User avatar
Web500sjc
Posts: 831
Joined: Tue Sep 15, 2009 4:23 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:40 pm

Quoting whiteguy (Reply 42):
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.

If the Localizer was out the whole ILS is out, you cannot just use the glide slope.

the seawall at SFO is what would be the cause of the lawsuit. but there is no excuse for running a perfectly good airplane into the ground 1500 feet short. Its CFIT that happened at an airport.
Boiler Up!
 
GentFromAlaska
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:21 pm

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:42 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
Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 45):
Mike Boyd is being interviewed momentarily about the crash.

Mike Boyd see's no ill repercussion toward Boeing as the airframe manufacturer. Boeing stock was up when I checked a few minutes ago.
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2223
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:48 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 41):
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.

Section V of the crash thread detailed some of the plans which were enacted by both Asiana and United. Given this is a UA hub, UA as the Star Alliance partner does a lot of the heavy lifting given they have the physical resources and personnel close at hand. OZ sent a team out along with the Korean Investigation team on a ferry flight which landed Sunday morning.

You aren't going to see links to every bit of information. The stuff is covered by N.D.A's and is proprietary unless UA or OZ chooses to release that information.

NavAids: PAPIS was operational as were all other systems at SFO save ILS. This was NOTAM'd weeks ago and every airline knew it. Unless the investigation turns up more, SFO doesn't have much, if any actual liability.

Boeing and Pratt: Unless the investigation reveals a previously unknown and catastrophic design or mfr flaw, they are in the clear as to actual liability. Of course they'll get sued cause that's our culture but at trial they should be in the clear because -

OZ - They are in deep trouble. Unless the investigation pulls out some shocking information to say otherwise, this was pure pilot error.

The suit will likely be removed to Federal Court given the players involved. It will settle in three or four years and life will go on. All pilots will learn valuable lessons from this screw up as pilots always do when the accident investigation report is released.

Computers, NavAids and technology are nice and convenient. However nothing can replace the Mark1Eyeball of the pilot and that person's judgement. In the end, he ignored the signs out there and his co-pilot(s) didn't help out and they crashed.
 
FlyPNS1
Posts: 5484
Joined: Wed Dec 01, 1999 7:12 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:51 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
Contrary to this strange, yet commonly held belief, you can't just sue someone because you don't like something that happened.

But you can sue for damages whether they be emotional, physical or financial.

Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
Sympathetic defendant, hard to imagine a lawyer would file that suit.

As someone who has worked for fire & rescue company, I've seen it tried many times. The lawyer's will always look at the response time to see if there was even the slightest delay. In the case of many airports and most big cities, you're not suing the fire station anyway, you're suing the city or airport authority that oversees the fire station....not nearly as sympathetic of a defendant.

In this case, I don't expect fire & rescue will get sued....except for maybe the poor girl who may have been run over.
 
User avatar
Mortyman
Posts: 5775
Joined: Sat Aug 12, 2006 8:26 pm

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:52 pm

One of the evacuation slides launched into the Aircraft and hurt a Stewardess apparently .... Could Boeing be at fault for such a thing ?
 
GentFromAlaska
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:21 pm

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 5:55 pm

Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.
 
747megatop
Posts: 1780
Joined: Wed May 23, 2007 8:22 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:08 pm

The pilot and Asiana definitely need to lawyer up since this accident was most likely (90% chance) that this accident was a BOTCHED landing by the pilot. The question becomes though, was there criminal negligence on part of the pilots in the cockpit and the airline (circumventing procedures; circumventing training etc.).

[Edited 2013-07-08 11:11:34]
 
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 6:09 pm

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 52):
You aren't going to see links to every bit of information. The stuff is covered by N.D.A's and is proprietary unless UA or OZ chooses to release that information.

Completely agree with everything you said. In fact, in my line of work, I'm often exposed to info that I cannot share. I don't talk around it in the way the person I was responding to did -- I simply don't bring it up at all. If I can't site something I know to be true with public information, I don't bring it up at all.

The person I was responding to appeared to be saying he had conducted his own source gathering to come to the conclusion he did, but did not share any source, or even cite his own expertise. That's a real problem -- no one can tell if it is fact or conjecture.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 54):
One of the evacuation slides launched into the Aircraft and hurt a Stewardess apparently .... Could Boeing be at fault for such a thing ?

Sure. It's possible since Boeing designed the chute.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 53):
Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
Contrary to this strange, yet commonly held belief, you can't just sue someone because you don't like something that happened.

But you can sue for damages whether they be emotional, physical or financial.

You may only sue for things which you have a basis in law. One part of that law that is always present is proximate cause. For instance, suing the owner of the luggage because it fell on your head has no basis in law because the owner of the luggage did not cause the damage to your head.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 53):
As someone who has worked for fire & rescue company, I've seen it tried many times.

If the fire department was *negligent*, or failed to perform their duty, then yes, that is a basis in law for suit. I don't know if California is a comparative liability or contributory liability state (which would have an effect on whether the ARFF would owe 1% or 0% of the damages), or if international treaty nixes damages here altogether. But let's just say right off the bat, ARFF does not need to worry much in this case.
 
twincessna340a
Posts: 125
Joined: Fri Mar 23, 2012 4:26 pm

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:16 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?

No, most pilots do some amount of hand flying. I had the privilege to listen to Les Abend speak (author of Flying Magazine's "Jumpseat" column) a few years ago and he said there are certainly 'button pushers' out there but it wasn't the majority. He also told us that he regularly hand flew from takeoff to TOC and from TOD down to landing (back in the 767).

Quoting flymia (Reply 44):
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.

Certainly the case with AF 447, and now looking more and more like OZ 214.
 
flymia
Posts: 7122
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:18 pm

Something many don't know NTSB reports are NOT allowed to be used in Civil Trials. And NTSB investigators are not allowed to be used as witnesses. A suit against the manufactures would be very very costly. That is why you will see the vast, majority. 90% or greater of claims just settle. http://www.ntsb.gov/legal/gc.html

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 46):
I have the feeling the blood sucking;lawyers were on their way to the airport and hospitals the minute the news hit the airways

I guess you don't know that is illegal to do. Any lawyer doing that would A. Probably is not experienced enough or capable of handling a complicated aviation lawsuit. and B. Could easily lose his or her license to practice law. At least it is illegal in Florida, I imagine almost all states make "ambulance chasing" illegal.

Quoting EASTERN747 (Reply 46):
BTW isn't there limited liability written on the tickets?

See two quotes below:

Quoting flymia (Reply 22):
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.
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.
Quoting HBGDS (Reply 48):
In the land of frivolous lawsuits

And if it is frivolous it will be dropped by the judge and the lawyers potentially sanctioned.

Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
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.

   Agreed. But there are some pretty bad attorneys out there that will try anything, whether unethical or not to make a quick dollar. The thing is 99% of the attorneys who would do this have no idea how complicated an aviation law suit would be.

Quoting SonomaFlyer (Reply 52):
Of course they'll get sued cause that's our culture but at trial they should be in the clear because -

If someone put in Boeing or PW and the final cause is deemed to be only pilot error I doubt Boeing or PW would get near trial.

Quoting FlyPNS1 (Reply 53):

But you can sue for damages whether they be emotional, physical or financial.

See the above quote about the Montreal Convention. There is a chance that emotional suits will be thrown out. Physical and Financial damages are of course fair game.

Quoting Mortyman (Reply 54):
One of the evacuation slides launched into the Aircraft and hurt a Stewardess apparently .... Could Boeing be at fault for such a thing ?

That is a fairly serious malfunction. I think the slides need to be tested every few years or something like that. So it could go to Boeing and who ever does the maintenance on the slide.

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 58):
He also told us that he regularly hand flew from takeoff to TOC and from TOD down to landing (back in the 767).

Right. I have heard U.S. Airline pilots say this before also. If weather is good many will go ahead and fly much of the approach. But is that same culture used in other parts of the world like the Middle East or Asia? That is the question I am curious about.

[Edited 2013-07-08 11:21:45]
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
 
brilondon
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:29 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.

Most of the statements read by spokespersons of airlines after an incident usually are written by lawyers so that no information can be used that should not be used. You think an airline would allow someone to talk for them in these situations with out there being a well rehearsed press release. Think of the liability if the spokesperson were able to make up the facts on a press release without it being confirmed by the airlines legal council.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:37 pm

Nobody has mentioned the passengers. From what I read a lot of the passengers received spinal type injuries. Even though they survived the crash their lives may never be the same again. Some will only have minor back pain while others will need life long assistance to help with their permanent injuries. Some will be able to work while others won't be able to work and will need a source of income.

This will take years to sort out.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
flymia
Posts: 7122
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:45 pm

Quoting type-rated (Reply 61):
Nobody has mentioned the passengers.

Isn't that what the majority of this thread is about? Passengers potentially suing the airline and other parties involved in the crash like Boeing and PW.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
 
User avatar
zckls04
Posts: 2785
Joined: Fri Dec 30, 2011 6:55 pm

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 6:46 pm

Quoting avek00 (Reply 28):
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.

I completely agree. We're not talking about a "frivolous lawsuit" here- a fatal plane crash is hardly a frivolous event. Don't blame people for wanting a payout, especially those with huge medical bills.

It would be nice if everybody knew exactly who was at fault the day after a crash and you could just go after the responsible party. But in the absence of such fact if I were a passenger I'd go after everybody I could think of straight away, not risk waiting so long my bills become delinquent (or even falling foul of some statute of limitation or other).

These companies are big and have deep pockets. They can look after themselves.

Quoting D L X (Reply 34):
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?

That's pretty much common sense IMO. What else do you suppose the PR and legal teams of such companies are doing when they hear of a crash? If they are not managing the fallout on Day One then they should be sacked.

Whether it appears in a formal document indicating accident procedure is doubtful of course, as it would appear to the uneducated layman that they were prioritizing covering their asses over helping the victims.

Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
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.

I think that's because most people (fortunately) rarely have need for the services of a lawyer. The public face of lawyering tends to be the loudest and most unpleasant ones (Charles Carreon for example).

I try and read Popehat every now and then; there are plenty of examples of lawyers on there to restore one's faith if it wavers.
Four Granavox Turbines!
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 7:04 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

I thought we were talking about the people that will be sued lawyering up. Oh well.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
aklrno
Posts: 1545
Joined: Sat Dec 04, 2010 11:18 pm

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:04 pm

Quoting D L X (Reply 49):
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.

Unfortunately even that doesn't always work. I have twice been sued unreasonably, won sanctions, and then found out that the attorney who filed the suit had no assets. Pursuing him would have wasted even more of my money. There are way more lawyers in the US than the need for lawyers can support. Often those left over tend to file silly lawsuits in the hope that they will win the legal lottery.
 
SonomaFlyer
Posts: 2223
Joined: Tue Apr 20, 2010 2:47 pm

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:07 pm

The lawyers themselves will be sued by their clients if they fail to bring in a party involved in this accident which results in a lower settlement than what it "should be." I'd think Boeing and Pratt should be left out of it but they won't.
 
Burkhard
Posts: 1916
Joined: Fri Nov 17, 2006 9:34 pm

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:10 pm

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

These systems exist for a good reason: They add to the safety of flying. Operating a Mega airport without ILS means operating it with reduced safety, means allowing a higher risk. The current level of safety we have comes from multiple layers: Good aircraft, good pilots, good airports. Bad things happen if several of these layers fail - in this case a non safe airport together with a pilot who was not familiar with this aircraft.

With all likelihood, if the ILS had worked this flight would have ended normal. So I think mayor airports should have redundant ILS systems, and if there is no ILS only pilots should be allowed to land who have made a special training of visual approach to that runway with that aircraft type in the simulator - this may be the recommendation at the end what to learn from this accident. We all wish he had done a go around in time and landed in Oakland with ILS.
 
soon7x7
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:28 pm

Quoting twincessna340a (Reply 58):
No, most pilots do some amount of hand flying. I had the privilege to listen to Les Abend speak (author of Flying Magazine's "Jumpseat" column) a few years ago and he said there are certainly 'button pushers' out there but it wasn't the majority. He also told us that he regularly hand flew from takeoff to TOC and from TOD down to landing (back in the 767).

Think they need to hand fly more often. This recent crash reminded me of the Royal Air Maroc 767 that bounced a nose wheel wheel barreling down the 4's @ JFK. He didn't even realize the pressure vessel was compromised till the next crew pre-flighted. I believe it was CN-RNT. This too occurred on a day with "light & variable winds."
 
ManchesterMAN
Posts: 1056
Joined: Fri Sep 26, 2003 10:57 pm

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:34 pm

The very existence of this thread disturbs me.
Flown: A300,A319,A320,A321,A330,A340.A380,717,727,737,747,757,767,777,DC9,DC10,MD11,MD80,F100,F50,ERJ,E190,CRJ,BAe146,Da
 
oly720man
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:44 pm

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 69):
This too occurred on a day with "light & variable winds."

Not quite

"The weather on approach to JFK’s runway 4R, however, was not so routine, the airport being battered by rain and 28kt gusts."

http://www.nycaviation.com/2009/08/f...-767-nearly-complete/#.UdskXvm1EVQ
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
flymia
Posts: 7122
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:47 pm

Quoting ManchesterMAN (Reply 69):
The very existence of this thread disturbs me.

Why?? Care to elaborate a little bit?
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
 
mpdpilot
Posts: 804
Joined: Fri Jul 28, 2006 6:44 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:55 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 68):
These systems exist for a good reason: They add to the safety of flying. Operating a Mega airport without ILS means operating it with reduced safety, means allowing a higher risk. The current level of safety we have comes from multiple layers: Good aircraft, good pilots, good airports. Bad things happen if several of these layers fail - in this case a non safe airport together with a pilot who was not familiar with this aircraft.

With all likelihood, if the ILS had worked this flight would have ended normal. So I think mayor airports should have redundant ILS systems, and if there is no ILS only pilots should be allowed to land who have made a special training of visual approach to that runway with that aircraft type in the simulator - this may be the recommendation at the end what to learn from this accident. We all wish he had done a go around in time and landed in Oakland with ILS.

That is a little ridiculous. Even airports with ILS in working order still don't always use them. Heck in this case the 747 holding short could have affected the glideslope indication. On the other hand systems break or need maintenance, even the perfect system isn't always working, should SFO have shutdown when the system was offline?

On another note, a lack of ILS is no excuse for not using the autopilot or even autothrottles. I was always taught that even making one thing easier, such as speed control, can significantly increase your flying accuracy. There are lots of things that could have increased the safety of this flight and most of them could/should have been done by the pilot, not the airport.
One mile of highway gets you one mile, one mile of runway gets you anywhere.
 
soon7x7
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 8:59 pm

Quoting oly720man (Reply 70):
"The weather on approach to JFK’s runway 4R, however, was not so routine, the airport being battered by rain and 28kt gusts."

I was out on the field @ ISP that day...it was not raining...it was sunny, winds light and variable...
 
soon7x7
Posts: 2267
Joined: Thu May 04, 2006 10:51 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:03 pm

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 73):
...it was sunny, winds light and variable...

To be fair though...winds here and winds @ JFK are always different as what occurs at JFK usually ends up out here. But no rain...
 
JordanC
Posts: 1
Joined: Sun Jan 03, 2010 11:18 pm

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:09 pm

Asiana and SFO airport authority will be looking at several, if not many, lawsuits. Of course, in Tort law, you sue everyone possibly involved so everyone will need to "lawyer up." It's the nature of America's litigious society. However, in this case, the fatalities and injuries are serious and need to be addressed, and compensated. From the information provided so far, it does not seem like Boeing and P&W were the cause of the accident.
 
jbmitt
Posts: 650
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 3:59 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:15 pm

I handle claims and litigated matters involving commercial defendants. Unfortunately, we see a lot of unnecessary litigation, and will sometimes offer money in lieu of incurring much greater costs to defend lack of negligence.
 
oly720man
Posts: 5813
Joined: Fri May 21, 2004 7:13 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:21 pm

Quoting soon7x7 (Reply 74):
To be fair though...winds here and winds @ JFK are always different as what occurs at JFK usually ends up out here. But no rain...

If they were landing on 04 at JFK the weather would have been heading in a generally north east direction so the rain showers may have bypassed you on Long Island even though you're not that far away.

[Edited 2013-07-08 14:32:29]
wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
 
catiii
Posts: 3315
Joined: Mon Mar 31, 2008 1:18 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 9:23 pm

Quoting mpdpilot (Reply 72):
That is a little ridiculous.

You're being kind. It is utterly ridiculous and uninformed.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 67):
With all likelihood, if the ILS had worked this flight would have ended normal.

There is no way you can make that claim. If he was hand flying the approach, and all indications are that he was, regardless of whether the ILS was working has nothing to do with the fact that he got slow.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 67):

These systems exist for a good reason: They add to the safety of flying. Operating a Mega airport without ILS means operating it with reduced safety, means allowing a higher risk.

So every airline pilot who has ever accepted a visual approach at an airport in good weather is operating with reduced safety? Seriously? That is a totally uninformed statement.

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 67):
The current level of safety we have comes from multiple layers: Good aircraft, good pilots, good airports. Bad things happen if several of these layers fail - in this case a non safe airport together with a pilot who was not familiar with this aircraft.

"Non-safe" airport? Go look at how many airplanes landed before Asiana, and tell me that they, and the airport, were all unsafe.

Utterly ridiculous.
 
zotan
Posts: 582
Joined: Thu Jan 13, 2005 7:42 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:21 pm

Quoting Burkhard (Reply 67):
These systems exist for a good reason: They add to the safety of flying. Operating a Mega airport without ILS means operating it with reduced safety, means allowing a higher risk. The current level of safety we have comes from multiple layers: Good aircraft, good pilots, good airports. Bad things happen if several of these layers fail - in this case a non safe airport together with a pilot who was not familiar with this aircraft.

With all likelihood, if the ILS had worked this flight would have ended normal. So I think mayor airports should have redundant ILS systems, and if there is no ILS only pilots should be allowed to land who have made a special training of visual approach to that runway with that aircraft type in the simulator - this may be the recommendation at the end what to learn from this accident. We all wish he had done a go around in time and landed in Oakland with ILS.

Sorry, but you know very little about flying airplanes. Pilots learn how to perform visual approaches far before they ever learn about the ILS.
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6069
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 10:49 pm

Quoting type-rated (Reply 61):
Nobody has mentioned the passengers.

No one here is suggested that passengers don't deserve just compensation And in some few cases that will be millions of dollars for continued medical treatment over the rest of their entire lives.

Quoting flymia (Reply 62):
Isn't that what the majority of this thread is about? Passengers potentially suing the airline and other parties involved in the crash like Boeing and PW.

The real theme of this thread is how the US legal system encourages lawsuits to include EVERYONE remotely associated with building and maintaining the aircraft.

The Airline - for 'faulty operation'
The Manufacturer - for not making the aircraft survive better
The Engine Manufacturer - for not making the engines spool up faster
The Instruments Manufacturer - for not making an instrument to say "Power Stupid!!"
The Maker of the Seats - for not making them stronger
The Maker of the Overhead Bins - because they came open at presumably higher than 9Gs
The Airport - for trying to improve safety by moving the ILS
The US Taxpayers - for the FAA not closing the 'dangerous' airport
The City of San Francisco - for not filling in the bay and avoiding the need for the embankment
The San Francisco Fire Department - for not getting to the scene faster

etc, .....

Most of those companies/ public agencies - will be found not liable in any way for this crash in court. But only after they have spend a few hundred thousand dollars for lawyers.

type-rated - I think you are a US taxpayer. In addition to costing three to five million dollars of your tax money for the investigation - this is going to cost the federal another million to two million dollars in lawyer costs to 'Defend' the US government in this case.

I remember one crash where the National Weather Service had to defend itself in court because pilots flew the missed approach procedures wrong and crashed. The families of the victims blamed the NWS for a 'faulty weather forecast.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
avek00
Posts: 3233
Joined: Mon Oct 25, 2004 5:56 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:09 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 80):
The real theme of this thread is how the US legal system encourages lawsuits to include EVERYONE remotely associated with building and maintaining the aircraft.

The Airline - for 'faulty operation'
The Manufacturer - for not making the aircraft survive better
The Engine Manufacturer - for not making the engines spool up faster
The Instruments Manufacturer - for not making an instrument to say "Power Stupid!!"
The Maker of the Seats - for not making them stronger
The Maker of the Overhead Bins - because they came open at presumably higher than 9Gs
The Airport - for trying to improve safety by moving the ILS
The US Taxpayers - for the FAA not closing the 'dangerous' airport
The City of San Francisco - for not filling in the bay and avoiding the need for the embankment
The San Francisco Fire Department - for not getting to the scene faster

etc, .....

A couple points.

1. It's doubtful all of these potential defendants will be brought into suit, and many would be released from suit any by either indemnity agreements with the big fish (e.g., Boeing, Asiana such that a plaintiff can seek claims against them for some failures of aircraft parts if they contributed to the accident) or sovereign immunity for the government actors.

2. I still much prefer the American system of civil suits and punitive damages over the norm for handling airline accidents in much of the rest of the developed world, which is to have criminal liability proceedings that can span a decade and are predicated upon assuming someone acted with criminal negligence.
Live life to the fullest.
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:19 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 80):
No one here is suggested that passengers don't deserve just compensation

And I didn't say they were. The actual point I was making was that some of these passengers will have life long consequences from the injuries sustained in this crash. This needs to be considered in their litigation with whoever they sue. In other words they will need to "lawyer up".

I saw a doctor on CNN earlier talking about the injuries people received in this crash and many of them had ruptured discs, blown out discs and a lot of multiple back fractures. Some of these people will never walk again.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
rfields5421
Posts: 6069
Joined: Thu Jul 19, 2007 12:45 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:33 pm

Quoting type-rated (Reply 82):
In other words they will need to "lawyer up".

Most certainly they need lawyers.

Airlines no longer have their customer reps try to pressure crash survivors and family members of victims to sign waivers of liability right after a crash.

The airline has lawyers, and the passengers/ families should have lawyers to have a level playing field.
Not all who wander are lost.
 
PGNCS
Posts: 2260
Joined: Sun Apr 15, 2007 5:07 am

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

Mon Jul 08, 2013 11:58 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

Sadly all of the above. Because...

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 10):
Lawsuits are filed in a 'shotgun' manner.
Quoting bongodog1964 (Reply 11):
Unfotunately anyone with even the smallest involvement will need to "lawyer-up"

Of course all four parties you mentioned already have counsel on retainer, I'm confident.
 
Type-Rated
Posts: 3901
Joined: Sun Sep 19, 1999 5:18 am

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:39 am

There are lawyers who specialize in airline accidents. Some will wait to be contacted by families, while others have been known to show up and the airport and try to get in the holding room where families are awaiting news to try to sign up new clients there.
At the NW MD80 crash at DTW they found one of these got into the family holding room by dressing as a priest! Once found out her was ejected from the room.

So you have some good ones and some shyster's too.
Fly North Central Airlines..The route of the Northliners!
 
celestar
Posts: 540
Joined: Mon Jul 09, 2001 11:37 am

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 1:07 am

May I ask a question please.
If the root cause is being determined to be pilot error, do the pilots get criminal charge for loss of life?
Asiana is probably insured to cover property damage but how about the pilots, aside from loosing their wings of course?
I remember since I reside in Taiwan, that whe SQ006 crashed, Taiwan aviation authority did issue a criminal charge against Captain Cheong but it was hampered and blocked by Singapore government stating the CKS airport is part of the blame. I did not get to hear the full story on that but apparently, Dear Captain Cheong is now flying with AIR ASIA!
Personally, I stress personally, I have trouble understanding how some professionals could continue their profession after causing so many loss of life unless he has come to terms with himself, one way or another.
 
milesrich
Posts: 1508
Joined: Sun Jul 06, 2003 2:46 am

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 2:07 am

The passengers with minor injuries or no injuries will not be able to collect much, but in California, they will be able to collect something because they can sue for the negligent infliction of emotional distress, a cause of action that is not allowed in many jurisdictions unless it is combined with actual physical injuries. Asiana has insurance and they have lawyers. And the Warsaw Convention that limits liability may apply.
 
User avatar
lightsaber
Moderator
Posts: 19007
Joined: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:55 pm

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:37 am

Quoting D L X (Reply 57):
If the fire department was *negligent*, or failed to perform their duty,

You live in a different world than people I know who lost lawsuits. My sister, a doctor, lost a suit for preventing a patient from acquiring narcotics the patient was known to be addicted to. How did she lose? She told someone that shouldn't have been: the nurse attending the patient (who would have administered the medication). They're jury trials.

I was foreman of a jury in a lawsuit were several members of the jury wanted to pay out millions... even though it was obvious the defendants had done their job perfectly! Now someone died, so some people on the jury wanted to pay out anyway. After we ruled, we were informed that the plaintiff had already won a fortune suing the institution that had made the fatal mistake. (One of their employees violated procedure that still has me shaking my head... But that wasn't the people being sued.) If you are put up against a vindictive jury, it sucks.

Quoting celestar (Reply 86):
If the root cause is being determined to be pilot error, do the pilots get criminal charge for loss of life?

That would require proof of criminal intent or neglect. IMHO, very unlikely in this case.

Quoting milesrich (Reply 87):
And the Warsaw Convention that limits liability may apply.

That will protect Asiana. Hence why everyone else will get sued.

I expect half the doctors and firefighters to be sued.

In fact, every jury I was on was a lawsuit I didn't think had any merit. Heck, my dad was on a jury were a drunk was suing the golf cart manufacturer for injuries sustained while driving drunk! That ended up with a hung jury...

Quoting milesrich (Reply 87):
The passengers with minor injuries or no injuries will not be able to collect much

One word, whiplash. Now, I know people who have truly suffered for years from whiplash. But if someone wants to sue, they will have a year.

Quoting type-rated (Reply 82):
I saw a doctor on CNN earlier talking about the injuries people received in this crash and many of them had ruptured discs, blown out discs and a lot of multiple back fractures. Some of these people will never walk again.

I'm perfectly fine for the airline being responsible for medical bills for years (well... decades) to come. Some will truly be due a large payout for lost income. My issue is the fraction that goes to the lawyers and the amount for 'pain and suffering.'

Quoting celestar (Reply 86):
Personally, I stress personally, I have trouble understanding how some professionals could continue their profession after causing so many loss of life unless he has come to terms with himself, one way or another.

10% of the population is predisposed to just not care...


Lightsaber
IM messages to mods on warnings and bans will be ignored and nasty ones will result in a ban.
 
garnetpalmetto
Posts: 5352
Joined: Tue Oct 21, 2003 1:38 am

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 4:54 am

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 88):
My issue is the fraction that goes to the lawyers and the amount for 'pain and suffering.'

Why? I'm a paralegal and have worked on the plaintiff's side of the business (albeit in workers' comp). Generally speaking, attorneys get paid in two ways - expenses and attorneys fees. Starting with expenses, almost all plaintiff's attorneys in tort cases work on a contingency basis (ie if our client doesn't get paid, we don't get paid and we have to front our client's costs. Needless to say that these costs that we're fronting add up when we're ordering medical records (often from multiple doctors over multiple dates of service over multiple years often including years prior to the date of injury/accident), making copies, buying postage, paying to speak to doctors over the phone (yes, they charge us, oftentimes exorbitantly even to answer a handful of simple questions), paying to schedule depositions (witnesses, especially doctors generally demand fees for testifying in a deposition and we have to pay the court reporters for their time and the transcription). Firms keep an accounting of these costs and expect the client to pay those costs at the conclusion of a case.

So next we have the attorneys fees - that fraction (anywhere from 25% to 33%) that comes out of a settlement or an award. What does that go towards? Generally speaking, everything that keeps the office running. Wages and insurance for the staff, malpractice insurance for the attorneys/firm, continuing legal education costs, our office's rent, equipment costs, coffee, and, oh yes, to help front costs for the next round of cases. It may be easy to think of the attorney's fees as just being dropped straight into an attorney's wallet, but rarely, if ever, is that the case. In all honesty, if you're on the plaintiff's side in a personal injury, tort, worker's comp or other similar case, you either have to have a pretty good volume of cases (or just be a gifted rainmaker a'la John Edwards) to make money.
South Carolina - too small to be its own country, too big to be a mental asylum.
 
FlyDeltaJets
Posts: 1653
Joined: Thu Feb 02, 2006 4:24 pm

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:29 am

I thought the FAA maintained the navaids at US airports. I know for a fact that only the FAA works on the navaids at JFK. Those are the only vehicles ever around those red and white striped buildings on the field.
The only valid opinions are those based in facts
 
brilondon
Posts: 3046
Joined: Sun Aug 21, 2005 6:56 am

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 12:19 pm

Quoting zckls04 (Reply 63):
It would be nice if everybody knew exactly who was at fault the day after a crash and you could just go after the responsible party. But in the absence of such fact if I were a passenger I'd go after everybody I could think of straight away, not risk waiting so long my bills become delinquent (or even falling foul of some statute of limitation or other).

You bills will still have to be paid regardless of the court case as it could go on for years and once all said and done youi may be years away from seeing any money at all if the case goes your way. If there was no evidence against whom you brought the action against the party you named then the case will be thrown out, but if successful you will have to wait years before all the appeals and what you are entitled to in the award. If this becomes a class action then good luck seeing any money for at least ten or more years.

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.

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. [/quote]

This rule is rarely used and is meant to eliminate the nuisance lawsuits where as these lawsuits maybe deemed reasonable and I think they would be reasonable and the action will be allowed to continue.
Rush for ever; Yankees all the way!!
 
D L X
Posts: 12659
Joined: Thu May 27, 1999 3:30 am

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:13 pm

Quoting rfields5421 (Reply 80):
The real theme of this thread is how the US legal system encourages lawsuits to include EVERYONE remotely associated with building and maintaining the aircraft.

And what exactly is the problem with that? The named defendants will jointly defend each other where their interests are aligned. If a named defendant is significantly less at fault (or not at fault at all) the Court can hash that out.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 88):
Quoting D L X (Reply 57):
If the fire department was *negligent*, or failed to perform their duty,

You live in a different world than people I know who lost lawsuits. My sister, a doctor

Seriously, do not compare doctors to firefighters. Medical malpractice is a whole different animal than anything being described here.

Quoting brilondon (Reply 91):
This rule is rarely used and is meant to eliminate the nuisance lawsuits where as these lawsuits maybe deemed reasonable and I think they would be reasonable and the action will be allowed to continue.

As I described earlier, suing the owner of the luggage when the luggage bin fails, for instance, is not a suit having basis in law. It would be sanctioned.
Yes, Rule 11 is seldom invoked, because contrary to popular belief, these kinds of lawsuits are not litigated.

Quoting lightsaber (Reply 88):
My issue is the fraction that goes to the lawyers and the amount for 'pain and suffering.'

1) Do you think that lawyers should not be compensated for the many hours of work required advocating for their clients?
2) Do you think that victims should not be compensated for their pain and suffering?

Think about it this way: some sinister person has trapped you and intends to cut off your arm. He will let you go if you pay him an amount he deems adequate. How much money would you pay to prevent someone from cutting off your arm?

I guarantee you that the amount that you would pay to not have your arm cut off is far greater than the amount people receive in damages for pain and suffering in dismembership cases.
 
GentFromAlaska
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:21 pm

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:38 pm

Its being reported a society 'honor" system (junior to senior) for lack of a better term may have been in play which would forbid the co-pilot or anybody not of similar or family stature and or experience of the pilot question why he was or was not abiding by protocols handbook.

The NTSB has found the seniority complex of certain cultures to be an issue in previous investigation(s)
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?

Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:48 pm

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 93):
Its being reported a society 'honor" system (junior to senior) for lack of a better term may have been in play which would forbid the co-pilot or anybody not of similar or family stature and or experience of the pilot question why he was or was not abiding by protocols handbook.

I was thinking that something like this could be a reason behind the crash but I hadn't heard it reported to date. That would definitely be a "better" explanation as to why 4 pilots allowed the plane to get too low and too slow than them simply not paying attention.
That's not how this works! That's not how any of this works!
 
flymia
Posts: 7122
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:48 pm

Quoting GentFromAlaska (Reply 93):
Its being reported a society 'honor" system (junior to senior) for lack of a better term may have been in play which would forbid the co-pilot or anybody not of similar or family stature and or experience of the pilot question why he was or was not abiding by protocols handbook.

The NTSB has found the seniority complex of certain cultures to be an issue in previous investigation(s)

Wasn't the FO the Flying Pilot at the time? I thought that is what was reported. So I would imagine the Check Captain would not have a problem saying anything to the FO. But I would not be surprised if this was something that comes up. It should never be a case in an airliner or any airplane.
"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?

Tue Jul 09, 2013 3:56 pm

Quoting flymia (Reply 95):
Wasn't the FO the Flying Pilot at the time? I thought that is what was reported. So I would imagine the Check Captain would not have a problem saying anything to the FO.

Captain was flying at the time. Had ~40 some odd hours in the 777. 10,000 hours over all (previously a 747 FO).

Also, the training pilot on the flight...it was reported that it was his first flight as a training pilot.
That's not how this works! That's not how any of this works!
 
flymia
Posts: 7122
Joined: Thu Jun 14, 2001 6:33 am

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:37 pm

Quoting 0NEWAIR0 (Reply 96):
Captain was flying at the time. Had ~40 some odd hours in the 777. 10,000 hours over all (previously a 747 FO).

Also, the training pilot on the flight...it was reported that it was his first flight as a training pilot.

Interesting. But both pilots are captains for the airline. This being his first training flight is interesting. I don't know how airlines do it but I would imagine an experienced check-airman should go out and make sure someone is ready to be a check-airman. Training the trainer. I have a feeling the NTSB report whenever it comes out will focus a lot of CRM and airline's culture.
"It was just four of us on the flight deck, trying to do our job" (Captain Al Haynes)
 
User avatar
RJAF
Posts: 217
Joined: Thu Jan 04, 2007 6:00 am

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 5:59 pm

Quoting celestar (Reply 86):
Asiana is probably insured to cover property damage but how about the pilots, aside from loosing their wings of course?

Crew are covered under a separate crew personal accident policy for pre-determined sums insured covering death and disabilities etc..
Chance favors the prepared mind
 
GentFromAlaska
Posts: 2666
Joined: Sun Feb 20, 2005 2:21 pm

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

Tue Jul 09, 2013 9:04 pm

Quoting flymia (Reply 95):
Wasn't the FO the Flying Pilot at the time?

I was under the impression the first officer co-pilot was flying the jet and had 45 hours on the 777. I suppose some of those are auto pilot hours. With that said I heard of several flight deck incursions were the co-pilot and the pilot (aircraft commander) were not in total agreement.

I know in maritime ship driving you have separation of duties where the officer of the deck has overall control of the bridge but the con (conning officer) has control of the steering, speed and course changes. The helmsman only takes course orders from the conning officer and must repeat them back which insures he heard them correctly.

Its a fine line which is steep in maritime history. Ironically operational control of a vessel can be one or two people. A single person who has control of the deck and con makes it a whole lot easier.
Man can be taken from Alaska. Alaska can never be taken from the man.

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