Boeing 777 plane crash-lands at San Francisco airport

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

There's also more on the litigation front, as would be expected. This below from Bloomberg:

Asiana Sued by Two Passengers in San Francisco Crash

By Karen Gullo - Jul 17, 2013 6:53 PM GMT+0700

Asiana Airlines Inc. (020560) was sued for negligence by two passengers on the plane that crashed while landing at San Francisco International Airport on July 6, killing three people and injuring 181 others.

Younga Jun Machorro, her son Benjamin Hyo-in Machorro, and her husband Hector Machorro, who wasn’t on the flight, claimed the plane’s pilots failed to observe fundamental procedures for a visual landing approach, monitor flight conditions and react to those conditions, according to a complaint filed July 15 in federal court in San Francisco.

“The Asiana crash occurred due to the gross negligence and recklessness of the Asiana flight crew,” Michael Verna, the Machorros’ attorney, said in the complaint.

The family members, who reside in the San Francisco area, seek at least $5 million in damages. The Machorros purchased their tickets in the San Francisco area and were flying home, according to the complaint.

MORE:

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's the AP's report on the Ribbeck filing. It sounds like it's not quite a lawsuit over the crash per se yet... but rather, a precursor to one.

CHICAGO (AP) — A Chicago law firm took steps to sue aircraft manufacturer Boeing Co. on behalf of 83 passengers from the Asiana Airlines flight that crash-landed in San Francisco.

Ribbeck Law Chartered says in a news release that it filed a petition Monday in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago to help preserve evidence in the July 6 crash. Three people were killed when the Boeing 777 clipped a seawall at the end of a runway.

Ribbeck says additional pleadings will be filed against Asiana Airlines and several component parts manufacturers.

The firm says the crash might have been caused by a mechanical malfunction of the auto-throttle. It also says some sliding ramps opened inside the plane, injuring passengers and blocking their exit.

A Boeing spokesman said the company had no comment.

http://news.yahoo.com/law-firms-says-suing-boeing-over-asiana-crash-222912489.html

CNBC used slightly different language in their report:

Ribbeck Law Chartered on Monday filed a petition for discovery, which is meant to preserve evidence, in Cook County Circuit Court in Chicago, where the aircraft manufacturer is headquartered. The firm said in a news release that additional pleadings will be filed against Asiana Airlines and several component parts manufacturers in coming days.

Edited July 17, 2013 by TallGuyJohninBKK

[F430murci]

The issues about the couple of escape slides that somehow deployed inside the plane and about having to cut some passengers out of their seat belts are ones that simply have been widely reported in news accounts and from the NTSB briefings. Nothing "insider" about that.

But thus far, from everything I've seen publicly, there's been zero indication produced thus far even hinting or suggesting that there was any kind of mechanical problem with the auto throttle system. Perhaps pilots who didn't know how to use it or didn't know how to use it well in a looming emergency situation. But that's a different matter.

I am not disagreeing. There may be nothing, but this is not like chasing an ambulance. Plaintiff's firm could easily end up with several million in costs and big companies don't just roll over contrary to popular belief and conservatives wanting tort reform. I fight everything g and pay nothing and if I have to pay, I pay at the very end. I have several things plaintiffs don't have: endless resources, time and patience.

One if my firm's large clients in Lloyds and we have handled smaller commuter and business jet crashes. These companies, mainly engine and hull, let us fight and so does Lloyds. Airline will pay though.

[jpinx]

And on a side note regarding the Asiana lawsuit against the TV station.

Asiana drops lawsuit against TV station

Asiana Airlines says it has decided not to file a lawsuit against a US television station which aired false and offensive names for the pilots involved in the fatal San Francisco plane crash.

The South Korean airline had earlier said it was planning a defamation lawsuit against Fox network affiliate KTVU news Channel 2 in Oakland over its coverage of the crash on July 6.

The TV station identified the pilots of the Asiana Boeing 777 as "Sum Ting Wong," "Wi Tu Lo," "Ho Lee Fuk," and "Bang Ding Ow".

ninemsn.com.au

One wonders why the lawsuit against Boeing would change the grounds for the one against the TV station....

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

Here's a pretty good explanation from the Washington Post about why Asiana should not have been wasting it's time/energy trying to go after KTVU:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/07/15/asiana-airlines-idiotic-lawsuit-threat/

If Asiana wants the public to continue pondering the San Francisco crash, it’ll hotly pursue this litigation. It’ll surely kick-start a wonderful public debate: Is the airline worst at PR, law or aviation?

[F430murci]

Here's a pretty good explanation from the Washington Post about why Asiana should not have been wasting it's time/energy trying to go after KTVU:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/erik-wemple/wp/2013/07/15/asiana-airlines-idiotic-lawsuit-threat/

If Asiana wants the public to continue pondering the San Francisco crash, itll hotly pursue this litigation. Itll surely kick-start a wonderful public debate: Is the airline worst at PR, law or aviation?

Yep, careful with defamation lawsuits as you put your reputation at issue when trying to show false statement somehow harmed their reputation which apparently ain't so good to begin with.

One would assume that in light of the crash plastered all over TV, the absolute hilarious nature of the subject matter (names) that most would not find offensive (people need to stop being so sensitive) and the fact that an American jury probably won't want to give American money to a Korean airline whose pilots frickin missed the run way.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

I suspect Asiana's lawyers are going to be very busy for some years to come...and it won't be with suing KTVU.

Which brings up an interesting question: In a big high profile crash like this, does the airline end up suffering financially as a result of the ensuing litigation, or are big commercial airlines like this protected by tons of accident insurance?

Even if they don't suffer financially in a direct way as a result of litigation, I suspect they will suffer business-wise.

I've never flown Asiana or KAL before, only because I've never traveled to Korea. But in the wake of this crash and mainly, reading what I've read about the pilots' training culture at the two airlines, I suspect it'll be a long day in hell before I'd ever fly them in the future.

Of course, I'm a farang...not Korean... So maybe if I'm Korean, I'm thinking this whole thing is Boeing's fault. Same like the Thais... it's always someone else's fault... not ours.

[F430murci]

I suspect Asiana's lawyers are going to be very busy for some years to come...and it won't be with suing KTVU.

Which brings up an interesting question: In a big high profile crash like this, does the airline end up suffering financially as a result of the ensuing litigation, or are big commercial airlines like this protected by tons of accident insurance?

Even if they don't suffer financially in a direct way as a result of litigation, I suspect they will suffer business-wise.

I've never flown Asiana or KAL before, only because I've never traveled to Korea. But in the wake of this crash and mainly, reading what I've read about the pilots' training culture at the two airlines, I suspect it'll be a long day in hell before I'd ever fly them in the future.

Of course, I'm a farang...not Korean... So maybe if I'm Korean, I'm thinking this whole thing is Boeing's fault. Same like the Thais... it's always someone else's fault... not ours.

Huge policies. Massive.

[lomatopo]

The lawsuit against the TV station, and possibly the NTSB intern who might have corroborated the "fake" names, was ill-advised from a PR stand-point. Good to see OZ dropped that suit.

[Mosha]

If the fault is laid fully at the airlines door. Asiana may get sued in turn by Boeing.

[Chicog]

The issues about the couple of escape slides that somehow deployed inside the plane and about having to cut some passengers out of their seat belts are ones that simply have been widely reported in news accounts and from the NTSB briefings. Nothing "insider" about that.

But thus far, from everything I've seen publicly, there's been zero indication produced thus far even hinting or suggesting that there was any kind of mechanical problem with the auto throttle system. Perhaps pilots who didn't know how to use it or didn't know how to use it well in a looming emergency situation. But that's a different matter.

I am not disagreeing. There may be nothing, but this is not like chasing an ambulance. Plaintiff's firm could easily end up with several million in costs and big companies don't just roll over contrary to popular belief and conservatives wanting tort reform. I fight everything g and pay nothing and if I have to pay, I pay at the very end. I have several things plaintiffs don't have: endless resources, time and patience.

One if my firm's large clients in Lloyds and we have handled smaller commuter and business jet crashes. These companies, mainly engine and hull, let us fight and so does Lloyds. Airline will pay though.

Ultimately it's the bean counters who decide. If you can get away with a settlement and no admission of liability, which is common, that's preferable to excessive legal fees and the negative publicity.

[skippybangkok]

I am pretty sure that the Slide designers did not have in their design brief :-

" able to still functional after a cartwheel crash and subsequent complete mangling of fuselage"

Any designer who can do that and still hit fuel and load economy requirements is a magician

Edited July 19, 2013 by skippybangkok

[jpinx]

I am pretty sure that the Slide designers did not have in their design brief :-

" able to still functional after a cartwheel crash and subsequent complete mangling of fuselage"

Any designer who can do that and still hit fuel and load economy requirements is a magician

I think the brief would have been more about the slides not activating except for the very specific actions of the crew on the controls. Certainly something was a little too easily triggered and there will probably be an AD on it soon.

[skippybangkok]

I am pretty sure that the Slide designers did not have in their design brief :-

" able to still functional after a cartwheel crash and subsequent complete mangling of fuselage"

Any designer who can do that and still hit fuel and load economy requirements is a magician

I think the brief would have been more about the slides not activating except for the very specific actions of the crew on the controls. Certainly something was a little too easily triggered and there will probably be an AD on it soon.

Not prob brief, I mean input requirements for slide design.

As u know " cabin crew arm and cross check doors " is basically hooking the slide to the door threshold, so when u open the door, the slide activates.

With a twisting and deformed frame, it should still not deploy, but with all the buckling and twisting - not easy to w sure deployment does not happen.

[khaosai]

I am pretty sure that the Slide designers did not have in their design brief :-

" able to still functional after a cartwheel crash and subsequent complete mangling of fuselage"

Any designer who can do that and still hit fuel and load economy requirements is a magician

I think the brief would have been more about the slides not activating except for the very specific actions of the crew on the controls. Certainly something was a little too easily triggered and there will probably be an AD on it soon.

Not prob brief, I mean input requirements for slide design.

As u know " cabin crew arm and cross check doors " is basically hooking the slide to the door threshold, so when u open the door, the slide activates.

With a twisting and deformed frame, it should still not deploy, but with all the buckling and twisting - not easy to w sure deployment does not happen.

Hi,

Good point. The doors on the 777 are of the translating plug type. They first move in, then up, then out. If structural damage has occurred this may not be possible. It's probably something that the crew never even considered would occur.

[F430murci]

The issues about the couple of escape slides that somehow deployed inside the plane and about having to cut some passengers out of their seat belts are ones that simply have been widely reported in news accounts and from the NTSB briefings. Nothing "insider" about that.

But thus far, from everything I've seen publicly, there's been zero indication produced thus far even hinting or suggesting that there was any kind of mechanical problem with the auto throttle system. Perhaps pilots who didn't know how to use it or didn't know how to use it well in a looming emergency situation. But that's a different matter.

I am not disagreeing. There may be nothing, but this is not like chasing an ambulance. Plaintiff's firm could easily end up with several million in costs and big companies don't just roll over contrary to popular belief and conservatives wanting tort reform. I fight everything g and pay nothing and if I have to pay, I pay at the very end. I have several things plaintiffs don't have: endless resources, time and patience.

One if my firm's large clients in Lloyds and we have handled smaller commuter and business jet crashes. These companies, mainly engine and hull, let us fight and so does Lloyds. Airline will pay though.

Ultimately it's the bean counters who decide. If you can get away with a settlement and no admission of liability, which is common, that's preferable to excessive legal fees and the negative publicity.

Nah, that is just public perception.

As I said, Airline will settle, Boeing won't. Public perception about Boeing will not be hurt because according to public perception, Korean pilots flew airplane into ground.

You do realize we are are talking about the lawsuit against Boeing and not a lawsuit against Korean Airlines?

RE: Excessive legal fees

MY clients would prefer to pay me than plaintiff's lawyers. What about your clients.

Also, as I stated before, the primary consideration is deterrence. If plaintiff's firms know you will roll over and pay something based on risk management costs decisions, then you invite bs lawsuits which end up costing you much more down the road.

[skippybangkok]

Public perception about Boeing will not be hurt because according to public perception, Korean pilots flew airplane into ground.

Nope, but a few 787 Battery and ELB issues will.

Trust me, i am trying to avoid the 787 like the pest. Flying to SFO with ANA soon, made sure they don't use 787's on the route. Will give it a few more years until they have "Burned" in ( pun intended )

Edited July 19, 2013 by skippybangkok

[F430murci]

Public perception about Boeing will not be hurt because according to public perception, Korean pilots flew airplane into ground.

Nope, but a few 787 Battery and ELB issues will.

Trust me, i am trying to avoid the 787 like the pest. Flying to SFO with ANA soon, made sure they don't use 787's on the route. Will give it a few more years until they have "Burned" in ( pun intended )

Yeah, no doubt. That's a shame because it really is a nice airplane. This is what happens when we get or try to get too dang sophisticated.

[EyesWideOpen]

I am fascinated that Ribbex law firm would go after Boeing, when information so far points to the pilots flying the plane into the ground. I wonder if Asiana put up the money to the law firm to file a lawsuit that would point blame at Boeing...... Indulging in a bit of face saving to attempt to salvage what is left of their reputation. Asiana cannot attack Boeing themselves, but using a US based law firm would be perfect. Just a thought.

I would have thought that lawsuits would be coming out of the woodwork now against Asiana, not Boeing. But must be tricky to get money from a foreign firm.

[Scott]

I am not an attorney, but a friend is an attorney once told me that when suing, sue everybody and anybody involved, they will start sorting themselves out in short order and eventually the fingers will point to the most culpable.

[F430murci]

I am not an attorney, but a friend is an attorney once told me that when suing, sue everybody and anybody involved, they will start sorting themselves out in short order and eventually the fingers will point to the most culpable.

Somewhat true. Most states have comparative fault laws permitting a defendant to say that injuries were proximity caused by another's negligence to which liability should be apportioned based on relative degrees of fault.

The prudent measure is to wait until the affirmative defense has been raised. The plaintiff then has a right to amend and allege fault against defendants identified in this affirmative defense.

The best and easiest example I can provide is something I frequently encounter representing nursing homes. 70 percent of the time, nursing home sends resident to hospital with no decubitus ulcers and gets resident back with multiple decubitus ulcers. Hospitals used to be very poor at pressure sore prevention when treating geriatrics for other conditions. Nursing home would get sued over wounds and I would plead comparative fault or proximate cause of hospital. I have had very skilled plaintiff's lawyers tell me they were not adding hospital because: (1) public perception of hospital is much better than nursing home home; (2) hospitals rarely if ever settle.

Same reasoning holds true here and the shot gun approach is a very weak tactic to take in front of a jury. I personally love going in front of jury when case is over plead with shot gun approach as I use the approach to harm plaintiff's credibility.

Edited July 21, 2013 by F430murci

[NeverSure]

I am not an attorney, but a friend is an attorney once told me that when suing, sue everybody and anybody involved, they will start sorting themselves out in short order and eventually the fingers will point to the most culpable.

Somewhat true. Most states have comparative fault laws permitting a defendant to say that injuries were proximity caused by another's negligence to which liability should be apportioned based on relative degrees of fault.

The prudent measure is to wait until the affirmative defense has been raised. The plaintiff then has a right to amend and allege fault against defendants identified in this affirmative defense.

The best and easiest example I can provide is something I frequently encounter representing nursing homes. 70 percent of the time, nursing home sends resident to hospital with no decubitus ulcers and gets resident back with multiple decubitus ulcers. Hospitals used to be very poor at pressure sore prevention when treating geriatrics for other conditions. Nursing home would get sued over wounds and I would plead comparative fault or proximate cause of hospital. I have had very skilled plaintiff's lawyers tell me they were not adding hospital because: (1) public perception of hospital is much better than nursing home home; (2) hospitals rarely if ever settle.

Same reasoning holds true here and the shot gun approach is a very weak tactic to take in front of a jury. I personally love going in front of jury when case is over plead with shot gun approach as I use the approach to harm plaintiff's credibility.

You mentioned that hospitals rarely if ever settle. I'm aware of one which has the following policy. If they really screwed up and it's obvious, they settle. If they didn't do anything wrong or if they think it can't be proven, they will spend $100,000 defending a claim for $5,000.

The understandable reason (including that they have deep pockets and people would like to sue them) is to send a message to every lawyer around that lawsuits brought on a contingency basis will be a big waste of time and money. Don't even bother spending the time and money to file as a bluff hoping for a settlement. Get lost.

Edited July 22, 2013 by NeverSure

[F430murci]

I am not an attorney, but a friend is an attorney once told me that when suing, sue everybody and anybody involved, they will start sorting themselves out in short order and eventually the fingers will point to the most culpable.

Somewhat true. Most states have comparative fault laws permitting a defendant to say that injuries were proximity caused by another's negligence to which liability should be apportioned based on relative degrees of fault.

The prudent measure is to wait until the affirmative defense has been raised. The plaintiff then has a right to amend and allege fault against defendants identified in this affirmative defense.

The best and easiest example I can provide is something I frequently encounter representing nursing homes. 70 percent of the time, nursing home sends resident to hospital with no decubitus ulcers and gets resident back with multiple decubitus ulcers. Hospitals used to be very poor at pressure sore prevention when treating geriatrics for other conditions. Nursing home would get sued over wounds and I would plead comparative fault or proximate cause of hospital. I have had very skilled plaintiff's lawyers tell me they were not adding hospital because: (1) public perception of hospital is much better than nursing home home; (2) hospitals rarely if ever settle.

Same reasoning holds true here and the shot gun approach is a very weak tactic to take in front of a jury. I personally love going in front of jury when case is over plead with shot gun approach as I use the approach to harm plaintiff's credibility.

You mentioned that hospitals rarely if ever settle. I'm aware of one which has the following policy. If they really screwed up and it's obvious, they settle. If they didn't do anything wrong or if they think it can't be proven, they will spend $100,000 defending a claim for $5,000.

The understandable reason (including that they have deep pockets and people would like to sue them) is to send a message to every lawyer around that lawsuits brought on a contingency basis will be a big waste of time and money. Don't even bother spending the time and money to file as a bluff hoping for a settlement. Get lost.

I had one I took over in 1998 that we fought until 2009. The case was filed in 1990 over an infant born in 1989 that was in the neonatal intensive care that became hypoxic and ended up quadriplegic. The plaintiffs theory was that we were understaffed and a propped bottle led to choking. Our theory was that is was a SIDS incident (basically means we have no explanation). My client refused to offer anything until the baby was 19 years old and after an unbelievable amount of money was spent. The plaintiffs sued every doctor and nurse involved in care and each had 2 or 3 experts for both sides. Perhaps a 30 fact witness and 50 to 60 expert depositions in that case.

Very, very few cases I have seen doctors or hospitals roll easily. Doctors have to consent to settlement under insurance plan in my state and they never will, unless really bad. They take it personally and a 3 strike rule within 5 years can result in loss of license and 3 strikes includes settlements.

Hospitals may settle horrible infant cases, but it has to be really bad like res ipsa case (leaving scalpel in) to settle on front end and without a good fight for an adult. In fact, I cannot think of any easy settlements with hospitals (my clients it codefendants) in the last ten years. Not one.

Edited July 22, 2013 by F430murci

[Scott]

I think we can end the legal discussion about hospitals...unless one is filed in the case of the plane crash.

Thanks.

[Tywais]

Asiana crash: Death of girl hit by firetruck prompts safety review

Ye, a Chinese student, died of “multiple blunt injuries that are consistent with being run over by a motor vehicle,” San Mateo County Coroner Robert J. Foucrault said Friday.

“She was alive when she received the injuries,” he said.

Ye was one of three passengers killed. Her body was found close to the aircraft’s left wing following the July 6 crash-landing at the airport, officials said.

Foucrault said Ye had “crushing injuries consistent with the motor vehicle” and internal hemorrhages. He said it is not clear how her body ended up near the plane’s wing and said it was “speculative” that she was thrown from the plane. She was on the ground when she was struck by the vehicle.

Hayes-White, surrounded by members of her command staff, said the coroner’s confirmation of Ye’s cause of death was difficult for her department.

LaTimes

[Tywais]

Survivor of Asiana crash killed by fire truck, coroner confirms

Ye Meng Yuan, 16, poses for photos with her classmates at a school in Jiangshan city in eastern China's Zhejiang province. The teenager was part of a school group travelling to California for a summer camp when their plane crashed. She survived the crash but was run over by a fire truck rushing to the accident scene. (Associated Press)

CBCNews

[F430murci]

Poor baby.

[F430murci]

737 today had nose gear collapse on landing. That will likely be a Boeing issue that they pay money on . . .

[JetsetBkk]

Summary of final two NTSB briefings:

http://www.airsafenews.com/2013/07/summary-of-final-two-ntsb-briefings-on.html

[manarak]

Summary of final two NTSB briefings:

http://www.airsafenews.com/2013/07/summary-of-final-two-ntsb-briefings-on.html

this bit is interesting:

Cockpit automation and its role in the crash

As mentioned in a previous AirSafeNews.com article, use of the autothrottle by the crew to maintain speed was an issue because although the crew was heard on the CVR stating that the target speed was 137 knots, the aircraft was significantly slower than that speed before the crash. In Wednesday's press conference, the NTSB stated that there were five distinct autothrottle modes used in flight, and in the last 2.5 minutes of flight, there were several autothrottle and autopilot modes used.

As explained by the NTSB, the autopilot helps pilots manage pitch, roll, attitude, and heading; while the autothrottle helps to control speed or thrust. The two systems can work together, and the NTSB has to determine, with the help of Boeing, the following:

• Whether autopilot and autothrottle modes were commanded by the pilots or activated inadvertently,
• How the various autopilot and autothrottle modes are designed to work, and
• What are the ways the systems are expected to respond in the various modes.

=> maybe some of the 777 pilots here can comment on reasons why the autothrottle didn't maintain speed.