Plaintiff was on a flight from Abu Dhabi to Chicago. She placed her hand into the seatback pocket, and was unexpectedly stuck with a hypodermic needle that lay within.
Aviation journalist Christine Negroni reports in Forbes that Monica Ribbeck Kelly, the lawyer who instituted “frivolous” legal proceedings after Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 went missing, has herself disappeared. Not only was the Illinois Ethics Committee after Kelly, but she was being sued by victims of an airline disaster in China for promising to file suit on behalf of victims but failing to do so before the statute of limitations expired, leaving the victim’s without any legal recourse. It appears that Kelly has shuttered her law office and gone back to her native Peru.
According to Negroni, maybe this is the last we see of Ribbeck:
There are few successful days in court associated with Monica Ribbeck [Kelly]’s high-profile representation of air disaster victims. So while her departure from the US may deprive dissatisfied clients . . . of any legal recourse, it could be the last we see of her shenanigans with the American legal system.
Four years ago, the NTSB questioned whether manufactures like Boeing should be allowed to self-certify that their aircraft designs meet FAA requirements. The NTSB suggested that “self-certification” may have contributed to the battery fires that were being experienced on Boeing’s 787s. After all, it’s the FAA’s job to make an independent determination that an aircraft design is safe. It makes little sense to pass that job to the manufacturer, who is hardly independent.
The FAA’s response was to delegate even more authority to manufacturers. In fact, the GAO reports that 90% of all aircraft certification work is now outsourced to the manufacturers themselves.
How is that working out? Not surprisingly, not so well. According to documents obtained by the Seattle Times, through 2015, Boeing was fined $13 million to settle FAA proceedings arising from falsification of certification and repair work. The Seattle Times noted that one Boeing mechanic told FAA investigators that he had been entering false data into aircraft inspection records for at least seven years.
It was seven years ago that Kas Osterbuhr put together a nearly courtroom-ready reconstruction animation of Flight 1549. At the time, there really was nothing else like it. With the movie coming out, Kas went back and updated his work. Next worst thing to being there.
Aviation expert Clive Irving suggests that, because the Egypt Air pilots made no mayday call, they must have been killed before the aircraft crashed. In other words, the crash was the result of terrorism rather than a mechanical issue.
Normally in a fire and smoke emergency the pilots would have time to don smoke masks with microphones in them, and would be able to send a Mayday, and describe the problem. The Egyptian pilots clearly were never able to do this, suggesting the possibility that they were either disabled or killed at the onset of whatever overcame the airplane so rapidly.
I’m guessing Mr. Irving never experienced a significant in flight emergency. Those who have understand that the last thing a pilot facing an emergency feels the need to do is broadcast a mayday or “describe the problem” to some air traffic controller sitting in a warm dark room hundreds of miles away, sipping coffee. And calling air traffic control to “describe the problem” is a task that appears on few, if any, emergency checklists. Sure, pilots in distress broadcast “Mayday! Mayday!” all the time – in the movies. But that’s about it.
“Mayday” is from the French, “m’aidez”, meaning “help me.” When you are 6 miles over the ocean and dealing with smoke in the cockpit there is nothing an air traffic controller can do to help you. Nothing at all. The smoke is entirely your problem. In an emergency, communicating with an air traffic controller is most often a distraction to be avoided or at least deferred until time and bandwidth permits.
We don’t yet know whether the flight 805 crashed due to a mechanical problem or a terrorist act. But the fact that the pilots made no mayday call suggests nothing.
Injured passengers have filed suit against Spirit Airlines in connection with last month’s drunken melee on board a flight from Baltimore to LAX. The plaintiffs, represented by Los Angeles attorney Gloria Allred, seek to hold Spirit Airlines responsible for the conduct of the unruly passengers who injured them because Spirit Airlines allegedly fueled the flap with copious amounts of alcohol and failed to protect them from injury.
Claims against ground-based barkeepers and others who over serve customers are permitted in some states. But such suits don’t work when the defendant is an airline. The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 grants an airline immunity from any liability arising from the airline’s choices in connection with “routes, rates, or service.” “Service” includes drink service. That means that when a drunken passenger injures his fellow traveler, the airline who served the offending passenger cannot be held liable. Gee v. Southwest Airlines.
This case isn’t going anywhere.
Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 is still missing. Before filing any lawsuits, the families of those missing would certainly prefer to know what happened. But with a strict two year statute of limitations set to expire tomorrow, the families have to file suit now or never. So it’s not surprising that a flurry of lawsuits are being filed around the world.
The Montreal Convention controls any lawsuits filed against Malaysia Airlines. It allows suit to be filed against an airline in a U.S. court only if either:
- The passenger’s ticket was issued in the United States;
- The passenger’s journey was a round trip that started in the United States or was a one-way trip that ended in the United States;
- The airline is incorporated in the United States;
- The airline’s principal place of business is in the United States;
- The United States was the passenger’s permanent residence.
Most of the passengers were Chinese, so, as expected, a number of families filed suits today in Beijing Court. Many more filed in Malaysia.
But at least 45 plaintiffs joined in a suit filed in California federal court in a case entitled Zhang v. Malaysia Airlines Berhard. At first blush, it wouldn’t appear that the plaintiffs can meet the Montreal Convention’s prerequisites for obtaining jurisdiction in the U.S. For example, the passengers weren’t U.S. residents, nor is the airline’s principal place of business in the U.S. So what’s the justification for filing here?
The plaintiffs allege that jurisdiction is proper in the U.S. because the airline is now legally “dead.” When the person liable is dead, the Montreal Convention allows the family to sue those representing the dead entity’s estate. Plaintiffs allege that, in this case, the entity now representing the dead airline’s estate is its insurer, Allianz Global, and that Allianz maintains offices in the United States.
[A]n action lies against Allianz after [Malaysia Airlines] was rendered defunct and dead and an action lies against those Defendants as would lie against [the airline].. . .. Defendant Allianz maintains its principle places of business in three locations in California and six other locations.
Certainly, a novel argument for access to the U.S. court system. Expect Allianz to challenge U.S. jurisdiction almost immediately.
American Airlines Flight 109, traveling from London to Los Angeles, was two hours into its flight when passengers and crew members suddenly started fainting or otherwise becoming ill. The captain turned the Boeing 777 around and landed at Heathrow.
According to the Daily Telegraph in Britain, the aircraft likely experienced a problem with the aircraft’s pressurization system:
This would suggest problems with cabin pressure, although normally such problems occur during take-off and landing.
American Airlines added that the aircraft was being inspected by maintenance engineers.
Actually, what happened was likely a “fume event.” For years, the airline denied fume events existed, but now we know that they do. And we know that they are dangerous. In fact, I wrote about a fume event aboard another American Airlines Flight (Flight 49) almost five years ago.
Here’s what happens: airlines pump air into the cabin. The air is a mix of fresh air and air that has been compressed by the aircraft’s engines–known as "bleed air." But when the air distribution system malfunctions, toxic chemicals found in the aircraft’s engine oil can be heated and pumped through the airplane, creating a fume event that makes passengers sick
Sometimes the passengers recover quickly, sometimes the ill effects can linger for years, with victims suffering ongoing tremors, memory loss, and headaches.
If they are injured, passengers can recover against the responsible airline. Because American Airlines Flight 109light was international, the Montreal Convention applies. The Convention requires an airline to offer fair compensation to anyone injured as a result of an "accident." A fume event would likely qualify as an accident, even though some airlines now contend that fume events are a "normal” part of flight.
The flight attendants, however, can’t sue the airlines due to workers’ compensation laws. That means their only chance for compensation is a product defect claim against Boeing, the aircraft’s manufacturer. As it turns out, Boeing has known about the risks of fume events in its designs since the 1950’s.
A few days ago, most were saying it’s too early to tell what brought down the Russian Airbus that crashed on Egypt’s Sinai Peninsula, killing all 224 aboard. Now, there’s talk of the aircraft being downed by a bomb.
Why a bomb? The best explanation comes an article written by former NTSB investigator Doug Herlihy, appearing in the Goldendale Sentinel:
First, it’s likely that the aircraft came apart in flight.
The pieces of aircraft and persons on board are being found spread over 20KM (over 15 miles) in the mountainous region of the southern Sinai. The spread of wreckage is the most critical piece of the accident puzzle.
When aircraft break up in flight, the parts are spread by two phenomena: the “ballistics” of the pieces and the wind. “Ballistics” refers to the shape and weight of the object (like bullets or feathers) and how they will fly to earth. The second factor is the wind at various altitudes as the parts fall to earth. Like tearing a pillow in the wind, the parts are widely spread.
Second, aircraft seldom blow up because of a defect lurking within. History shows that they almost always blow up because of an outside force.
Rarely, have any system or fuel supply or tank ever exploded a modern airplane. Jet aircraft jet fuel, like kerosene and diesel fuel is not prone to explosion. And, though it is not uncommon for an airliner to be hit by lightning, it’s almost unheard of that it has caused an explosion. Investigators know that either an on-board bomb or a hit by an explosive device is very high on the list of clues to search for.
It looks as though the Germanwings first officer intentionally crashed the aircraft, killing all aboard. Reporters are asking about the airline’s obligation to provide the passengers’ families monetary compensation. Here are some answers:
The airline must compensate the families for any "accident." Because Flight 9525 was an international flight, all the families’ claims are governed by a treaty called the Montreal Convention. The treaty makes the airline automatically liable to the families for any "accident." It doesn’t matter whether the airline was negligent or did anything wrong.
The crash was the result of an "accident." Even if, as it appears, the first officer intentionally crashed the plane, it was still an "accident." Most courts define "accident" for the purposes of the Montreal Convention to be any "unexpected or unusual event or happening that was external to the passenger." The pilot’s decision to crash the plane would certainly qualify.
The Montreal Convention’s limits of liability will not apply. An airline can avoid paying to the families of those lost in an accident any amount over 113,100 Special Drawing Rights (a sum equal to about US$160,000) if it can prove that it was in no way at fault for the crash. Generally, it’s very difficult for an airline to make that showing. It’s the problem of proving a negative. In this case, of course, it will be impossible for the airline to prove it was completely free of fault. So the Convention will impose no limit on the airline’s obligation to compensate the families for their loss.
The Airline is off the hook for punitive damages. Though the airline will have to compensate the families for their losses, even if it turns out that the airline knew or should have known that the first officer presented a danger, the Montreal Convention prohibits a court from awarding punitive damages, or money designed to punish the airline rather than compensate the families.
The amounts that the families will receive depends upon where they sue. The Montreal Convention leaves it to the courts of the country in which the passenger sues to decide how much money is appropriate compensation for the loss of a loved one. Every country is different. In the United States, certain families of those lost could expect payouts to exceed $10 million, depending on the circumstances. In France and Germany, the payouts would be much, much lower.
Few passengers, if any, will be able to sue in the US. The Montreal Convention allows families to sue in the United States only in certain limited circumstances. For example, a family might be able to sue in the US if the passenger happened to purchase his tickets in the US, or if he was planning to continue on after landing to a destination in the United States, or perhaps if the passenger was US resident.