruments???? BTW isn't there limited liability written on the tickets?
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:13 pm

I'd be curious to see if a carrier like UA eventually sues for the operational disruption caused by the crash.
 
HBGDS
Posts: 108
Joined: Thu Nov 19, 2009 2:09 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:21 pm

In the land of frivolous lawsuits, any entity could end up in court, regardless of valid or ill-founded reasons. Try this for size:
(and please, this is for laughs, ok?)

-trauma at seeing the crash. I feel all yucky and cannot sleep at night.
-fire department took longer than expected to respond (I am not saying that-- a lawyer could)
-What? Engines did not thrust up 110% within .5 seconds of TOGA being ordered? Off with your head, P&W!
- The luggage fell on my head. I'm suing the owner of the luggage.
-Sholdn't the tail hold while it's dragged? Boeing! You're toast!
-I missed my appointment / wedding / sister's cat's funeral / hot date. Sob.
- My favorite pair of pants got muddied.

etc... Let's put the thread to sleep, shall we? As others have pointed out, lawyers are already on standby. Let the silliness begin.
 
D L X
Posts: 12659
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

RE: SFO Accident, Who Needs To Lawyer-up?

Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:32 pm

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 48):
-trauma at seeing the crash. I feel all yucky and cannot sleep at night.

Rule 11 sanctions.

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 48):
-fire department took longer than expected to respond (I am not saying that-- a lawyer could)

Fire department has a duty to perform, and it appears that they did. Sympathetic defendant, hard to imagine a lawyer would file that suit.

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 48):
-What? Engines did not thrust up 110% within .5 seconds of TOGA being ordered? Off with your head, P&W!

Rule 11 sanctions.

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 48):
- The luggage fell on my head. I'm suing the owner of the luggage.

Rule 11 sanctions.

(Now, the story may be different if the suit is against Boeing.)

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 48):
-Sholdn't the tail hold while it's dragged? Boeing! You're toast!

Rule 11 sanctions.

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 48):
-I missed my appointment / wedding / sister's cat's funeral / hot date. Sob.

Rule 11 sanctions.

Quoting HBGDS (Reply 48):
- My favorite pair of pants got muddied.

Rule 11 sanctions.


For those that don't know, Rule 11 requires that the attorney signing a pleading has verified that there is a basis in law for the suit. Contrary to this strange, yet commonly held belief, you can't just sue someone because you don't like something that happened. If sanctions are levied on you, you may have to pay the other guys' attorneys fees for your stupidity.

I see a LOT of lawyer-hating on this thread, and I dare say that nearly all of it is based on a fictional idea of what lawyering is.

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos