Aviation Law Monitor : Aviation Lawyer & Attorney : Michael Danko Law Firm : California Airplane & Helicopter Crashes : Aviation Law Monitor

At least 10 people aboard United Flight 935 were hurt when the aircraft encountered severe turbulence.  Is the airline responsible for compensating its injured passengers?

Because Flight 935 was an international flight, a treaty known as the Montreal Convention governs the passengers' claims.  The Montreal Convention makes the airline liable for any injuries suffered on board the aircraft due to an "accident."  The definition of "accident" includes an encounter with severe turbulence.  The passenger need not prove that the airline was at fault for the accident.  Under the Convention, the airline is automatically liable.

Some courts have ruled that while an airline is automatically liable for any "accident" on an international flight, its obligation to compensate an injured passenger may be reduced if the passenger himself contributed to his injury.  One issue that typically arises in turbulence cases is whether the injured passenger should have been wearing his seat belt.  In this case, it appears the seat belt sign was off and the turbulence competely unexpected, so that should not be an issue.

As discussed here, the Convention entitles the passengers to be compensated for the emotional distress they have suffered, but only if they also suffered some sort of physical injury as well.

Finally, as discussed here, the passengers are entitled to sue the airline for compensation in the United States, and in particular in California (Los Angeles or San Francisco), regardless of their citizenship or final destination. 

• Email This
• Print
• Comments (2)
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Ten years ago, an Air France Concorde SST departing from Charles de Gaulle Airport ran over a strip of metal on the runway.  One of the Concorde's tires exploded.  A chunk of the debris from the tire punctured the Concorde’s fuel tank. Fuel leaked from the tank, and into an engine. The ensuing fire and engine failure brought down the aircraft. 113 people were killed.

The Crash Was Avoidable

The metal strip fell onto the runway from a Continental Airlines DC-10.  Had Continental's mechanics attached it properly, it wouldn’t have fallen off.  Continental's maintenance practices were sloppy.

It is not unusual for airplane tires to rupture during takeoff for one reason or another.  On most airliners, tire blow-outs pose no serious safety threat.  That's not the case with the Concorde. Unlike other aircraft, the Concorde's fuel tanks are positioned directly over the tires.  The tanks are therefore at risk of being ruptured if a tire explodes.  Furthermore, the aircraft's engines are positioned so that any fuel from a rupture could easily start a fire.  That makes the Concorde design suspect.

This wasn’t the first time a blown tire ruptured a Concorde's fuel tank. In fact, there was a string of previous incidents. So the potential for disaster was obvious. Nonetheless, Air France, as well as the Concorde's manufacturer, chose to simply ignore the problem and hope for the best. 

It was a bad decision.

The Criminal Trial

A criminal trial began in France in February. Yesterday, French prosecutors asked that Henri Perrier, the engineer who most refer to as the “father” of the Concorde, be sentenced to jail, but that the sentence be suspended.  (Perrier is third from left in this 1969 photo.)  Prosecutors asked for the same for the two Continental Airlines mechanics whose sloppy maintenance allowed the metal strip to end up on the runway.

Some suggest the trial is a colossal waste of time and effort. What, after all, is the point? How will the trial enhance aviation safety?  Certainly, it won't help the families at all, will it?

No, it will not.  In fact, such criminal prosecutions actually impede safety. If the mechanics and engineers who are involved in an aircraft accident investigation need to be concerned

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

Counting today's Air India crash, the last 11 airline accidents resulting in passenger fatalities have all involved foreign airlines (fatalities in parenthesis):

2010:

• May 22 – Air India Express Flight 812 at Mangalore International Airport  (158)
• May 17 – Pamir Airways Flight 112, Afghanistan (43)
• May 12 – Afriqiyah Airways Flight 771 at Tripoli International Airport (103)
• January 25 – Ethiopian Airlines Flight 409, Mediterranean Sea (90)

2009:

• November 12 – RwandAir Flight 205 at Kigali International Airport (1) 
• August 4 – Bangkok Airways Flight 266, Ko Samui, Thailand (1) 
• July 24 – Aria Air Flight 1525, Mashhad, Iran (17)
• July 15 – Caspian Airlines Flight 7908, Qazin, Iran (168)
• June 30 – Yemenia Flight 626, Indian Ocean  (152)
• June 1 – Air France Flight 447, Atlantic Ocean (228)
• February 25 – Turkish Airlines Flight 1951, Amsterdam (9)

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link

The Death on the High Seas Act was originally intended to apply to shipwrecks and other shipping accidents in international waters.  Though a law of admiralty, DOHSA's wording is broad enough to cover any accident, not just shipping accidents. Therefore, it applies with equal force to aviation accidents occurring on the high seas.

The "high seas" are those international waters more than 12 nautical miles from the shore of the United States or one of its islands.  After an aviation accident, it doesn't matter whether the passenger's family sues the responsible airline under the Warsaw or Montreal conventions, a mechanic for negligence, or a manufacturer for a defectively designed product. If the accident happened on or over the "high seas," those responsible for the

• Email This
• Print
• Comments
• Trackbacks
• Share Link