New Plane Type (World 4)

[specter177]

I believe he means the AA Flight 191 incident where the #1 engine fell off the airplane.

Wikipedia[/url]"]American Airlines Flight 191

In 1979, with the cargo door issues resolved, DC-10s (all series) around the world were grounded following the crash of American Airlines Flight 191. Flight 191 lost its number one wing engine after taking off from O'Hare International Airport in Chicago, USA, May 25, 1979.[1] As the engine separated upwards, it ripped through the leading edge of the wing, rupturing hydraulic lines which caused a hydraulic cylinder that locked the port wing slats to fail. As airspeed was reduced per AA emergency climb-out procedures, the slats retracted, the left wing stalled, the plane rolled left and crashed before the flight crew could recover. All 271 people on board, plus two on the ground, were killed in this accident; the worst single plane crash in America.

The United States National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) officials discovered that a maintenance procedure was the culprit: American Airlines mechanics had removed the engine and its pylon together, rather than removing the engine from the pylon then the pylon from the wing, as recommended by McDonnell Douglas. This was done using a forklift and the pylon was inadvertently cracked in the process. The short-cut procedure, thought to save several man hours on maintenance, was used by three major airlines, although McDonnell Douglas advised against it. Although McDonnell Douglas was not directly at fault for the pylon separation, it redesigned the DC-10 to allow more redundancies in the hydraulic systems.

The Chicago incident also highlighted a major deficiency in the DC-10 design—its lack of locking flap mechanisms designed to maintain their position in the event of a hydraulic or pneumatic failure. Other wide-body aircraft of the day carried such a feature, but it was omitted from the DC-10. Another deficiency highlighted in the NTSB report was the vulnerable placement of wiring at the leading edge (front) of the wing. When the engine pulled up and over the wing, it tore out these wires, thus rendering inoperable vital warning instruments in the cockpit. Other aircraft of this era typically placed this kind of wiring in the center of the wing, in a less vulnerable position. In addition, only the pilot had a stick-shaker to warn of stalling, as the co-pilot was the one flying the plane, there was no warning that the plane was stalling.

[yourefired]

I meant AA96 and Turkish Air 981 where the cargo door fell off, collapsing a part of the floor above it and causing massive decompression.

Last I looked, airplane doors aren't just supposed to fall off.

And then there's that one Continental DC10 that caused the crash of AF4590 Concorde.

[sam051]

I meant AA96 and Turkish Air 981 where the cargo door fell off, collapsing a part of the floor above it and causing massive decompression.

Last I looked, airplane doors aren't just supposed to fall off.

And then there's that one Continental DC10 that caused the crash of AF4590 Concorde.

Yeh doors aren't supposed to, For the well being of myself (not directed to the quote above btw) as i am travelling on an A320 tommoro, say its a good plane and that it will be safe hehe. Nah just kidding i don't care i love planes and i know they are safe. unless it's one of the old russian planes or Douglas or MD or Boeings which are fitted with outside closing lower hold doors, ooh there scary hehe.

[Pacific]

Anyone been watching this season's Air Crash Investigation?  They covered the DC-10's cargo doors in depth.  The DC-10 as it is today is very safe and versatile aircraft but back in the 70s, it wasn't so.

As for the A320, there was that crash of the AF A320 doing a flyby with pax on board.  Although the final blame was on the pilot, allegations of a coverup are abound.

[yourefired]

Anyone been watching this season's Air Crash Investigation?  They covered the DC-10's cargo doors in depth.  The DC-10 as it is today is very safe and versatile aircraft but back in the 70s, it wasn't so.

As for the A320, there was that crash of the AF A320 doing a flyby with pax on board.  Although the final blame was on the pilot, allegations of a coverup are abound.

I've been watching the old ones on youtube. By the way the B747 had the same problem and nobody knew about it until UA811. And even if the cargo door did fail, it shouldn't rip a huge chunk out of the plane. Airplanes are supposed to be designed to be able to fly semi-normally even with multiple problems.

And then there's decrepit maintenance. The only way to get an airline to do the right thing is to sue (fine) them out of business every time a plane falls out of the sky. I propose every time a plane falls out of the sky, the airline who operates that plane is fined $100,000,000. Regardless of who is at fault. You have to make it too expensive for airlines to let planes fall out of the sky......they subcontract and save $2 million and then a plane falls out of the sky because of their decrepit work and lack of oversight and they're fined $100 million from the FAA. And then the wrongful death suits come in and they pay out another $100 million in damages. And this should come out of the CEOs' paychecks. Letting an airplane even leave the gate without the plane being in the absolute best condition it can be is criminal negligence and should be treated as such (last I checked, in the US anyway, killing people due to a criminally negligent act is a strict liability crime, and mens rea doesn't apply) . Passengers trust airlines to look after their safety while in flight, and to let a plane fall out of the sky to save money is not only a deliberate act of murder, it's a breach of trust. And they should pay. Dearly. Or go belly up.

Oh, and let's go fine the airplane manufacturer another $100 million if their planes fall out of the sky because of a defect. Oh, and ground the entire fleet, every time a plane crashes. If there might be a design flaw, well, letting them fly is criminal negligence. There's too many lives at stake to let another plane fall out of the sky.

[dktc]

And then there's decrepit maintenance. The only way to get an airline to do the right thing is to sue (fine) them out of business every time a plane falls out of the sky. I propose every time a plane falls out of the sky, the airline who operates that plane is fined $100,000,000. Regardless of who is at fault. You have to make it too expensive for airlines to let planes fall out of the sky......they subcontract and save $2 million and then a plane falls out of the sky because of their decrepit work and lack of oversight and they're fined $100 million from the FAA. And then the wrongful death suits come in and they pay out another $100 million in damages. And this should come out of the CEOs' paychecks. Letting an airplane even leave the gate without the plane being in the absolute best condition it can be is criminal negligence and should be treated as such (last I checked, in the US anyway, killing people due to a criminally negligent act is a strict liability crime, and mens rea doesn't apply) . Passengers trust airlines to look after their safety while in flight, and to let a plane fall out of the sky to save money is not only a deliberate act of murder, it's a breach of trust. And they should pay. Dearly. Or go belly up.

Airlines are regulated by Warsaw / Montreal Conventions.
Montreal Convention is adopted by US and EU, while most other countries follow Warsaw. For international flights touching US, a compromise in between the two is made, based primarily on Warsaw Convention.

Negligence is covered by the Warsaw limit, which is about USD 75,000 per passenger (flights between Warsaw countries would have limit of 10,000 SDR, which is about USD 15,000). Only when/if the airlines are reckless or willingfully engaged in harm, the passenger could have a chance to sue above that limit.

Under Montreal Conventions, the limit per pax increases to USD 100,000. Negligence is not covered under Montreal, so for negligence for flights between Montreal countries, and US domestics, one could sue above the limit.

But anyway, in both cases, if the plane has like 100 pax or above, the damage is going to be above USD 100 million if the plane touches US, after the damages for cargo / baggages.

One issue with criminally negligence is if the maintenance is contracted out, and if the contractor says the plane is at good condition, and if the contractor does not have a worse than average record, and if the airline has not instructed the contractor how to do their jobs, then the airlines probably would not be criminally negligence. Negligence maybe, but probably not criminally. (Remember, you are not liable for the actions of your contractor, until the moment you intervene with their action. Responsibility can not be delegated, which is why the airlines could still be negligence, but the criminally part is debatable.) And the airlines could always sue the contractor for void of contract and negligence.

As my law lecturer says, the only ones who win are the attorneys

[Blue Sky Mine]

Just came through the news today: A DC9 seems to have crashed into a quote "densely populated area" in eastern Congo. Something between 70 and 90 passengers.

Source (in German): http://www.n24.de/news/newsitem_719209.html

[Chavaquiah]

In English, on the BBC site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7348743.stm

[Blue Sky Mine]

For those interested: A french report on aviation in Congo (3 parts). You don't really need to understand French to view this, the pictures speak for themselves...
http://de.youtube.com/watch?v=2eUxpDnRfBI

[yourefired]

The company is negligent if it doesn't oversee their subcontractors and hold them accountable for their work. Likely criminal. The airline knows the safety of everyone on board is at stake if the plane is not in top condition.  That's not in dispute. The airline knows that the plane may crash without enough oversight. That isn't in dispute either. It's the airline's responsibility to inspect the work of contractors to make sure they do the job right and to fire them if they don't. Ultimately, it's the airline, not the subcontractor who has their name painted on the plane.

But taking the subcontractor's word at face value is negligence so gross it's borderline criminal. If you want proof, US Airways flight 5481.

[dktc]

The company is negligent if it doesn't oversee their subcontractors and hold them accountable for their work. Likely criminal.

That is not 100% correct.

If say a company is subcontracting out the "snow clearing" work. The company has the responsibility to make sure that is it done. If it is not done, the company could fire the contractor or tell them to follow the contract. However, if someone slip, the company is negligence. The company then could sue the contractor for damage of void of contract to recover the damage of the negligence claim. The whole deal would not be criminal at all.

On the same line, if the airlines have utilized reasonable line checks, with good record keeping and SOPs they follow, the airline would not necessarily be liable.

The claim one would probably use under the plane dropping situation would be "Res Ipsa Loquitur" (the thing speaks for itself, which includes 3 elements...
- the event does not normally occur without negligence
- exclusive control by defendant
- no provocation / contribution by plaintiff.
The third is relatively easy to prove. The issue is the first two. Does the plane normal drop from the sky without negligence? On one hand, planes don't normally drop from the sky. On the other hand, planes dropping from the sky doesn't neccesarily mean negligence. Is the event controlled by the defendant exclusively? Not really. That would depend on the investigation report of the accident, which could at times be inconclusive. If the plaintiff can't prove all 3, then they would have to fall back to proving the duty, breach, injury, and causation. Duty and injury are easy. Causation again depends on the investigation. Breach is the tricky one. Does outsourcing mean breach of duty? If the airlines perform checks, but somehow everything checked out right... is that a breach? That is a debatable issue. (Bare in mind no airlines operating in US would send planes in the air with pax if there are any doubts about the safety, yet accidents still occur.)

Strict liability doesn't apply here because strict liability refers ultrahazardous activities that could outlawed because of the danger it creates. I don't think we could say flying on a commercial aircraft is "ultrahazardous".

The whole negligence law is to encourage people to act reasonably. It is not to encourage all companies to do everything under one roof without any outsourcing. If you skip directly from outsource = save cost = lower quality = disaster, that is a bit too biased.

That being said, the airline is not always liable. It could be the contractor, the manufacturer, or whoever else that is involved. Fining airlines prematurely is not a reasonable act.

[yourefired]

Well if the airline is fined prematurely rather than dragging out investigations for years on end, they might be more inclined to provide more oversight, or move maintenance and such inhouse altogether. It's an airline's responsibility to make sure it's planes are safe to fly, its pilots are adequately and well-trained, and its passengers are safe. If there's a cargo door failure because Boeing or MD can't design planes, you're right, it's not UA's fault. But if UA knows it can be fined for operating a defective product, it will scrutinize the designs of every product it buys more carefully (I hope). And NOT buy products that are fundamentally unsafe. As far as flying goes, I would call hurtling through the skies at 550kts (1350kts in Concorde's case) in a pressurized metal tube loaded with hundreds of thousands of gallons of explosive aviation fuel at FL430 is quite up there on the hazardous list.

We had a long, very thorough discussion about matters like this in my criminology class, over whether it's a corporate crime to knowingly fly or sell unsafe planes, or knowingly not fix a defect (which is what MD did with their cargo doors for 2-5 years). The consensus seems to be yes, it is criminal.

When you hurtle through the air at 550kts with 300 people on board in a 200 foot pressurized metal tube loaded with explosive parts and hundreds of thousands of gallons of explosive aviation fuel at FL430, you're being negligent if you have even a 0.000001% doubt that the plane is completely safe. In fact you should be 250% sure that it's safe. You should be prepared to bet your life, the lives of your loved ones and your friends and ALL of your assets plus more that that plane will take off and land safely in one piece. Because one life lost is too many. Any pilot that sees anything even slightly odd about a plane (i.e. even if the radio sounds a little fuzzy) should refuse to fly it until the airline fixes it, or insist on another plane. Because that slightly odd thing might bring the plane down.

I have nothing against outsourcing frankly. But when the lives of millions of people are at stake, they'd better be prepared to bet the assets of the entire company that the plane is 100% safe.

[dktc]

What criminology class are you taking? Mine sure doesn't talk about that. What I listed was from my law class instead.

Again, the issue with flying being "hazardous" is the reasonableness. If you say flying is hazardous, then driving should have been prohibited before Ford started mass production. Sitting on a fuel tank going at 50mph next to another car at similar speed and next to buildings and other fixtures is no less "hazardous".

[yourefired]

We talked about the Ford Pinto case, and whether the CEOs that decided they'd rather pay out on wrongful death suits than fix the car part were criminally negligent. Most of us said yes they were.

Driving's dangerous too. Modern life is dangerous. I didn't say flying should be banned. I said flying any plane that isn't anything other than 100% functional should be illegal. And yes, driving IS less hazardous. Gasoline is less flammable than jet fuel. If you jump out of a moving car, you're not guaranteed death. If the windows in your car break, you don't get sucked out of it. And if your car malfunctions, it's not 7 miles above the surface of the earth traveling at 550mph. And if your car malfunctions, you can pull over to the side of the road. If a plane pulls over to the side of the road, everyone on board is dead.

Ultimately it's the corporate culture, at airlines, at food producers, at any company. The anything in the name of profit culture needs to be changed. It's killing people, it has killed people and it will kill people. And the CEO is ultimately responsible for the corporate culture. At some point people have to say "enough is enough" and rein these people in. And enough is enough left the building a decade or two ago.