Posted on 05/12/2006 6:45:21 PM PDT by Paleo Conservative
NEW YORK — The crash of American Airlines Flight 587 in a quiet residential neighborhood nearly five years ago is subject to general maritime laws, a judge ruled Tuesday, allowing potentially higher damages for dozens of people who sued.
U.S. District Judge Robert W. Sweet said it did not matter that the plane crashed on land in Queens, killing 260 people on the plane and five on the ground. He noted that the plane was on a 1,500-mile transoceanic flight to the Dominican Republic.
"There can be no question that, but for the development of air travel, this trip — or some portion thereof — would have been conducted by a waterborne vessel and that it therefore bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity," the judge wrote in a 78-page opinion analyzing the issue.
Flight 587 had just taken off from John F. Kennedy International Airport on Nov. 12, 2001, when a section of its tail tore away as its pilot battled turbulence.
Numerous lawsuits were filed, though all have been settled except for those involving eight passengers and three people killed on the ground and more than 20 cases involving injury or property damage on the ground.
The judge noted in his ruling that there was no direct precedent for the facts at stake in the plane crash and that the defendants contended a plane must crash on the high seas, far from land, to be subject to maritime laws. Such laws generally allow for broader reasons for giving damages.
The judge said the aircraft's vertical stabilizer, a large metal and composite structure, plummeted into Jamaica Bay from an altitude of about 2,500 feet and was retrieved with the use of a crane.
"The general features of the incident may be described fairly as a large piece of an aircraft sinking in navigable waters," he said.
He said it was of no consequence whether Jamaica Bay is used for commercial traffic.
He said the accident also qualified as a maritime disaster because it falls within a class of incidents that have potential effects on maritime commerce and because it was a transoceanic flight that bears a significant relationship to traditional maritime activity.
Lawyers for the defendants — American Airlines, its Fort Worth, Texas-based parent, AMR Corp., and the plane's maker, Airbus Industrie G.I.E. — did not immediately return telephone messages for comment Tuesday.
A lawyer for the plaintiffs, Robert Spragg, said he had not seen the ruling and could not comment.
Not on the Airbus A300-600R. You will only find that on aircraft that use an electronic flight control system such as the A320, A330, A340, and 777.
IMO, the Valujet crash was one of the most disturbing in recent history (I don't think it was caused by a bomb), in that it disappeared in the swamp. The recovery operation had to be horrific.
Not on the Airbus A300-600R. You will only find that on aircraft that use an electronic flight control system such as the A320, A330, A340, and 777.
Boeing and Airbus have different philosophies when it comes to pilot vs. electronic flight control in extreme situations. For example, an Airbus's computer won't allow a pilot to stall the aircraft. If the aircraft is near a stall situation, you can pull back on that stick till the cows come home but the computer won't let the aircraft stall. I guess they figure there’s no possible reason to allow some inputs at some times. Boeing, however, allows pilots to override the computer if they put enough muscle into the controls.
Airbus trusts the flight control laws over the pilot’s skill. Boeing takes the opposite approach, giving the pilot ultimate authority over the aircraft—at least that’s how it was several years ago when it was a hotly debated issue.
Quite true. Boeing gives the pilot a lot more leeway when it comes to flying the aircraft while the Airbus system is very rigid. The Boeing system does have some limits on what the pilot can and cannot do but not nearly as much as Airbus does. There are pros and cons to both designs but I'll go with the Boeing system any day.
Tort lawyer welfare?
No doubt.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.