Airliners-India Forum Index Airliners-India
Flickr Group & Facebook
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

AI sued for excessive use of air brakes during flight

 
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Airliners-India Forum Index -> Aviation Law
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
deaphen
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 924
Location: India

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:18 am    Post subject: AI sued for excessive use of air brakes during flight Reply with quote

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Criminal Writ Petition No. 491 of 2001
Decided On: 20.01.2003
Appellants: Sangeeta Barring
Vs.
Respondent: Air India Ltd. and Ors.
Hon'ble Judges:
Dalveer Bhandari and S.K. Agarwal, JJ.
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior Adv., Vikas Pahwa, K. Sultan Singh, Rishi Malhotra and Manish Kumar, Advs.
For Respondents/Defendant: Mukul Rohtagi, A.S.G., Raj Birbal, Sr. Adv., U.B. Joshi, Ravi Kini and Krishan Kumar, Advs.
For State: Rajdipa, Adv.
Subject: Criminal
Acts/Rules/Orders:
Indian Penal Code; Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC)
Case Note:
Damages - Exemplary damages--Serious injuries because of faulty landing of Air-India Flight--Pilot/co-pilot applied speed brakes to the full position and induced inputs on the control column in excess of the permissible limits, resulting in the tripping of the autopilot brakes and consequently the aircraft encountered sudden jerky movements of the plane--Praying for criminal action against the pilots and also for exemplary compensation--High powered committee was set up to inquire into the causes of the incident--Not find criminal negligence of the pilots so that a criminal case ought to be instituted--Air India has spent about Rs. 30 lakhs on petitioner's treatment in India and abroad--Petitioner has been paid full salary during her period of treatment--Not a fit case for granting exemplary damages, would be entitled to compensation and other dues, in accordance with the standing orders and rules of Air India.
Held :
It is not a fit case for granting exemplary damages claimed by the petitioner, However, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation and other dues which she is entitled to, in accordance with the standing orders and rules of respondent No. 1, Air India.
This court has full sympathy with the petitioner but we do not think it to be a fit case where directions can be given to respondent No. 4 to register a criminal case against respondent Nos.2 & 3. Immediately after the accident a high powered committee was set up to inquire into the causes of the incident and they did not find criminal negligence of the pilots so that a criminal case ought to be instituted against them. It would not be proper for this court to sit in judgment over the findings of the expert committee in the facts and circumstances of this case.
This is neither a case in which either the respondent Air India has been either vindictive against the petitioner or is guilty of the violation of the principles of natural justice warranting interference by this court.
JUDGMENT
Dalveer Bhandari, J.
1. Brief facts which are necessary to dispose of this petition are recapitulated as under:
On 19.4.1999 an air accident occurred at Mumbai while landing of an Air India's aircraft No.AI-411 returning from Singapore to Mumbai. Severe jerky movements while landing resulted in serious injuries to the petitioner and three others.
2. The pilot/co-pilot applied speed brakes to the full position and induced inputs on the control column in excess of the permissible limits, resulting in the tripping of the autopilot brakes and consequently the aircraft encountered sudden jerky movements leading to the aircraft going into a sharp drop, ultimately resulting serious injuries to four persons including the petitioner.
3. It is alleged in the petition that due to sudden dive of the aircraft and severe jerky movements, the petitioner who was doing her duties nose-dived and in fact went up and down and hit the ceiling of the aircraft thrice and injured herself seriously. The factum of this unfortunate incident is not disputed.
4. The petitioner has filed this petition with the following prayers:
a) issue directions to respondent No.4, Commissioner of Police, to register a criminal case under relevant provisions of Indian Penal Code (in short `IPC') against the respondent No.2, Capt.S.C.Chaturvedi & respondent No.3, Capt.R.K.Bishnoi for their rash and negligent act.
(b) issue directions to the respondent No.1, Air India, to cancel the flying licenses of respondent Nos.2 & 3.
c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 to compensate the petitioner to the tune of Rs.90 lakhs by way of exemplary damages for her physical ailments and mental harassment.
(d) issue directions to the respondent No.1 organization to reimburse the medical expenses of the petitioner incurred by her subsequent to Air India's refusal to do so and further to continue to bear the future medical expenses arising out of her physical ailments caused due to the air accident.
5. Mr.Mukul Rohtagi, learned Additional Solicitor General, appearing for Air India at the outset submitted that all the medical bills which were submitted by the petitioner have been reimbursed. The respondent Air India has spent about Rs.30 lakhs on petitioner's treatment in India and abroad. Mr.K.T.S.Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, however, submitted that some bills regarding medical reimbursement to the tune of about Rs.3 lakhs have yet not been reimbursed. He, however, could not give details of those bills. Mr.Rohtagi fairly submitted that any pending bill shall be promptly processed and reimbursed according to rules within two weeks from today. Mr.Rohtagi further assured this court that even her future bills regarding medical treatment would be reimbursed promptly in accordance with rules.
6. The Director General of Civil Aviation directed an inquiry into the incident conducted by Mr.M.Rajendran, Senior Air Safety Officer. He had submitted a comprehensive report. Findings of the report are reproduced as under:
Findings
(i) The descent was initiated in profile mode on Auto pilot # 1 by the first officer. The aircraft at the time of incident was flown by the First Officer Capt. Bishnoi and the aircraft has commenced descent late and was high on slot.
(ii) In order to put the aircraft on the correct slot, increase in rate of descent was required and to achieve that employment of speed brakes was planned by flight crew.
(iii) The co-pilot flying the aircraft deployed the speed brakes by moving the speed brake lever to full position and rather rapidly at a rate which was higher than the normal. At this moment aircraft pitched down.
(iv) According to the DFDR graph/read out, after about 2 seconds of deployment of speed brakes )remained deployed for about 3 seconds) sufficient pull force and applied on control column by the pilot(s)which led to the autopilot tripping subsequently. However, it could not be confirmed whether it was done by the commander or the co-pilot.
(v) Due to above contrary inputs induced within seconds the aircrafts pitched up and down thrice and due to load on the control column which was in excess of the permissible limits, the autopilot, got tripped.
(vi) As a result of negative `g' during the maneuver, three cabin crew and an infant passenger sustained injuries.
(vii) At this moment the commander had taken over aircraft control and re-engaged the autopilot.
(viii) The cause of the autopilot tripping could not be attributed to any other technical aspect as the aircraft FCC computer checked by the Airbus Industry had not revealed any defect in the unit. Autopilot tested by M/s. Lucas Aerospace also did not reveal any defect in the unit which would lead to the autopilot disconnection.
7. Senior Air Safety Officer gave the probable cause of the accident. He mentioned that auto pilot tripped due to induced inputs on the control column, in excess of permissible limits when the speed brake was deployed to the full position. As a result, the aircraft experienced negative `g' leading to the injuries to the persons. He also recommended that appropriate action be taken against the flight crew.
8. In pursuance to the inquiry report, a show cause notice was given to Capt.R.K.Bishnoi on 28.2.2000 and a similar notice was issued to Capt.S.C.Chaturvedi.
9. After considering the reply submitted by respondent No.3, Capt.R.K.Bishnoi, the Deputy Director General (Training & Licensing) passed the order on 26.9.2000. The order is reproduced as under:
"With reference to this office Memo No.1-164/87/L(2) dated 28.2.2000 and your subsequent reply dated 9.3.2000 to the above referred Memo regarding incident to Air India Flight No.AI-411 dated 19.4.1999 You are hereby warned to be more careful in future while flying under the supervision of the Pilot-in-command for proper use of flying controls and its effects."
10. After considering the reply submitted by respondent No.2, Capt.S.C.Chaturvedi, an order was passed on 26.9.2000. The relevant portion of the order reads as under:
"With reference to this office Memo No.I-2949/85-L(2) dated 28.2.2000 and subsequent letter of even number dated 3.5.2000 regarding the incident to Air India flight No.AI-411 dated 19.4.1999. You are hereby advised to be more careful in future and should keep a close watch on Co-pilot's action when you allow them to handle the controls. You are also advised to give thorough briefing for proper use of flight controls and its effects to the Co-pilots flying under your supervision."
11. Immediately after the incident for a period of four months both Capt.S.C.Chaturvedi and Capt.R.K.Bishnoi were kept-off flying duties. It is also mentioned that both the operating crew were briefed for planning of Top of Descent (TOD), Approach, Landing and use of speed brake. They were also given simulator refreshers followed by simulators checks by a qualified flight instructor which was done in the following manner:
a) one hour lecture by Capt.V.Y.Bhadsavle on planning of TOD, approach, landing and use of speed brakes for Capt.S.C.Chaturvedi and Capt.R.K.Bishnoi.
b) two session of simulator refresher with Capt.Bhadsavle/Capt.N.T.Lobo (corrective training)
c) simulator test of Capt.S.C.Chaturvedi and Capt.R.K.Bishnoi by Capt.V.K.Khosla.
12. In pursuance to the show cause notice issued by this court respondent No.1 filed a counter affidavit of Srinivasan Vasu, General Manager, Inflight Services Department. At the outset he mentioned that the incident was unfortunate but such incidents are hazards of flying and on occurrence of this incident, the Director General of Civil Aviation which is the appropriate authority and also has the requisite technical expertise, conducted a thorough inquiry on the basis of records available and tried to find out the probable cause of the incident. It is mentioned in the affidavit that the DGCA has advised warning to the pilots to be more careful in future. In the affidavit it is also mentioned that the incident occurred within a span of 2-3 seconds and the operating crew took all proper measures to prevent any mishap. It is also stated in the affidavit that the Director General Civil Aviation after conducting a thorough inquiry about the incident issued a letter of caution/warning to respondent Nos.2 & 3 advising them to be more careful in future. Immediately after the incident both respondent No.2 (Capt. S.C.Chaturvedi) and respondent No.3 (Capt.R.K.Bishnoi) were kept away from flying duties for a period of four months. In the affidavit it is also mentioned that the Director General of Civil Aviation after having satisfied itself that there was no fault of the pilots, did not recommend any punitive action against the pilots. It is also stated in the affidavit that respondent Nos.2 & 3 were not negligent as alleged by the petitioner. The deponent in this affidavit has specifically denied that the officials of respondent No.1 company were negligent in performance of their duties. It is also mentioned in the affidavit that the respondent were neither negligent nor careless.
13. The petitioner has placed the medical report of Dr. Med.Patrick Kluger, U.K. on record. According to the certificate issued by him the petitioner sustained 40% partial permanent disability. The petitioner was examined by the Medical Board constituted by the respondent Air India consisting of 5 leading doctors who had examined the petitioner closely and according to them the petitioner sustained 20% partial permanent disability of functional ability.
14. Mr.Mukul Rohtagi submitted that Air India has not left any stone unturned to ensure that the petitioner gets proper and adequate medical treatment.
15. Mr.Rohtagi further submitted that respondent No.1 is prepared to ratain the petitioner in service till her normal age of retirement. He submitted that if the petitioner desires Air India is prepared to give her benefit of `annuity' in which the petitioner would get lumpsum benefits. Mr.Rohtagi also submitted that Air India has already provided to the petitioner residential accommodation in Vasant Vihar which is in the possession of the petitioner. The respondent Air India is further prepared to offer posting of petitioner's choice anywhere in India.
16. Mr.Rohtagi also submitted that respondent No.1 has no grudge, prejudice, or ill will against the petitioner despite petitioner's dragging the respondent Air India in court. On behalf of the respondent Air India it is submitted that on humanitarian consideration the petitioner has been paid full salary without her attending the office of respondent No.1 for about three years. He also assured the court that her future medical bills will also be reimbursed promptly in accordance with the rules.
17. In pursuance to the notice issued by this court, respondent No.2, Capt.S.C.Chaturvedi, in his separate counter affidavit stated that he is working as a Joint General Manager and has been flying various types of aircrafts for the last 35 years, having more than 11400 hours of flying experience. It is also mentioned that he was one of the "Master Green Pilot" which is considered the highest flying rating in the Indian Air Force and Air India had selected the deponent out of such Master Green Pilots eligible for such selection. It is also mentioned that during his 11400 hours of flying he has flown different types of aircrafts with and without speed brakes. In his affidavit he submitted that such accidents are normal hazards of flying and have been occurring all over the world. He also submitted that the incident occurred within a span of 2-3 seconds and deponent took all appropriate measures to prevent any mishap. He submitted that there has been no negligence on his part. In the affidavit he also mentioned that in the aviation industry nothing is left to chance and all reasonable precautions are taken even where there is the slightest doubt with regard to flight safety.
18. Similarly, respondent No.3, Capt.R.K.Bishnoi, has also filed a separate counter affidavit. In the affidavit it is mentioned that he has 38 years of experience and has more than 7000 flying hours to his credit. It is mentioned in the counter affidavit that he has received Gallantry Award for exhibiting his skill, presence of mind during the 1971 war. It is also stated that he has a very rich, unblemished and meritorious flying record. He also stated that there has been no negligence on his part. He also gave an explanation for the incident. We do not deem it appropriate to give details at this stage.
19. A.P.Jain, Senior Manager (Cabin Crew), Air India filed an affidavit on behalf of respondent No.1 Air India. This affidavit contained false statement which led to the filing of the contempt petition by the petitioner. Para 1(3) of the affidavit containing offending statement is reproduced as under:
" After the said report of Sr. Aircraft Safety Officer dated 27.9.1999, an appropriate action was taken against the crew member and that the respondent No.2 Captain S.C.Chaturvedi and respondent No.3 Captain R.K.Bishnoi were removed from the services of the Air India Ltd. After following necessary procedure and that respondent Nos.2 & 3 are no more in the service of respondent No.1, i.e. Air India Ltd."
20. It may be pertinent to mention that during the pendency of this petition, Crl.M.No.207/2002 was moved by respondent No.1. The application was supported with an affidavit of A.P.Jain, Senior Manager (Cabin Crew), Air India. It is mentioned in the application that inadvertently incorrect statement has been recorded in para 2 of order dated 11.1.2002 "respondent Nos.2 & 3 were found guilty of negligence in Independent Enquiry and thrown out of service". It is mentioned in the application that this statement has been made inadvertently without any wrong intention or ulterior motive and A.P.Jain tendered his unconditional apology for signing the said counter affidavit. It may be pertinent to mention that in the contempt petition, the Managing Director of Air India himself has filed affidavit giving the details of circumstances which led to the filing of erroneous affidavit which we would deal is detail while dealing with the contempt petition.
21. Mr.Tulsi, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner, argued that the report on the inflight incident was conducted under the orders of Assistant Director, Air Safety, Directorate General of Civil Aviation. According to which the "auto pilot" tripped due to induced inputs on the control column, in excess of permissible limits in the flight crew after the aircraft pitched down when the speed brakes was deployed to the full position. He submitted that if the report of DGCA inquiry is taken to be a preliminary inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure, it would disclose an offence under Section 338 IPC as lives of 113 passenger and 10 crew members were put in jeopardy by the negligent act of respondent Nos.2 & 3. He also submitted that essential ingredients of the cognizable offence have been disclosed by the independent inquiry and action as per law ought to be taken against them in accordance with law.
22. Mr.Tulsi in support of his contentions has placed reliance on the judgment of Punjab & Haryana High Court Bar Association vs. State of Punjab MANU/SC/1179/1996 Vineet Narain vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0827/1998 and Khatri & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. MANU/SC/0163/1981.
23. Mr.Tulsi also submitted that this petition involves enforcement of standards of public safety of the passengers of Air India and in the larger public interest, action be taken against the erring pilots. Mr.Tulsi also submitted that failure of respondent No.1 to take action against the erring pilots can only be termed as mala fide exercise of power. He also submitted that inaction of respondent No.1, Air India, has the potential to affect the life of the passengers under Article 21 and thereby affects public interest. Mr.Tulsi also submitted that the oppressive, arbitrary and unconstitutional actions of Air India constitute the tort of misfeasance in public office and negligence, by which it has rendered itself liable to damages for the malicious, deliberate and injurious wrong doings. Mr.Tulsi particularly emphasis ed that the petitioner is entitled to the award of exemplary damages which alone can vindicate the strength of law and check such arbitrary and capricious exercise of power. In support of his contentions, he has placed reliance on Lucknow Development Authority vs. M.K.Gupta MANU/SC/0178/1994 & Common Cause, A Reg. Society vs. Union of India MANU/SC/0437/1999. He also referred to Rudal Sah vs. State of Bihar MANU/SC/0380/1983. Mr.Tulsi also referred to well known case of M.C.Mehta vs. UOI MANU/SC/0092/1986 pertaining to escape of olium gas and general directions given by the Supreme Court. He also referred to the judgments of the Apex Court delivered in R.S.Saini vs. State of Punjab emanating from CA No.4993/99 and IC for Enviro-Legal Action & Ors. vs. UOI MANU/SC/0371/1996.
24. Mr.Rohtagi submitted that respondent No.1 has full sympathy with the petitioner who was involved in this unfortunate incident. He submitted that despite all the safety measures these incidents do occur and such incidents are essentially hazards of flying. He submitted that respondent No.1 has done all what is possible within norms and rules to ensure that the petitioner gets the best possible medical treatment both in India and abroad. Humanitarian angle has been paramount while considering the case of the petitioner. The respondent Air India has been regularly paying full salary to the petitioner even without her joining the office of Air India. They have also provided her residential accommodation in Vasant Vihar. Mr.Rohtagi assured the court that the Air India would continue to treat the case of the petitioner with all sympathy and consideration whether it is a question of reimbursement of future medical bills or other facilities.
25. Mr.Rohtagi, also submitted that immediately after the incident, an inquiry was instituted by the Director General of Civil Aviation. In the inquiry report probable cause of incident has been given but that cannot be termed as conclusive cause amounting to criminal negligence.
26. On behalf of respondent No.4, Commissioner of Police, a counter affidavit has been filed by Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, SHO, I.G.I.Airport. In the affidavit it is mentioned that about 20 minutes before landing at Mumbai, the aircraft encountered jerky movements and suddenly went into a sharp drop. The petitioner who was on duty in the said flight had fallen in the gallery area of said aircraft and suffered injuries along with two other crew members as well as one infant child. It is mentioned in the counter affidavit that this incident was neither reported in the police station at that time nor it was reported later on. Therefore, no criminal case has been registered in this regard.
27. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4 submitted that this court has no jurisdiction to deal with this matter because the incident admittedly had taken place in the Air India flight AI-411 returning from Singapore to Mumbai via Delhi. If at all this petition is to be entertained, the proper jurisdiction would be that of the Bombay High Court because even the report, i.e., D.D. Entry, has also been made in Mumbai to this effect.
28. Learned counsel for the petitioner has insisted that in the larger interest, the matter be heard and decided by this court. Since we have decided the petition on its merit, therefore, we do not deem it necessary to decide the question of jurisdiction.
29. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused affidavits & other documents filed in this case. In our considered opinion, it is not a fit case for granting exemplary damages as claimed by the petitioner. However, the petitioner would be entitled to compensation and other dues which she is entitled to, in accordance with the standing orders and rules of respondent No.1, Air India.
30. This court has full sympathy with the petitioner but we do not think it to be a fit case where directions can be given to respondent No.4 to register a criminal case against respondent Nos.2 & 3. Immediately after the accident a high powered committee was set up to inquire into the causes of the incident and they did not find criminal negligence of the pilots so that a criminal case ought to be instituted against them. It would not be proper for this court to sit in judgment over the findings of the expert committee in the facts and circumstnaces of this case.
31. In our considered opinion, this is neither a case in which either the respondent Air India has been either vindictive against the petitioner or is guilty of the violation of the principles of natural justice warranting interference by this court. The petitioner is a victim of an unfortunate incident which happened when she was on duty and the accident has led to a partial permanent disability. We direct that:
a) All medical bills submitted by the petitioner shall be properly processed and reimbursed in accordance with rules within four weeks.
b) The petitioner's future medical bills towards the medical treatment shall also be promptly processed and reimbursed in accordance with the rules.
c) The assurance given by Mr. Rohtagi on behalf AIR India that the petitioner will be retained in service and she be given posting of her choice anywhere in the country would be honoured both in letter and spirit keeping her physical condition in view.
d) we are told that the petitioner has already been given compensation to the tune of Rs.9,21,250/- but in case she is entitled to any further amount from Air India, the same shall be paid to her in accordance with the standing orders and rules. Her filing this petition or approaching this court shall not come in her way or mar her chances in career in any manner.
32. The respondent Air India being a public sector undertaking is bound by rules and standing orders in grant of compensation in such accidents. Despite all safety measures unfortunately similar accidents take place off and on both in India and abroad. Compelling Air India to deviate from the rules, norms and standing orders can creat serious financial implication. Air India has taken an extremely reasonable attitude in this matter. They had generously provided approximately Rs.30 lakhs on petitioner's treatment in India and abroad. Air India has given compensation to the tune of Rs.9,21,250/-. Air India has till date paid the entire salary to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs even without her reporting for work. Air India has also undertaken to reimburse all her future bills of treatment. Air India has given offer to keep the petitioner in employment till retirement. The respondent Air India has also given an offer of giving her a posting of her choice in any part of the country. In this view of the matter, our imposing any more financial burden on Air India would create problem for similar cases.
33. With these directions, this petition and all pending miscellaneous applications are accordingly disposed of. The parties are directed to bear their own costs.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HAWK21M
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 8120
Location: Mumbai, INDIA

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 12:39 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Unless used At Higher than Permissable Air speed.Thees noting wrong is the Excessive use of Speedbrakes.
Interesting post BTW.
regds
MEL
_________________
Think of the Brighter side !!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
D-ABTH
Member


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 837
Location: VABB :: BOM

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

next thing you know... AI will be sued for excessive use of air fresheners to freshen the toilets just because a petitioner was allergic to the fragrance...


our country has time and money to waste on cases like these... next thing you know a pilot will hesitate to error on the side of caution just because he's afraid to be hauled to court... so we can be ok with runway overruns and skids and slides for fear of "excessive" use of retentive force
_________________
If it aint Boeing.. I aint going.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the_380
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2329
Location: Mumbai, India

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 1:36 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

D-ABTH wrote:
next thing you know... AI will be sued for excessive use of air fresheners to freshen the toilets just because a petitioner was allergic to the fragrance...

Exactly D-ABTH Laughing ...u read my mind.... this is what came into my mind when i read the article. If AI uses beakes then they're sued and if they don't use the aircraft ends up stopping in the last few metres of the runway then also they're sued. Looks like these DGCA fellows have no job
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld
A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
deaphen
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 924
Location: India

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 6:11 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the_380 wrote:
D-ABTH wrote:
next thing you know... AI will be sued for excessive use of air fresheners to freshen the toilets just because a petitioner was allergic to the fragrance...

Exactly D-ABTH Laughing ...u read my mind.... this is what came into my mind when i read the article. If AI uses beakes then they're sued and if they don't use the aircraft ends up stopping in the last few metres of the runway then also they're sued. Looks like these DGCA fellows have no job


Maybe you shoudl read the case a little carefully.... there were serious consequences to the pilots actions. You may not like it... but as a right, every citizen has a right to take anything they like to court if they are of the opinion that something should be answered by the court.

Its easy to criticise the courts by saying they entertain frivolous matters like this.. but at the same time, they will be violating your fundamental rights if they dont. So its very balanced.. infact i look at it from this poitn of view that IA and AI are so messed up that this the only recourse left for people to take. We all know how effective complaining to their helpline is!

You have to look at this from the legal practical point of view.

regards
nitin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the_380
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2329
Location: Mumbai, India

PostPosted: Sun Feb 25, 2007 8:49 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
Maybe you shoudl read the case a little carefully.... there were serious consequences to the pilots actions. You may not like it... but as a right, every citizen has a right to take anything they like to court if they are of the opinion that something should be answered by the court.

Its easy to criticise the courts by saying they entertain frivolous matters like this.. but at the same time, they will be violating your fundamental rights if they dont. So its very balanced.. infact i look at it from this poitn of view that IA and AI are so messed up that this the only recourse left for people to take. We all know how effective complaining to their helpline is!

Agreed that a case can be filed but are you trying to tell me that overshooting the rwy i9s better than applying excessive brakes? Twisted Evil
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld
A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
deaphen
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 924
Location: India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the_380 wrote:
Quote:
Maybe you shoudl read the case a little carefully.... there were serious consequences to the pilots actions. You may not like it... but as a right, every citizen has a right to take anything they like to court if they are of the opinion that something should be answered by the court.

Its easy to criticise the courts by saying they entertain frivolous matters like this.. but at the same time, they will be violating your fundamental rights if they dont. So its very balanced.. infact i look at it from this poitn of view that IA and AI are so messed up that this the only recourse left for people to take. We all know how effective complaining to their helpline is!

Agreed that a case can be filed but are you trying to tell me that overshooting the rwy i9s better than applying excessive brakes? Twisted Evil

god no... thats not what i am saying. overshooting the runway is something very dangerous and anyone is free to file a petition for that. But think of it practically, would a passenger be more pissed about being thrown to the roof of the plane (as happened in this case) and sustaining injuries, or overshooting the runway... considering that 99% of passengers would not even know that they have over shot hte runway.

It boils down to the fact that the pilots made a mistake, which caused subsequent injury and the injured party filed a suit and got releif.. and inturn the court ordered the pilots to 4 month training. Which imho is a good decision.

regards
nitin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the_380
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2329
Location: Mumbai, India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 12:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

deaphen wrote:
god no... thats not what i am saying. overshooting the runway is something very dangerous and anyone is free to file a petition for that. But think of it practically, would a passenger be more pissed about being thrown to the roof of the plane (as happened in this case) and sustaining injuries, or overshooting the runway... considering that 99% of passengers would not even know that they have over shot hte runway.

It boils down to the fact that the pilots made a mistake, which caused subsequent injury and the injured party filed a suit and got releif.. and inturn the court ordered the pilots to 4 month training. Which imho is a good decision.

Nitin, maybe ur not aware how dangerous can overshooting the runway be... forget that remember the overshooting incident of the S2 B737-400? S2 had to scrap that aircraft which could have operated for a couple of years more. Allright atleeast the brakes were applied that it didn't go and hit the wall between Western Express highway.
To me it all seems that its better to bang your car than to apply the brakes cause you might get a jerk.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld
A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
stealthpilot
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2281
Location: BLR, DXB

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:20 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the_380 wrote:
Nitin, maybe ur not aware how dangerous can overshooting the runway be... forget that remember the overshooting incident of the S2 B737-400? S2 had to scrap that aircraft which could have operated for a couple of years more. Allright atleeast the brakes were applied that it didn't go and hit the wall between Western Express highway.
To me it all seems that its better to bang your car than to apply the brakes cause you might get a jerk.

I am wondering if you even read the article before you commented on what happened Embarassed ??? This has nothing to do with the aircraft braking on the ground....

D-ABTH wrote:
next thing you know... AI will be sued for excessive use of air fresheners to freshen the toilets just because a petitioner was allergic to the fragrance...
our country has time and money to waste on cases like these... next thing you know a pilot will hesitate to error on the side of caution just because he's afraid to be hauled to court... so we can be ok with runway overruns and skids and slides for fear of "excessive" use of retentive force

(same as above)
Besides, if the crews of any airliner are unsafe then the passengers have the right and obligation to bring it to the authorities’ attention.

The issue here is:
deaphen wrote:
“Damages - Exemplary damages--Serious injuries because of faulty landing of Air-India Flight--Pilot/co-pilot applied speed brakes to the full position and induced inputs on the control column in excess of the permissible limits, resulting in the tripping of the autopilot brakes and consequently the aircraft encountered sudden jerky movements of the plane”

We are not talking about ground braking; we’re talking about the in-flight use of spoilers in conjunction with manual pilot input.

deaphen wrote:
“The crew applied speed brakes to the full position and induced inputs on the control column in excess of the permissible limits, resulting in the tripping of the autopilot brakes and consequently the aircraft encountered sudden jerky movements leading to the aircraft going into a sharp drop, ultimately resulting serious injuries to four persons including the petitioner.”

Basically they did what they should not have done. (It lead to severe injury)

I won’t quote all the text, but I will try and summarize it.
1) The descent was in profile mode, and the aircraft was too high so they deployed the speed brakes to max to bring it down.
[I don’t know about the airbus, but the 777 has a flight-detent on its spoilers for use in the air instead of fully deploying them]

2) The co pilot moved the speed brakes to the full position rapidly, causing the aircraft to pitch down.

3) the crew then pitched up on the yoke, and somewhere in between the autopilot disconnected.

4)
deaphen wrote:
“Due to above contrary inputs induced within seconds the aircrafts pitched up and down thrice and due to load on the control column which was in excess of the permissible limits, the autopilot, got tripped.”


5) As a result of the oscillations and the negative Gs, 4 people sustained injuries.

deaphen wrote:
Senior Air Safety Officer gave the probable cause of the accident. He mentioned that auto pilot tripped due to induced inputs on the control column, in excess of permissible limits when the speed brake was deployed to the full position. As a result, the aircraft experienced negative `g' leading to the injuries to the persons. He also recommended that appropriate action be taken against the flight crew.

_________________
eP007


Last edited by stealthpilot on Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:17 am; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stealthpilot
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2281
Location: BLR, DXB

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 4:23 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

HAWK21M wrote:
Unless used At Higher than Permissable Air speed.Thees noting wrong is the Excessive use of Speedbrakes.
Interesting post BTW.
regds
MEL

When looked at in isolation I would agree. however....
I am not at all familiar with the airbus systems (was it an a310?) but throwing in the spoilers to maximum suddenly doesn’t seem like a good idea.
In addition to the sudden pitch change, it was the pilots preceding actions that led to the oscillations and the AP disconnecting. That is very dangerous.
_________________
eP007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
D-ABTH
Member


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 837
Location: VABB :: BOM

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:46 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

if the pilots reacted within their full autonomy to retard an unnatural behaviour of the aircraft or due to sudden rapid conditions affecting the normal flight envelope and as a result of which the passengers sustained injuries... i see nothing wrong in the actions of the crew..

explain where you can make this a "criminal intent"?? Shocked maybe you'll should read the article carefully..

i dont see the liability of the airline in this matter beyond than ensuring adequate medical care was provided... but an attempt at milking the event for what it was worth is what i despise...

Quote:
But think of it practically, would a passenger be more pissed about being thrown to the roof of the plane (as happened in this case) and sustaining injuries, or overshooting the runway... considering that 99% of passengers would not even know that they have over shot hte runway.


the most ridiculous justification... so if 99% dont notice... its better to overrun the runway... hmm... but God forbid a passenger gets a knock on the head when the pilots sole concern and priority was to avoid an even that could lead to loss of lives... let alone a bump on the head...
now tell me... would the passenger even have a chance to be pissed if the plane suffers a gear collapse.. structural failure, subsequent breakup and rupture into flames??.... maybe if you are to be followed then that is acceptable?


Quote:
issue directions to the respondent No.1, Air India, to cancel the flying licenses of respondent Nos.2 & 3.
c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 to compensate the petitioner to the tune of Rs.90 lakhs by way of exemplary damages for her physical ailments and mental harassment.


mental harassment??... harassment?? right...

given that the article does not specifically state that the aircraft was flown in an inappropriate manner when positioning for descent and final approach i will side with the pilots on the presumption that a "high slot" was due to later than optimal ATC clearance to begin controlled descent to finals... resulting in the subsequent events...

also i would like more to be specified on the passengers use of seatbelts and if they were indeed fastened and if fastened were they done so in time and in th required manner of use... you may think this as a joke... but i have seen people who use their seatbelts to tie a "knot" rather than fasten it the way they are meant to... and im not joking

[/quote]
_________________
If it aint Boeing.. I aint going.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
HAWK21M
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 8120
Location: Mumbai, INDIA

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 9:54 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Was the Seat belt Sign on & if not Were the Injured pax in their seats or standing.If in their seats Use the SeatBelt irrespective of the Sign.

Its difficult to take sides here unless the Truth in detail is known.

regds
MEL
_________________
Think of the Brighter side !!!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Visit poster's website AIM Address Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
deaphen
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 924
Location: India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:21 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

D-ABTH wrote:
if the pilots reacted within their full autonomy to retard an unnatural behaviour of the aircraft or due to sudden rapid conditions affecting the normal flight envelope and as a result of which the passengers sustained injuries... i see nothing wrong in the actions of the crew..

explain where you can make this a "criminal intent"?? Shocked maybe you'll should read the article carefully..

i dont see the liability of the airline in this matter beyond than ensuring adequate medical care was provided... but an attempt at milking the event for what it was worth is what i despise...

Quote:
But think of it practically, would a passenger be more pissed about being thrown to the roof of the plane (as happened in this case) and sustaining injuries, or overshooting the runway... considering that 99% of passengers would not even know that they have over shot hte runway.


the most ridiculous justification... so if 99% dont notice... its better to overrun the runway... hmm... but God forbid a passenger gets a knock on the head when the pilots sole concern and priority was to avoid an even that could lead to loss of lives... let alone a bump on the head...
now tell me... would the passenger even have a chance to be pissed if the plane suffers a gear collapse.. structural failure, subsequent breakup and rupture into flames??.... maybe if you are to be followed then that is acceptable?


Quote:
issue directions to the respondent No.1, Air India, to cancel the flying licenses of respondent Nos.2 & 3.
c) issue a writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.1,2 and 3 to compensate the petitioner to the tune of Rs.90 lakhs by way of exemplary damages for her physical ailments and mental harassment.


mental harassment??... harassment?? right...

given that the article does not specifically state that the aircraft was flown in an inappropriate manner when positioning for descent and final approach i will side with the pilots on the presumption that a "high slot" was due to later than optimal ATC clearance to begin controlled descent to finals... resulting in the subsequent events...

also i would like more to be specified on the passengers use of seatbelts and if they were indeed fastened and if fastened were they done so in time and in th required manner of use... you may think this as a joke... but i have seen people who use their seatbelts to tie a "knot" rather than fasten it the way they are meant to... and im not joking

[/quote]
D-ABTH, i am not justifying anything i am saying that this is not a moot point between us, it was presented before the court and the court gave a verdict. It is not for us to judge the situation.

The persons concerned were the cabin crew (if i am not mistaken). Pilots duties are up to the scrutiny of the court, whether they performed them well or not, or whether they indangered a persons life.

The purpose of this section on this website is to educate ourselves, not to get into arguements about whether the judgement was right or not.

I am sorry but my full support goes to the court, it may be that i understand it from a different point of view being a student of law, but then thats just my opinion.

regards
nitin
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deaphen
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 924
Location: India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:23 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

"i dont see the liability of the airline in this matter beyond than ensuring adequate medical care was provided... but an attempt at milking the event for what it was worth is what i despise... "

None of us are in the position to judge the liability. Not you nor me... all of us have our opinions, but its the opinion of the court that wil prevail. Thats how a democracy and our legal system works!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the_380
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2329
Location: Mumbai, India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 1:37 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HAWK21M wrote:

Its difficult to take sides here unless the Truth in detail is known.

But Mel, filling a case for applying brakes (allright even if its excessive) is just silly.

D-ABTH wrote:
the most ridiculous justification... so if 99% dont notice... its better to overrun the runway... hmm... but God forbid a passenger gets a knock on the head when the pilots sole concern and priority was to avoid an even that could lead to loss of lives... let alone a bump on the head...
now tell me... would the passenger even have a chance to be pissed if the plane suffers a gear collapse.. structural failure, subsequent breakup and rupture into flames??.... maybe if you are to be followed then that is acceptable?

Im not saying that im an expert on this but most people here think runway overshooting just means that the aircraft goes to the soft ground and then emergency evacuation slides are deployed and thats all. No runway evacuation as D-ABTH says can also lead to aircraft fire which can result in losses of lives. Yea! jerk can worse than that?!?!? Rolling Eyes

stealthpilot wrote:
I am wondering if you even read the article before you commented on what happened ??? This has nothing to do with the aircraft braking on the ground....

Brakes are not applied in the air dude.. Twisted Evil

deaphen wrote:
The purpose of this section on this website is to educate ourselves, not to get into arguements about whether the judgement was right or not.

I am sorry but my full support goes to the court, it may be that i understand it from a different point of view being a student of law, but then thats just my opinion.

Well maybe as a law student your opinion might be in the favour of the court, but its still ridiculous that you sue an airline just because there were excessive brakes applied. I mean your driving a car and all of a sudden you notice a barrier and would prefer banging your car to the wall or rather allpying the brakes, no matter even if it would skid the car, atleast you will be saved!
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld
A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Nimish
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 9755
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:02 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

HAWK21M wrote:
Was the Seat belt Sign on & if not Were the Injured pax in their seats or standing.If in their seats Use the SeatBelt irrespective of the Sign.

Its difficult to take sides here unless the Truth in detail is known.

regds
MEL


This seems to have pretty much nothing to do with seat belts or their sign or usage. It was about a cabin crew member who fell to the ground in the galleys due to the negative-Gs (Due to the pilots screwing up the air brakes), got hurt badly and then sued the airline/pilots for her injuries.

Of the 4 people who were injured, 3 were cabin crew, and one was an infant.

IMO, It's simply a case of bad flying, where it's only right that the pilots/airline get hauled up.

Imagine if a driver in a car decides to take a high speed sudden turn 90 deg left and then 90 deg right and then 90 deg left again - all without indicators being shown or any warning, will it be the driver's fault if someone in his car bumps their head against the window? Or will it be a "normal hazard of driving"???
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
D-ABTH
Member


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 837
Location: VABB :: BOM

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:05 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

you are right from your point of view of being a law student and that everyone has recourse to judicial intervention in the protection of their interest..

however.. when a case like this is filed over what many would consider a routine event or an even that justified use sudden action that in RETROSPECT is deemed excessive.. with charges of "criminal intent" and compensation over and above what has been provided and charges of "metal harassment".. i dont think it takes a scientist to figure out what the real motive is?... on those basis i view it from my point as being a waste of the judicial system.. you could say the court sided with the petitioner... maybe there was just cause in settlement of additional dues... but whats with entertaining cases that are blown out of proportion and wherein the motive behind the filing of these accusations is heavily influenced by monetary gains?
_________________
If it aint Boeing.. I aint going.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
deaphen
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 924
Location: India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:15 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

D-ABTH wrote:
you are right from your point of view of being a law student and that everyone has recourse to judicial intervention in the protection of their interest..

however.. when a case like this is filed over what many would consider a routine event or an even that justified use sudden action that in RETROSPECT is deemed excessive.. with charges of "criminal intent" and compensation over and above what has been provided and charges of "metal harassment".. i dont think it takes a scientist to figure out what the real motive is?... on those basis i view it from my point as being a waste of the judicial system.. you could say the court sided with the petitioner... maybe there was just cause in settlement of additional dues... but whats with entertaining cases that are blown out of proportion and wherein the motive behind the filing of these accusations is heavily influenced by monetary gains?


of course its for monetary gains! Its very obvious from th petition. But your forgetting that whatever the motive is, its the courts decision which is final. They are the ones who have to decide what the fate is to be after examining the facts. If they aggrevied party has bad intentions, its not necessary that their intentions will to approved by the court is it?

A-380, its easy to say these thing are "silly" but when something like this happens to you, im sure you will take the same recourse, as will i or anyone else. Infact, i would do exactly the same thing if i was in the position of the injured persons.

What you are implying is that if i get seriously hurt because of a pilot error, (which is proved in this case) i should sit tight and thank my stars that i only hit the plane roof but atleast i didnt overshoot the runway.. because if we had i coudl have died?!?

That is no reasoning i am sorry.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
D-ABTH
Member


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 837
Location: VABB :: BOM

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 2:17 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nimish wrote:
HAWK21M wrote:
Was the Seat belt Sign on & if not Were the Injured pax in their seats or standing.If in their seats Use the SeatBelt irrespective of the Sign.

Its difficult to take sides here unless the Truth in detail is known.

regds
MEL


This seems to have pretty much nothing to do with seat belts or their sign or usage. It was about a cabin crew member who fell to the ground in the galleys due to the negative-Gs (Due to the pilots screwing up the air brakes), got hurt badly and then sued the airline/pilots for her injuries.

Of the 4 people who were injured, 3 were cabin crew, and one was an infant.

IMO, It's simply a case of bad flying, where it's only right that the pilots/airline get hauled up.

Imagine if a driver in a car decides to take a high speed sudden turn 90 deg left and then 90 deg right and then 90 deg left again - all without indicators being shown or any warning, will it be the driver's fault if someone in his car bumps their head against the window? Or will it be a "normal hazard of driving"???


where is the proof that they were flying in a manner not deemed appropriate? as far as i can interpret... the article mentions the actions in relation to them trying to compensate for a "high slot" which as per my understanding being is not uncommon in high density airspace traffic and aerodromes wherein flights may be cleared for approaches or maneuvers with less than optimal timing and speed directives in order to maximise the opportunities to exploit airspace and capacity utilisation..

an aircraft flying a tad high and fast can still be vectored onto final approach as the crew can control the rate of descent and airspeed slowing down to the reference required to be established prior to finals and reaching the minimums.. in many cases under command of the autopilot and the FMC an aircraft will respond to immediate changes in its flight envelope including drop in wind gusts or sudden increase in tail wind with counteractive adjustments with the controls.. when deemed it is beyond acceptable levels the crew will intervene.. and if in doing so and in their primary concern to establish safe operational margins... excessive corrections result... i do not see them being held liable for intent nor do i see any predetermined motive to cause "harassment"

if Air India has dutifully fulfilled its obligation of going to all extents of providing for medical care and reimbursements... then i will obviously tend to have a skeptical opinion of the intention behind filing of such a case where "criminal intent" and "harassment" are mentioned.
_________________
If it aint Boeing.. I aint going.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nimish
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 9755
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:29 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

D-ABTH wrote:
where is the proof that they were flying in a manner not deemed appropriate?

...i will obviously tend to have a skeptical opinion of the intention behind filing of such a case where "criminal intent" and "harassment" are mentioned.


D-ABTH - the proof is in the fact that both the pilot and co-pilot were reprimanded for their actions, sent to "corrective" training, etc. etc. That's really proof that's staring us in the face - "corrective training" and "refresher courses" are all the proof that I need.

Of course, this case was not really about "criminal intent" or "harassment", those were probably tagged on to make the case seem very serious and to show the hostesses disgust at the way the plane was flown so badly.

I don't think anyone can say that there was "criminal intent", but there was an element of "criminal stupidity" and "criminal lack of following procedures" involved.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
the_380
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2329
Location: Mumbai, India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 6:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

deaphen wrote:
A-380, its easy to say these thing are "silly" but when something like this happens to you, im sure you will take the same recourse, as will i or anyone else. Infact, i would do exactly the same thing if i was in the position of the injured persons.

If my aircraft makes an emergency landing then i would thank the pilot for rather saving my life than an accident
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld
A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Nimish
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 9755
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:03 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the_380 wrote:
If my aircraft makes an emergency landing then i would thank the pilot for rather saving my life than an accident


380 - please read the whole topic before making such an uninformed post. This is not about emergency landing or shooting off the end of the runway.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
the_380
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2329
Location: Mumbai, India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:12 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nimish wrote:

380 - please read the whole topic before making such an uninformed post. This is not about emergency landing or shooting off the end of the runway.

I also know that...its about excessive use of brakes being applied. But what if the brakes were NOT applied. It can lead to a runway overshooting incident which can be much much dangerous than some jerks and bandages
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld
A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
Nimish
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 9755
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 7:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the_380 wrote:
I also know that...its about excessive use of brakes being applied. But what if the brakes were NOT applied. It can lead to a runway overshooting incident which can be much much dangerous than some jerks and bandages


The brakes should not have needed application in the first place, and the problem is not with using the brakes, but with incorrectly using the brakes.

So the choice is really between "should I use the brakes in the incorrect manner or the correct manner". Not about overshooting runways and all that. One presumes that after the "correctional training", now the pilot/co-pilot are very clear on what actually needed to be done.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
the_380
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2329
Location: Mumbai, India

PostPosted: Mon Feb 26, 2007 11:44 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Nimish wrote:
The brakes should not have needed application in the first place, and the problem is not with using the brakes, but with incorrectly using the brakes.

So the choice is really between "should I use the brakes in the incorrect manner or the correct manner". Not about overshooting runways and all that. One presumes that after the "correctional training", now the pilot/co-pilot are very clear on what actually needed to be done.

Even i know that the brakes should have been applied at the right time. But the reason for excessive brakes can be something genuine. The pilot was definately not haveing fun out there playing with brakes Twisted Evil Either the aircraft must have touched down late or maybe it was hot (temperature Wink ) and load in the aircraft must have been high so he needed more brakes.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld
A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
deaphen
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 924
Location: India

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the_380 wrote:
Nimish wrote:
The brakes should not have needed application in the first place, and the problem is not with using the brakes, but with incorrectly using the brakes.

So the choice is really between "should I use the brakes in the incorrect manner or the correct manner". Not about overshooting runways and all that. One presumes that after the "correctional training", now the pilot/co-pilot are very clear on what actually needed to be done.

Even i know that the brakes should have been applied at the right time. But the reason for excessive brakes can be something genuine. The pilot was definately not haveing fun out there playing with brakes Twisted Evil Either the aircraft must have touched down late or maybe it was hot (temperature Wink ) and load in the aircraft must have been high so he needed more brakes.


Avijeet! That is not the discussion point here! All evidence is placed before the court for them to make the decision!!! you are blatantly supporting the pilots when you do not know the whole events. Its either your opinion that the pilots were right and the court was wrong, which is baseless! Because all the facts and evidence has been put before the court, has be argued by the topmost lawyers of india and they all have come to a conclusion.

Agreed the application of brakes in normal cases is genuine.. but it has found not to be true in this situation! That is the whole reason for the case!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the_380
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2329
Location: Mumbai, India

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:41 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

deaphen wrote:
Avijeet! That is not the discussion point here! All evidence is placed before the court for them to make the decision!!! you are blatantly supporting the pilots when you do not know the whole events. Its either your opinion that the pilots were right and the court was wrong, which is baseless! Because all the facts and evidence has been put before the court, has be argued by the topmost lawyers of india and they all have come to a conclusion.

Agreed the application of brakes in normal cases is genuine.. but it has found not to be true in this situation! That is the whole reason for the case!

Mate, i am not blankly supporting the pilots, true he could have been at fault in the aircraft touching donw late, if thats the issue i support those who file a case. Because thats the same reason why the S2 734 overran the rwy. Neither do i support the pilots if they were interested to play with the brakes. But if there was genuine reason then, i am supporting them.
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld
A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
deaphen
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 924
Location: India

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:48 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the_380 wrote:
deaphen wrote:
Avijeet! That is not the discussion point here! All evidence is placed before the court for them to make the decision!!! you are blatantly supporting the pilots when you do not know the whole events. Its either your opinion that the pilots were right and the court was wrong, which is baseless! Because all the facts and evidence has been put before the court, has be argued by the topmost lawyers of india and they all have come to a conclusion.

Agreed the application of brakes in normal cases is genuine.. but it has found not to be true in this situation! That is the whole reason for the case!

Mate, i am not blankly supporting the pilots, true he could have been at fault in the aircraft touching donw late, if thats the issue i support those who file a case. Because thats the same reason why the S2 734 overran the rwy. Neither do i support the pilots if they were interested to play with the brakes. But if there was genuine reason then, i am supporting them.


Well it seems like you were from your earlier post. It has got NOTHING TO DO WITH TOUCHING DOWN LATE OR OVERSHOOTING THE RUNWAY!!!

While on approach the pilot deploys the speed brakes (which btw, ARE brakes which pilots use in the sky to slow down) in excess of permissable limits which results in the auto pilot disengaging and hence the nose pitched down then up and so on and so fourth causing a loss of altitude and the injured persons flew around the cabin!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the_380
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2329
Location: Mumbai, India

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 12:58 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

deaphen wrote:
While on approach the pilot deploys the speed brakes (which btw, ARE brakes which pilots use in the sky to slow down) in excess of permissable limits which results in the auto pilot disengaging and hence the nose pitched down then up and so on and so fourth causing a loss of altitude and the injured persons flew around the cabin!

Ok, so that means when spped brakes are applied its only after the seat belt signs were on right? So what were the seat belts for?
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld
A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
deaphen
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 924
Location: India

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the_380 wrote:
deaphen wrote:
While on approach the pilot deploys the speed brakes (which btw, ARE brakes which pilots use in the sky to slow down) in excess of permissable limits which results in the auto pilot disengaging and hence the nose pitched down then up and so on and so fourth causing a loss of altitude and the injured persons flew around the cabin!

Ok, so that means when spped brakes are applied its only after the seat belt signs were on right? So what were the seat belts for?


Who has told you that before speed brakes are applied the seat belt sign has to be on?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
the_380
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2329
Location: Mumbai, India

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:18 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

deaphen wrote:
Who has told you that before speed brakes are applied the seat belt sign has to be on?

Normally throttles are closed to reduce speeds in air...incase here he has used speed brakes sice AP was disengaged. Normally AP is disengaged at about 6000 feet (1500 feet +-) and thats the time when seatbelt signs come on
_________________
http://www.myspace.com/avsatsworld
A Walt Disney and 20th Century Fox Audio Producer!!! Very Happy
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website Yahoo Messenger
deaphen
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 924
Location: India

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 1:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the_380 wrote:
deaphen wrote:
Who has told you that before speed brakes are applied the seat belt sign has to be on?

Normally throttles are closed to reduce speeds in air...incase here he has used speed brakes sice AP was disengaged. Normally AP is disengaged at about 6000 feet (1500 feet +-) and thats the time when seatbelt signs come on


AP was engaged.. its got disengaged becasue of excess of speed brakes used! thats the whole point!
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
stealthpilot
Member


Joined: 19 Dec 2006
Posts: 2281
Location: BLR, DXB

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 3:02 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

the_380 wrote:
Brakes are not applied in the air dude Twisted Evil

My god you’re insistent. That is a good quality when it comes to discussions and debates provided that you base your conclusions on fact.
However, please please read (at least some of) the first post and I will ignore the above angry face.
I will say it again, ground braking = one thing. Air brakes (spoilers) are another.
This had NOTHING to do with braking on the ground, you keep pushing that idea. The issue here was the improper use of air brakes. Please read my first post completely for the information.

D-ABTH wrote:
if the pilots reacted within their full autonomy to retard an unnatural behaviour of the aircraft or due to sudden rapid conditions affecting the normal flight envelope and as a result of which the passengers sustained injuries... i see nothing wrong in the actions of the crew..

Again, the hearing concluded that “Senior Air Safety Officer gave the probable cause of the accident. He mentioned that auto pilot tripped due to induced inputs on the control column, in excess of permissible limits when the speed brake was deployed to the full position. As a result, the aircraft experienced negative `g' leading to the injuries to the persons. He also recommended that appropriate action be taken against the flight crew.”

D-ABTH wrote:
however.. when a case like this is filed over what many would consider a routine event or an even that justified use sudden action that in RETROSPECT is deemed excessive.. with charges of "criminal intent"

A routine event??? There was absolutely nothing ‘routine’ in what they did. They did what they shouldn’t have done.


D-ABTH wrote:
where is the proof that they were flying in a manner not deemed appropriate? as far as i can interpret... the article mentions the actions in relation to them trying to compensate for a "high slot" which as per my understanding being is not uncommon in high density airspace traffic and aerodromes wherein flights may be cleared for approaches or maneuvers with less than optimal timing and speed directives in order to maximise the opportunities to exploit airspace and capacity utilisation..

Proof = read above (senior air officer gave the probable cause ……..)
Late descents are no big deal I know that, 1000 (safe) flights a day are flown and many of them with the use of air brakes. It’s obvious that this crew did something wrong which caused personal injury to 4 people. It was their improper use of spoilers in conjunction with their manual inputs which disconnected the autopilot and other factors. The crew was sent for additional training, and I hope all pilots will go through the same to make sure this is not repeated.

the_380 wrote:
If my aircraft makes an emergency landing then i would thank the pilot for rather saving my life than an accident

Whhhhhaaaaaattttttttt??????????????????

the_380 wrote:
Normally throttles are closed to reduce speeds in air...incase here he has used speed brakes sice AP was disengaged. Normally AP is disengaged at about 6000 feet (1500 feet +-) and thats the time when seatbelt signs come on

Well I guess seatbelt use certainly is an issue, because I know people don’t use them when they should. However in this case the 4 people injured were 3 flight attendants and an infant, it’s common for FAs to be walking around during the late stages of landing (by the way from the looks of it, this was not the late stages of landing). In any case, the primary issue here is incorrect pilot procedure.

Throttles are not closed as far as I can remember, airbus probably has a flight idle or descent profile thrust setting, I am not sure.
The AP does not normally disengage at 6000 feet? Where did you get that idea?
The seatbelt signs come on longggggggggggg before 6000 feet!
_________________
eP007
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Nimish
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2006
Posts: 9755
Location: Bangalore, India

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 2:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

the_380 wrote:
Mate, i am not blankly supporting the pilots, true he could have been at fault in the aircraft touching donw late, if thats the issue i support those who file a case. Because thats the same reason why the S2 734 overran the rwy. Neither do i support the pilots if they were interested to play with the brakes. But if there was genuine reason then, i am supporting them.


Unfortunately 380 - you're repeating the same thing again and distracting from the issue.

Clearly you feel you know more than the judge, the airline officials, the DGCA and the pilots involved themselves (all of whom agree it was bad piloting), and that you don't need to read or understand the circumstances in this case.

However I feel you're just spewing rubbish and I'm quite tired of it.

Deaphen - sorry your entire thread had to be hijacked by folks who know better than the judges, airlines, pilots etc.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail Yahoo Messenger MSN Messenger
D-ABTH
Member


Joined: 22 Dec 2006
Posts: 837
Location: VABB :: BOM

PostPosted: Tue Feb 27, 2007 4:42 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

i agree to disagree... i still feel the case was frivolous with no other intention than to milk it for what it was worth and i leave it at that..

if it was the pilots who induced the behaviour then yes they were right in being directed for correction... however if their action was as a result of the conditions in the first place such as less than optimum positioning/approach directives and in the belief of establishing the normal operational behaviour within limits.. then i wouldnt hold them responsible..

thats my take..
_________________
If it aint Boeing.. I aint going.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.    Airliners-India Forum Index -> Aviation Law All times are GMT + 5.5 Hours
Page 1 of 1

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Powered by phpBB © phpBB Group. Hosted by phpBB.BizHat.com