$75M lawsuit filed on behalf of passengers
 

Here is (probably) the major reason why there are no video cameras and
video recorders overlooking aircraft landings and take-offs at major
airports - because those that work and operate the airports are
cowards who don't want evidence of negligence and screw-ups caught on
tape. This mentality does NOT SERVE the flying public and we should
demand that such recording be performed routinely to fully document
incidents like this.

This is no different than requiring data recorders in the planes
themselves, and is certainly far less expensive to install and operate
and can supply IMPORTANT information that no-other currently installed
technology can. Not even ground radar has sufficient resolution to
pinpoint where a plane touches down, or rolls during touch down, or
applies brakes, or hits something, etc.

---------------------

http://www.edmontonsun.com/News/Cana...61953-sun.html

$75M lawsuit filed on behalf of passengers

TORONTO -- A $75-million class-action lawsuit was filed yesterday
accusing Air France, the Greater Toronto Airports Authority and Nav
Canada of negligence in the landing accident of an Airbus A340
commercial jet this week.

The lawsuit, filed in Ontario Superior Court in Brampton, names
Suzanne Deak of Toronto as the lone plaintiff, but the list of
claimants is expected to grow.

The suit was filed on behalf of all 297 passengers on board the plane
that skidded off Pearson airport's runway 24L before bursting into
flames on Tuesday.

All passengers, as well as the 12 crew members on board, survived the
crash; 43 people suffered minor injuries.

"We've got a bunch of people who have been hurt in some way and we
know the passengers didn't cause the accident," said Paul Miller, the
lawyer for the plaintiff.

"Someone else is at fault. ... Chances are that all three defendants
played a role in this accident."

Deak was returning to Toronto from a trip to Hungary when Air France
Flight 358 overshot the runway and skidded into Etobicoke Creek, 200
metres west of the landing strip.

She escaped the plane with minor back and neck injuries, but her
lawyer said she is struggling to cope with other effects of the crash.

"She is on medication for some psychological problems and she'll be
seeing her chiropractor and her doctor in the next few days because of
her back and neck injuries," said Miller.

It's too early to tell how many passengers will sign on to the suit,
he added, but it likely won't be the only one to come out of the
accident.

Those named in the suit have yet to respond and the claims have yet to
be tested in court.

Several Toronto lawyers have been in contact with passengers who plan
to take legal action.

Lawyer David Diamond has already spoken to at least 10 victims of the
crash.

He expects to file a class-action suit against the airline and the
airports authority in the coming weeks.

Fly Guy wrote:

"Someone else is at fault. ... Chances are that all three defendants
played a role in this accident."

Why? Accidents are always someone's fault.
Of course, you could blame it on the One who started the storm

mrtravel wrote:

Fly Guy wrote:


"Someone else is at fault. ... Chances are that all three defendants
played a role in this accident."


Why? Accidents are always someone's fault.
Of course, you could blame it on the One who started the storm

I meant "accidents are NOT always someone's fault"

mrtravel wrote:

I meant "accidents are NOT always someone's fault"

Here's what happened.

The pilots took too long to plant the plane on the runway.

Soon after touchdown, they attempted to take off, but only got as far
as a brief reving of the engines. Perhaps someone pulled rank in the
cockpit and nixed the idea of taking off.

Now they were comitted to stopping the plane. Maybe they screwed up
and didn't deploy the thrust reversers, or spoilers, maybe they turned
off the ABS by mistake. They were doing 150 (kph or mph) when they
ran out of runway. We know what happened next.

Because there was (apparently) no video recording of the approach and
landing, we don't know exactly where the plane touched down, or if an
up-draft caused it to touch down too late, or if it was hit by
lightning during the approach.

Fly Guy wrote:

mrtravel wrote:


I meant "accidents are NOT always someone's fault"


Here's what happened.

The pilots took too long to plant the plane on the runway.

Maybe the lightening strike had something to do with it.

Fly Guy wrote:
The pilots took too long to plant the plane on the runway.

Or the plane was pushed ahead without the pilots having any time to react. It
is wrong at this point in time to blame the pilots on "planting" the plane too
far.

Soon after touchdown, they attempted to take off, but only got as far
as a brief reving of the engines. Perhaps someone pulled rank in the
cockpit and nixed the idea of taking off

Speculation at this point in time.

Note that modern airplanes have a "toga" switch which automatically switches
the plane from landing to takeoff config, and the recorders would have shown
that this switch was activated and then cancelled.

The engines revcving up/down could have been an autonomic reaction by the
computers to prevent stall. In a strong switch from head to tail wind,
airspeed would drop significantly as measured on board.

I am surprised that the TSB would have leaked this piece of information that
leads to speculation. At the time of Swissair 111, the TSB had been very
careful not to leak incomplete information, and in fact, its web site was
quickly updated with a special section. The TSB's web site still lacks
information about the AF crash.





Now they were comitted to stopping the plane. Maybe they screwed up
and didn't deploy the thrust reversers, or spoilers, maybe they turned
off the ABS by mistake. They were doing 150 (kph or mph) when they
ran out of runway. We know what happened next.


All media speculation. We know all thrust reversers were deployed. We don't
know when, but the TSB does since they now have access to the FDR data and the
rapid access recorders from cockpit (which contain more info than FDR).

Spoilers and brakes are normally deployed automatically upon the landing gear
handling weight from the plane.



Because there was (apparently) no video recording of the approach and
landing, we don't know exactly where the plane touched down,

The invenstigators will know where it touched down, from thread marks on
runway as well as from timing of events in the FDR.


Consider the following scenario: wind shift causes plane to be brought to
middle of runway. Not enough runway left for either TOGA or for proper
landing. It takes time to get such a big plane to switch from descending at
landing speed to ascending without stalling, and this time is normally taken
with wheels on runway while plane re-accelerates, and undoes spoilers, brakes
etc etc. At one point in the landing sequence, the plane must touch down
before the jet engines generate enough thrust to re-accelerate the plane for a
TOGA.


The ATC *excerpts* that have been published mention the tower discussing with
other flights going around a storm that is approaching the airport. But no
mention of ATC talking to the AF flight about the storm that is nearing the
runway the plane is aiming for in final approach. Was there truly no mention,
or were such conversation omitted from the published excerps ? We don't know.


We need to get more hard facts before any judgement can be passed.

And there is also the issue of the fire. I suspect the TSB will spend a lot of
time on this issue, but we'll have to wait until the final report.

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 11:01:41 -0400, Fly Guy wrote:


The suit was filed on behalf of all 297 passengers on board the plane
that skidded off Pearson airport's runway 24L before bursting into
flames on Tuesday.

How does someone have the gall to assume they can represent everyone
on the plane? Oh yeah a lawyer.

Brian wrote:

On Sat, 06 Aug 2005 11:01:41 -0400, Fly Guy wrote:



The suit was filed on behalf of all 297 passengers on board the plane
that skidded off Pearson airport's runway 24L before bursting into
flames on Tuesday.


How does someone have the gall to assume they can represent everyone
on the plane? Oh yeah a lawyer.

According to the article, there is only one plaintiff so far.

On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 05:22:00 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:


According to the article, there is only one plaintiff so far.

According to the article, it was filed as a class action suit. The
lawyer will be trolling for more. If it's certified, then everyone
will be a member of the class unless hey opt out.

"Brian" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 07 Aug 2005 05:22:00 GMT, mrtravel
wrote:


According to the article, there is only one plaintiff so far.

According to the article, it was filed as a class action suit. The
lawyer will be trolling for more. If it's certified, then everyone
will be a member of the class unless hey opt out.

I think that these stupid class actions really are of no benefit
to society. I have no problem with them sueing someone who
is actually negligent (like possibly the pilot [1]), but simply
sueing everbody who might have contributed to the accident
in a tiny way by doing nothing more (or less) than everbody
else in the same job is unhelpful. It's not even as if anybody
died.

Boy, am I glad that the attempt to move this practice to Europe
was given the response it deserves.

tim


[1] But of course they don't do this because they can't
afford to pay out