If this is your first visit, be sure to
check out the FAQ by clicking the
link above. You may have to register
before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages,
select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing
Yes, on the ACARS MANAGER page on the MFD. Both VHF and SATCOM transmission capability for ACARS can be deselected there.
The family of the Captain says there no evidence
"There is nothing tangible and nothing by way of evidence," "This is equivalent to … he's guilty until proven innocent."
They're not wrong - however, if you use a process of elimination, knowing what we know, it doesn't look good for the Captain does it?
Also, the report that the FO mobile phone connected to the network after the plane disappeared from civilian radar is significant. This has been denied my the Malaysians...
The newspaper also spoke to a different group of sources close to the investigations, who said that checks on Mr Fariq's phone showed that connection to the phone had been "detached" before the plane took off.
"This is usually the result of the phone being switched off. At one point, however, when the airplane was airborne, between waypoint Igari and the spot near Penang (just before it went missing from radar), the line was 'reattached'.
"A 'reattachment' does not necessarily mean that a call was made. It can also be the result of the phone being switched on again," the sources said.
Experts said it was possible for a mobile phone to be connected to a telecommunications tower at an altitude of 7,000 feet.
An NST report on March 16 quoted investigators as saying that the jetliner had dropped to as low as 5,000 feet after it made the turnback at waypoint Igari in the South China Sea before it crossed Peninsular Malaysia headed towards Penang.
AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008
Originally posted by orangehuggy
the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet
Also, the report that the FO mobile phone connected to the network after the plane disappeared from civilian radar is significant. This has been denied my the Malaysians...
This newspaper report is almost two years old and was published only weeks after the disappearance. According to the interim report published a year after the disappearance (8 March 2015), MH370 never descended to 5,000ft. Here's a quote from the report as posted on avherald:
(...)The preliminary factual information re-iterates that the secondary transponder signal was lost at 17:21:13Z (Mar 7th) and went on to report the primary radar data off Kuala Lumpur's primary and military primary radar as follows:
At 1721:13 UTC [0121:13 MYT] the Military radar showed the radar return of MH370 turning right but almost immediately making a constant left turn to a South Westerly direction.
At 1730:35 UTC [0130:35 MYT] to 1735UTC [0135 MYT] the radar return was on heading 231 magnetic (M), ground speed of 496 knots (kt.) and registered height of 35,700 ft.
At 1736 UTC [0136 MYT to 1736:40 UTC [0136:40 MYT] heading was 237M, ground speed fluctuation between 494 and 525 kt. and height fluctuation between 31,100 and 33,000 ft.
At 1739:59 UTC [0139:59 MYT] heading was 244M, ground speed 529 kt. and height at 32,800 ft.
At 1752:35 UTC [0152:35 MYT] radar return was observed to be slightly south of Penang Island.
It was noted by the Investigation Team that the position and heading of the radar return from both Civilian and Military Radar, suggested that it was from the same target.
After the last radar return disappeared from KL ATCC Primary Radar at 1752:35 UTC [0152:35 MYT], the Military Radar continued to track this radar return as it headed towards Pulau Perak, a small island over the Straits of Malacca. The time registered over Pulau Perak was 1802:59 UTC [0202:59].
The tracking by the Military continued as the radar return was observed to be heading towards waypoint MEKAR, a waypoint on Airways N571 when it disappeared abruptly at 1822:12 UTC [0222:12 MYT],10 nautical miles (Nm) after waypoint MEKAR. (...)
"A reasonable inference that can be drawn from all of the available evidence is that the disappearance of flight MH370 was the result of one or more defects in the manufacture and or design of the Boeing airplane," said the complaint.
?????
AirDisaster.com Forum Member 2004-2008
Originally posted by orangehuggy
the most dangerous part of a flight is not the take off or landing anymore, its when a flight crew member goes to the toilet
In the US, lawyers can say anything they want. They still need to prove that Boeing is guilty, though. But almost all of these cases will end up in an out-of-court settlement. Also, today was the last day to file a claim.
A Wartburg family that was recently on holiday in Mozambique has come across what could possibly be another piece of the MH370 puzzle.
.....
18-year-old Liam Lotter has told East Coast Radio Newswatch while they were on holiday in Inhambane in December - he and his cousin came across what he describes as the "shiny object" while walking on the beach.
In the US, lawyers can say anything they want. They still need to prove that Boeing is guilty.
While I'm not any sort of pilot, aircraft expert, or aviation guru in any way shape or form (hence my rather 'lurkish' nature here, since I've not much knowledge to add in those areas), one area I can most definitely chime in on - and 'enlighten' a bit - is the legal realm.
In the US, lawyers most certainly cannot "say anything they want" in fact quite the opposite. Well I mean sure lawyers like anyone else can "say" anything they want assuming they are able to speak - but in terms of legal pleadings, they may not despite the common belief they can. The truth is, very specific elements or rules/guidelines apply in virtually every aspect of law, very different from the layman's view that lawyers run ramshackle like the wild wild west. Simply not true. You know how the 'media' often bungle air incident/crash reporting, saying things that are just utterly absurd and borne of ignorance and sensationalism? Well the exact same thing happens with respect to law and lawyers. Let us not forget the hot McDonald's coffee case that everyone and their cousin totally misconstrues, because it was a media sensation that build upon ignorance of the case and of the law.
Anyway, here a lawsuit that was recently filed against Boeing which is a products liability tort alleging that personal injury (read: death) resulted from a somehow 'defective product.' The pleading (made by the plaintiff, perhaps a parent or sibling) and submitted by the attorney must meet certain parameters by within the statute of limitations - probably 2 years (note the suit was filed 2 years after the disappearance). What are the elements a pleading must meet here? Well, that someone was injured and that there is a reasonable mechanical defect or design flaw that caused the injury, 'a wheel fell off' or 'a motor exploded' or 'the wiring arc'd and short circuited causing a shock'. That sort of specific 'defect'.
On the first element, we know with virtual certainty there was personal injury, so that's met.
On the second element, some specific design or manufacturing defect must be plead ("alleged with reasonable factual basis"). Can that be met here, any specifics as to design or defect? No, because we don't know. No one does. The crash might have been caused by crew suicide, or a hijacking, or weather, an asteroid, or some other non-mechanical cause. We just don't know. Neither to the lawyers. We just have no idea whatsoever. A clue here, a clue there, a mollusk ridden flaperon - but basically nothing specific and identifiable. Nada.
And that's the rub...we know nothing. So IF it turns out to be (as it may well) a mechanical cause - lets say in 3 years they've found the a/c and determined an Oxygen canister or something burnt out a hole in the fuselage, flight crew rendered incapacitated, yada yada yada. Or suppose the flight computer malfunctioned, or a wing fell off (yes I am being dramatic, but to make a point). It definitely COULD be a mechanical / products cause ultimately believed or determined to have caused the incident. No one here can deny that possibility.
But a suit had to be filed within 2 year statute of limitations in order to preserve legal rights under product liability - should we sometime learn that yes, it was mechanical and a compensable defect.
So, to file the suit in time and preserve potential rights, a pleading had to be made - one which could not plead any specifics (because we don't know any) but rather some unspecified defect under a 'malfunction' theory. This is a legal necessity because sometimes, as here, specifics cannot be plead within the 2 year cutoff.
The suit says an inference can be drawn that one or more defects in the manufacture or design of the 777 caused the accident (and personal injury). That is absolutely true - indeed the world seems divided whether was it crew or was it aircraft defect/mechanical issue. The inference is reasonable, and meets the lesser pleading requirement where no specific defects or malfunctions can be asserted because simply no information is available. A reasonable inference was made, one that in fact has been made on this forum hundreds of times regarding MH370.
If it turns out a wing fell off, can anyone here truly blame a family member for wanting to preserve their legal rights now? That's not to say Boeing is definitely or even probably at fault, but it's reasonable to believe and infer there could be a mechanical basis. That's what this suit is about - preserving rights in a product liability tort when basically, nothing is yet known.
It most certainly is not a lawyer "just saying anything." I would hope people realize there were hundreds on that plane, all with families who literally know nothing. Whether the manufacturer or the flight crew or an asteroid is to blame, it should not be considered unreasonable for those folks to preserve rights before those rights go POOF by mere virtue of a two year clock going DING. What would you do if your child or wife or parents were on that a/c - say 'awe gee shucks its 2 years and we don't know what caused the crash but oh well lah dee dah bygones.' I seriously doubt you would.
Because at 2 years +1 day, they could have found out that it was an asteroid, or crew malfeasance, or that a wing fell off. And if it WAS the latter, it's reasonable to assert that no - a wing should not have fallen off.
Just like folks here cringe when the media or lay people say things about aircraft or crashes etc. that are based on media misrepresentations and hype, I encourage readers to know (and not be complicit) in the same behavior when it comes to law. Because almost certainly, there's more to it than what you might think unless you know better - for example - it's probably not just some nitwit simply spilling hot coffee on themselves and wanting to get rich off McDonald's back. In fact almost always it's not.
(...) But a suit had to be filed within 2 year statute of limitations in order to preserve legal rights under product liability(...)
With all due respect to your knowledge (and my ignorance) of legal procedings, obmot, I as a layman fail to see how what you wrote in your quote above is significantly different from what I said: "In the US, lawyers can say anything they want. They still need to prove that Boeing is guilty." The lawyers are saying something they have no proof for in order to protect themselves from the expiry of the statute of limitations. I would say that the statute of limitations is there for a reason. If you can't make a case in a certain amount of time, then so be it. This is a legal tool to protect all of us (except murderers). Circumventing it like it was done in the MH370 case makes me think of Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2. (I know... this is not what good old William wanted to tell us, when he let one of his characters say "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." but it makes a hell of a quote when taken out of context and a fitting one at that when I hear something like "(...) But a suit had to be filed within 2 year statute of limitations in order to preserve legal rights under product liability(...)").
With all due respect to your knowledge (and my ignorance) of legal procedings, obmot, I as a layman fail to see how what you wrote in your quote above is significantly different from what I said: "In the US, lawyers can say anything they want. They still need to prove that Boeing is guilty." The lawyers are saying something they have no proof for in order to protect themselves from the expiry of the statute of limitations. I would say that the statute of limitations is there for a reason. If you can't make a case in a certain amount of time, then so be it. This is a legal tool to protect all of us (except murderers). Circumventing it like it was done in the MH370 case makes me think of Shakespeare's Henry VI, Part 2, Act 4, Scene 2. (I know... this is not what good old William wanted to tell us, when he let one of his characters say "The first thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." but it makes a hell of a quote when taken out of context and a fitting one at that when I hear something like "(...) But a suit had to be filed within 2 year statute of limitations in order to preserve legal rights under product liability(...)").
Peter, thanks for your response - good points - let me add more and this is in no way a 'flame' on you...
First, I reiterate that while some in the general public think that lawyers can sue for anything and say anything they want - thats just not true in fact quite the opposite (it's not dissimilar, in some ways, to folks who say things like "pilots really don't do anything anymore the computers fly the plane they're just up there pushing buttons the computers do all the work").
"The lawyers are saying something they have no proof for in order to protect themselves from the expiry of the statute of limitations."
A few problems there. First, the lawyers are not protecting themselves, they are protecting their client's rights whatever they might be. Sure you can say the lawyer only wants a quick buck, but that's truly not his/her goal in a pleading. The goal is to preserve rights and file a pleading that meets to the statutory (or common law) requirements.
In this case, to preserve the rights, the lawyer must file a pleading prior to expiry of the SOL, and the pleading must meet a rigid standard - specifying rather specific mechanical defects or design flaws purported to cause the injury/death.
For example, remember AA587? It became known, in fairly short order, that the vertical stabilizer/rudder 'failed' which 'caused' the accident. It was a known mechanical structural problem, from the get go. The cause of its failure took a while to elucidate. People were injured/died, so in a court 'pleading' for the tort of product liability in that case, an attorney could with rather specificity say 'the tail fell off, the plane crashed, tails should not fall off planes.' HOWEVER, of course the burden would then be to prove (as you note) -why- the tail fell off (Airbus engineering flaw? pilot input?). Regardless, specificity ecisted sufficient to make that pleading, because it was known the tail fell off (yes, I am putting it very simply, I know).
In MH370, literally nothing is known. A pleading cannot be made that satisfies the 'specificity' standard typically required. What to do?
Our legal system could say, 'a plane vanished in thin air and we don't know anything, your two years is up too bad so sad better luck next time.' Would that be 'fair' or equitable if a week later it was determined that a wing fell off? (I know, a wing didn't fall off, again I just make the point). Should a plaintiff who IS due some sort of recompense because a wing fell off, not receive it simply because they cannot possibly have any clue within 2 years? Our legal system says no, there has to be a way for those uncommon cases to also achieve 'justice' if justice is at some point available to them after SOL expires.
The lawyers are not saying Boeing is to blame nor that the crash was due to a mechanical/design defect - they are only filing a pleading that makes an 'inference' or reasonable conclusion that a mechanical cause was the basis of the crash (and injury). It IS a reasonable inference because as I noted, that inference has been made countless times. Hundreds on this site alone.
If the authorities find the a/c and get evidence - absolutely the lawyers will have to 'prove it' - this pleading has nothing to do with proof but merely with preserving rights in the event that it is determined, plausibly, to be a mechanical issue.
"I would say that the statute of limitations is there for a reason. If you can't make a case in a certain amount of time, then so be it."
And you are 110%, absolutely correct. A person "litigant" cannot sit on their rights forever and at their convenience decide to pursue them, leaving 'defendants' forever unsure. Trademark: if you do not pursue/defend your mark, and let someone else use it - you cannot long after say 'hey that's my mark, stop using it!' (consider for example: "escalator," "hang glider," "heroin," "flip phone," "dry ice," "laundromat"). There are, as you note, good reason for statutes of limitation.
But statutes of limitations are exactly for that - to ensure folks who know their rights, pursue them in a timely manner. BUt what of the plaintiff who has no idea, whatsoever, if they have a right or not? The families, like us, have no idea if a wing fell off (product liability right) or if flight crew (personal tort) or an asteroid (no fault) caused the incident. Our legal system says if there is no possible way for someone to know what their rights are, then those folks should have a way to pursue them once known. Here, that 'gimme' is by virtue pf allowing a pleading that makes a reasonable inference as to a cause (which yes they will have to prove once evidence is available either way) instead of a pleading with specifics that they cannot possibly know.
SOL is a defendants affirmative 'defense' or arrow - against plaintiffs delay. For Boeing to say the SOL is a defense to their (potential) negligence (again, I am NOT saying Boeing is in any way at fault, only that they COULD be), they must say why plaintiff was at fault for their delay. Can one be at fault for delaying information that simply does not exist? No. So there must be a mechanism for that plaintiff to still make a pleading, within the SOL, and not be penalized for not knowing what they cannot know. A 'reasonable inference' pleading is just that mechanism.
That a suit had to be filed within 2 years is a statutory requirement, not of Boeing's doing but also not of the plaintiffs doing. Not to be crude, and I do apologize, but suppose your mom died in a car crash - drove straight through a red light and over a cliff. She'd been sad lately, and a bit down, on Zoloft and in financial difficulty. Street Cams show her going right on off the cliff, in the safest car known built (lets call it a volvo). You and everyone else believe it was suicide (again, please pardon the crudeness of this example).
Well, 5 years later the world finds out that in that model car, volvo used a composite brake pad material that was suddenly discovered to disintegrate after 40,000 miles, making braking impossible - totally ineffective. No one had any idea this composite was prone to disintegration. Upon retrieving the brakes in that car, they're found to be disintegrated, just like the recent reports revealed.
Would you say (and admittedly this is a bit different scenario but the concept is the same) - oh well it's 3 yrs after the SOL so no problem, Volvo is in the clear, "I delayed." Or would you say - "Sheesh, we only learned about this last month, THAT'S what matters! Volvo has some responsibility here!"
So yes, a suit had to be filed to preserve plaintiff's rights that they may have but cannot yet possibly know. It would be a darn shame if a wing fell off and Boeing (or Airbus, or Volvo) could simply say, "Too bad so sad the plane was 10,000 feet under the ocean and missing for 3 years Ms. Peabody, that's your problem even though the wing fell off."
But yes, I will readily admit that 'kill all the lawyers' is a terribly popular and socially desirable feeling. No surprise given the misunderstanding of basic legal precepts (similar to 'pilots really don't do anything).
However, just like in an aircraft with two stricken pilots the very first announcement that would be made is "is there a pilot on board!?" so it is also true that - as disdained and viscerally hated as lawyers are (trust me, I know - and I've been in a courtroom once in my life and that was for a traffic ticket I got) - the very FIRST thing folks do when they are in a bind is go to a lawyer, faster than they can say 'oh shit.'
Everyone thinks lawyers are money grubbing ambulance chasers, which is unfortunate, because that's no more true than every pilot is a drunk because some each year get pinged at security or by cabin crew for having alcohol breath.
I do not think the plaintiffs WILL win or SHOULD win without knowing more - but I do think that until more is known, rights should be available. Because rare as it is, sometimes wings fall off or cargo doors fail. And rare as it is, that's not the plaintiff's fault.
...In the US, lawyers most certainly cannot "say anything they want" in fact quite the opposite... ...Let us not forget the hot McDonald's coffee case that everyone and their cousin totally misconstrues...
Interesting discussion...all of it.
The tongue-in-cheek comment that "you can sue anyone for anything" is made from time to time. And when you look at spilled coffee and ladder placards and TV Courtroom Shows and countless other eye-rolling lawsuits, it seems like that statement might have a good dose of truth.
It makes me think your comment "quite the opposite" isn't really accurate by most definitions.
I don't think we misconstrue the McDonald's coffee lawsuit. A lawsuit WAS filed for hot coffee, which, traditionally is served hot, and which was spilled by the plaintiff...so Mickey-D's is responsible?
Now, the #1 thing that makes for good parlour talk is the interaction of black and white concepts with gray concepts.
"You can sue anyone for anything" Indeed, that's an absolute statement and my favorite phrase "Absolute statements are almost always wrong"
I hear you- "You must meet certain criteria before filing a lawsuit"- sure, why not, makes sense.
That being said, our system is designed with a LOT of flexibility, so methinks a person does have a good bit of latitude in what they can sue for, with a "court of peers" deciding whether it has merit. For any other entity to decide on merit could compromise things.
So I dunno- I think there IS pretty good freedom to file lawsuits...including some ridiculous eye-rollers. Absolute, 100% freedom, no, but not_the opposite either!
(PS, the statute of limitations thing was interesting to read about).
Thanks.
Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.
The crash might have been caused by crew suicide, or a hijacking, or weather, an asteroid, or some other non-mechanical cause. We just don't know. Neither to the lawyers. We just have no idea whatsoever. A clue here, a clue there, a mollusk ridden flaperon - but basically nothing specific and identifiable. Nada.
Well, while we don't know the details of what happened on board, we have some details of what the flight did. We know much more than nothing and we have much more than just a mollusk ridden flaperon. We have the loss of the transponder, the loss of comm, the loss of the ACARS, but the continuation of the handshakes with the ACARS satellite every 1 hour, we have the time offset and the frequency offset, which gives us an idea (even if vague) of where the plane was and where it was heading, we have radar records and the fact that the copilot's cellphone connected to a network. While we still don't know what happened, we have enough information to absolutely rule out an asteroid or weather, and to say with a very high degree of confidence that there was intention. Everything points towards "somebody did this on purpose". Maybe a design (very unlikely a manufacturing) flaw may have facilitated that an intentioned human could do it (like being able to turn off the transponders and the ACARs), but to say that this is a deign flaw that caused the accident is a stretch to say the least. Humans can do a lot of things and I never saw a gun manufacturer blamed because their gun (which, unlike the plane, is designed to kill to begin with) was used to kill a person. You know, a lock could have been added to the design of the gun that would make a shot impossible.
--- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
--- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---
On Mar 21st 2016, about 13:30L, local resident Neels Kruger in South Africa found a piece of debris (photos see below), near Klein Brak River/Mossel Bay, about 20nm west of George and about 180nm east of Cape Town (South Africa), almost as far south as Africa's most southern point Cape Agulhas.
On Mar 22nd 2016 Malaysia's Ministry of Transport announced there is a possibility that the piece found near Klein Brak River/Mossel Bay might be part of the inlet cowl of an aircraft engine, the Ministry arranged for the pick up of the piece for further investigation. Further examination and analysis are needed however to determine, whether this part belonged to MH-370.
We process personal data about users of our site, through the use of cookies and other technologies, to deliver our services, personalize advertising, and to analyze site activity. We may share certain information about our users with our advertising and analytics partners. For additional details, refer to our Privacy Policy.
By clicking "I AGREE" below, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our personal data processing and cookie practices as described therein. You also acknowledge that this forum may be hosted outside your country and you consent to the collection, storage, and processing of your data in the country where this forum is hosted.
Tweet
Comment