Washington Personal Injury Blog - Mass Transit (Airline, Cruise Ship, Train, Bus)

Aviation pioneer calls the "black box" obsolete.

Richard Jones — Wed, 24 Jun 2009 19:28:33 GMT

Commercial airliners today contain what is known as a “black box,” the flight recorder which stores data from a craft’s instruments and records sound from within the cockpit. These recorders are designed to survive the worst crashes to enable investigators to determine what caused the crash. While the system works fairly well, it has some flaws. First, no matter how robust the design of the recorders, some do not survive, as with three of the four planes hijacked on 9/11 (page 456, note 76). Second, it may be difficult to recover the black box itself following a disaster. This has happened most recently in the case of Air France flight 447.

These difficulties have led Pierre Jeannoit, former chief executive of Air Canada and pioneer in the development of the flight data recorder, to describe the current black box as “obsolete.” Jeannoit is now calling for the replacement of the current system with one that transmits data in real time during the flight. This would allow crash investigations to begin immediately, and would eliminate the need for costly underwater searches like the one now ongoing off the coast of Brazil. Mr. Jeannoit further claims that the satellite capacity exists right now to implement such a system. In fact, the National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has been calling for such an upgrade for almost ten years. Why then hasn’t it been implemented?

Some have suggested that it is because the union that represents airline pilots is resisting the change, on privacy grounds. It is true that the Air Line Pilots Association, Inc. (ALPA) is resisting video data recorders in the cockpit. However, there are some indications that this opposition extends, not to all real time data transmission, but simply to video. See for instance, the testimony of Captain Duane Woerth, president of ALPA before congress, “More sophisticated FDRs [flight data recorders], perhaps with real-time data downlink capability would seem to be a logical development…”

Whether it is correct, as Mr. Jennoit asserts, that the necessary aircraft downlink capacity exists currently is a highly technical question. However, if we can improve our ability to determine the causes of aircraft tragedy, while reducing the lives placed at risk during an open-ocean search for black boxes, it is a question we should be working diligently on answering.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Richard Jones

Airlines should be using GPS systems now.

Richard Jones — Tue, 16 Jun 2009 18:06:34 GMT

If I call 911 I expect my cell phone to be able to tell law enforcement where I am. It is now possible, and inexpensive, to put tracking systems in a car, pet, or child. All this has been made possible by a system known as the Global Positioning System, or GPS. It uses a system of medium earth orbit satellites which communicate with receivers on the ground. These receivers can then determine the user’s location, generally to within ten meters.

GPS was originally developed by the United States military, but has been available to the civilian public world-wide since the early 1990s. As the system has gained popularity the receivers have become quite affordable, with some priced under $80. So why have I written an advertisement for the wonders of GPS on a blog devoted to airline safety issues? Because, while we expect our phones to know where we are, or if lost on a twisty mountain road, for our cars to know where we are, many airlines don’t know where their planes are.

Several disturbing facts have been exposed in the wake of the Air France Flight 447 disaster. One of them is that no one had any real idea where the craft was at the time of the incident. Current commercial aviation tracking uses a system of radar networks. These networks communicate with components known as transponders aboard the aircraft. This system, essentially unchanged since the 1950s, works fairly well on domestic flights, but is useless when a craft is more than 200 miles from land. When craft are outside the area of radar coverage, air traffic controllers are reducing to estimating the plane’s location based on flight plans and air speeds.

So why then does the airline industry continue to use a sixty year old system when a better option is available? Most times a question begins with the thought, “why don’t they,” the answer is the same. Money. Industry estimates suggest that a complete changeover to a GPS system would cost roughly $35 billion. Though, since Southwest airlines is already making the changeover in an effort to save money, industry attempts at poor-mouthing seem less convincing than they otherwise might.

When Columbus sailed the Atlantic in the late 15^th century, he determined his position each day using dead reckoning. He guessed, in other words, based on estimates of wind speed, currents, and weather. That was the state of the art technique in 1492. The disturbing thing is that it appears to be the same technique used by airlines to keep track of their international flights today. As common carriers, airlines owe their passengers the highest duty of care. Refusing to install a device I could purchase at Walmart for $79.98 does not come close to fulfilling that duty.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Richard Jones

Who Will be Responsible?

Richard Jones — Mon, 08 Jun 2009 16:02:55 GMT

If one searches the internet for responsibility +”tort reform,” (using the Google search engine as of 05/23/09) one gets nearly 100,000 hits. Many of these pieces were written in support of tort reform. For the purposes of this piece, I will define tort reform as any attempt to reduce tort litigation, particularly efforts to do so by reducing damage awards. On many levels the rallying cry of personal responsibility is an attractive one. Who, after all, wants to see plaintiffs being unjustly rewarded, or defendants unfairly punished? These are all fairly basic questions. Why then am I posing them in a blog devoted to airline safety issues?

Because, issues of responsibility in an economy as specialized as ours are inaccessible to most of us. Most people accept that we should bear some responsibility for damages we cause to ourselves. But exactly how is the average man on the street to assess issues of risk when it comes to purchasing an airline ticket? I suppose we could require passengers to review safety and maintenance records. Except that few of us are competent to understand what those records say.

Who then is to be held responsible for something like this report from the Dallas Morning News that hundreds of mechanics around the country may have been improperly certified and in some cases dangerously unqualified? The FAA will not be held responsible. Not in any real sense. And yet, most of us assume that because the federal government is regulating the certification of aircraft mechanics, that they will be effectively regulated.

Apparently not, as many mechanic certification programs have taken on the character of “diploma mills, allowing possibly unqualified and untrained mechanics to gain licenses that allow them to work on aircraft without supervision.” This bitter draft is not made any sweeter by the fact that the FAA does not track mechanic’s employment histories. There are potentially hundreds of mechanics around the country whose actual capability to maintain an aircraft is uncertain, and the FAA has no idea where they are.

At least one air carrier so far has found tragedy by assuming that an FAA certification was worth the paper it was printed on. In 2005, 20 people lost their lives when a craft headed for the Bahamas from Miami lost a wing. After the incident, investigators found that one of the mechanics employed by Chalk’s Ocean Airways, responsible for maintaining the craft, had been certified by a “diploma mill” called St. George Aviation. Following the incident the FAA retested that mechanic. He failed that re-test…twice.

It is true that air travel is still the safest form of transport. And hopefully airlines are ensuring that the certifications of those they employ mean something. But we should not assume that they are. In fact, only this week, allegations have surfaced against Gulfstream, parent company of a commuter airline facing $1.3 million in penalties for crew scheduling and maintenance violations. It seems likely that counsel for the families and loved ones of crash victims will now be scrutinizing maintenance certifications closely during discovery. Airlines are common carriers and owe their passengers the highest duty of care. Should there be tragedies in the future like the Chalk’s Ocean Airways Flight 101 incident, we should take care to hold responsible the only people who could have prevented it, and yet failed to; the operators of the airline.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Richard Jones

Airlines have a responsibility to address pilot fatigue

Richard Jones — Thu, 21 May 2009 16:34:21 GMT

Several years ago, author Stephen King wrote a novella called The Langoliers. In it, several passengers on a cross country flight fall asleep. When they awaken, most of the other passengers and both the pilots have disappeared. It is revealed, over the course of the story that the plane has flown through an inter-dimensional rift, destroying everyone on board who was awake at the time. Reading the story on a darkened airliner was always a disturbing experience. Fortunately, this week has brought a piece of good news, at least for those primarily worried about inter-dimensional rifts. We learn, via the New York Daily News that pilots quite regularly fall asleep in the cockpit.

Is this really a problem? After all there are two pilots in the cockpit. Surely one of the pilots will do as Alex LaPointe, a pilot for an unnamed regional airline does, “If I notice the other guy is nodding off, I make it a point to make myself extra alert.” Apparently not, as we saw in February of 2008, when both pilots fell asleep during a 36 minute flight between two Hawaiian islands.

It would be easy enough to blame the pilots for all this. After all, who among us can’t stay awake for 36 minutes? And yet, the investigation into the recent Continental flight 3407 tragedy outside of Buffalo has revealed some disturbing structural problems. For instance, pilots, such as Rebecca Shaw, who was forced to commute 2400 miles to work because she wasn’t paid enough to live anywhere but with her parents. Is it a problem when airline pilots make $16,000, approximately the same money as dishwashers? (¶ 9). Not according to the airline industry. “Compensation has nothing to do with safety,” said Roger Cohen, president of the Regional Airline Association. By this logic then, why not reduce pilot pay to minimum wage? Perhaps pilots, while waiting for their flights, could supplement their income by handling baggage or washing dishes at the food court.

Pilots are expected to work 14 hour days, above and beyond their commute. (pg. 1, ¶ 11). This is the sort of shift prohibited in the trucking industry by the Department of Transportation. See Federal Motor Carrier Safety Administration (FMCSA) Regulations §§395.2, 395.3. Today is not the first time this concern has been raised. The NTSB has been recommending that the FAA tighten regulations concerning pilot fatigue since at least 1995. So has the Air Line Pilots Association (ALPA). “Unless the rules are revised soon, we can expect fatigue to contribute to more accidents and incidents,” said Captain Duane E. Woerth, president of the ALPA, testifying before Congress in 1999. The Air Transport Association (ATA) responded (pg. 92) before Congress that, “there has never been a scheduled commercial airline accident attributed to pilot fatigue, not one, not ever.” Whether the ATA still maintains this position is unclear.

The industry itself insists that these incidents are not a problem. According to Roger Cohen, “statistics show passengers should feel safe on commuter airlines.” And that may in fact be true, statistically. Of course that is essentially the same argument employed by Ford engineers in the exploding Pinto debacle. If airlines continue as they have, there will come a day when the two pilots fail to awaken in time to return to an airport. And, on that day, if tragedy strikes, we shall see how well the statistical argument fairs in front of a jury.

The reality is that while we enjoy reading about frightening things, the almost 200 million passengers a year who fly regional airlines (¶ 6) are not characters from a novel. (all figures regarding U.S. air passengers from here, table 2). They are actual people, with loved ones waiting for them to return home. The airlines are legally regarded as common carriers. This means that they owe all passengers the highest duty of care. Putting an over tired pilot in the cockpit is a breach of this duty owed to the passengers. It is clear that pilot fatigue is a problem and that it has been for some time. The only question is, will the airlines correct it because it is the right thing to do, or must they be forced to fix it?

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Richard Jones

InjuryBoard member leads the fight to hold Southwest Airlines accountable for passenger poisoning

James Cool — Sat, 16 May 2009 18:06:14 GMT

Injury Board attorney Alisa Brodkowitz recently appeared on Seattle’s King 5 local news (click for video) to discuss her Petition against Southwest Airlines on behalf of twin sisters poisoned by the airline. This saga began in January when Brodkowitz’s clients, Victoria and Valerie Vaughn, passengers on Southwest flight 1705 from Los Angeles, became seriously ill after a mist filled the passenger compartment of the aircraft. Shortly after being exposed to these fumes, the sisters began experiencing pain, blurred vision, slurred speech, and tremors. They were hospitalized. Desperate to find answers to the question of what had poisoned them so that their doctors could treat them properly, the twins sought out Brodkowitz. Brodkowitz, an attorney specializing in aviation law, has extensive experience helping the victims of airline neglect. She filed a Petition asking the court to order Southwest to tell her clients what they had been exposed to.

Unfortunately, this problem is nothing new. Pilots, flight attendants and crew have been experiencing tremors, seizures and other signs of neurological damage for many years. It has been long enough for researchers at the University of Washington to study the phenomenon. After extensive study, Dr. Clement Furlong has a theory that explains the harmful fumes and provides answers to the victims of fume events. Dr. Furlong believes that passengers and crew may be experiencing these symptoms as a result of exposure to an engine oil additive, known as tricresyl phosphate (or TCP). This chemical, can contaminate the cabin air after it enters through the air conditioning system. Meanwhile Boeing, who manufactures all Southwest airlines 737s, insists that its tests reveal that the air in its cabins is safe.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by James Cool

Amsterdam Crash, Flight 1951, Some Encouraging Thoughts

Alisa Brodkowitz — Fri, 27 Feb 2009 12:33:52 GMT

This morning we here in Seattle learned that the recent crash of Turkish Airlines Flight 1951 took the lives of members of our community, several employees at Boeing. I read the Seattle Times article this morning and decided to share some of the encouraging (yes encouraging) thoughts that have occurred to me since learning of this disaster. One positive aspect of this crash, aside from the obvious, the fact that there were many survivors, is that it occurred in a locale that will make it easier to learn what actually happened.

This crash occurred outside Amsterdam, in The Netherlands (AKA Holland). Almost ten years ago I left Seattle to live in The Netherlands where I studied Aviation Law at Leiden University and worked monitoring a treaty on International Law in the Hague. Within a train ride from the site of this crash there exists an unparalleled resource of aviation law knowledge and experience. The Air and Space Law program at Leiden University is taught by some of the world's foremost experts in this field of law (for instance, one professor is a former Director of European Aeropolitical Affairs at the International Air Transport Association (IATA) in Geneva).

Additionally, the crash occurred within a train ride to The Hague. I had the honor to work in the Hague and it truly is a center of international law and politics. There are over 150 international legal organizations in The Hague, including the International Court of Justice (ICJ), and the International Criminal Court (ICC). Walking through The Hague, around every corner, is an embassy. The American Embassy in the Hague is coordinating information and assistance for American families involved in the crash. It is reassuring that such a sophisticated government, the Dutch government, is involved in the investigation of the cause of Flight 1951.

Finally, the Dutch people are incredibly warm and caring and they speak English beautifully. I would expect that they will do everything in their power to embrace the family members of this crash. Without a doubt, this crash is a tragedy; hopefully, the location of the crash will assist us all in learning its cause.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Alisa Brodkowitz

Assistance For Families Of Aviation Disasters

Alisa Brodkowitz — Thu, 26 Feb 2009 14:57:37 GMT

Recently commercial plane crashes have dominated the news. First, the Miracle on the Hudson, then Continental Flight 3407, and now Turkish Airlines Flight 1951. What assistance is available to family members when a commercial plane crash involves a family member?

The first place to turn is the National Transportation Safety Board. The NTSB serves as the point of contact within the Federal Government for the families of passengers involved in the accident. The second place to turn is the Red Cross. They are the designated nonprofit organization which has the primary responsibility for coordinating the emotional care and support of the families. The Red Cross provides counseling services, provides an environment for the family to grieve, meets with families who travel to the accident, contacts families who do not travel to the site, and communicates to the families about the various roles of the entities involved in the post-accident activities.

Where a commercial plane crash occurs in the United States the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act sets forth very concrete requirements the airline must follow to respond to the needs of the families. Similarly, if the commercial plane crash occurs outside of the United States, the terms of Foreign Air Carrier Family Support Act, may apply. This Act largely mirrors the Aviation Disaster Family Assistance Act. These acts are worth studying, they set forth the rights of families. The list below is not all inclusive but may provide some guidance to family members.

After an aviation disaster, an air carrier must:

(1) Publicize a toll free number to handle calls from family members;

(2) Provide a list of passengers to the Red Cross;

(3) Ensure that each passenger is consulted with respect to the disposition of remains and personal effects;

(4) Ensure that possessions will be kept for at least 18 months;

(5) Ensure that families are consulted about the construction of a monument to the passengers;

(6) Help pay for family members to travel to the location of the crash.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Alisa Brodkowitz

Inflight Medical Emergencies, Are Airlines Taking Advantage of Doctors?

Alisa Brodkowitz — Wed, 25 Feb 2009 12:48:49 GMT

Nearly all of us have heard this question come over the PA system on a flight "Is there a doctor on board?" Usually we are sending good thoughts to the sick or injured passenger, but who is thinking about the doctor? According to an article written in 2007 by Matthew Prout, MD and Jeffrey R Pine, MD inflight medical emergencies occur more often than you may think.

Inflight medical emergencies occur at a rate of 20 to 100 per million passengers, with a death rate of 0.1 to 1 per million [3-6]. The precise incidence of inflight medical emergencies is unknown because there is no uniform or required reporting system, and flight crews do not routinely report minor inflight medical incidents that do not require ground medical support [1].

Researchers in France studied medical assistance provided during commercial airline flights by analyzing eleven years of Air France flights between 1989 and 1999. Medical assistance was needed 380 times per the carriage of 350 million people. The researchers concluded that we must evaluate the effectiveness of current practice and modifications of equipment and protocols for patient management.

So, the doctor on board the airplane called to help the injured or sick passenger may not have the best equipment available. And, aviation medicine is a field unto itself. The human body behaves differently at 30,000 feet and air quality issues may arise. Despite all of these obstacles a doctor on a plane will do their absolute best to help the injured or the sick. The question is, "are they appreciated?"

Dr. Henry Coopersmith, a Canadian resident who also happens to be a lawyer, says "no." Dr. Coopersmith is suing Air Canada after he spent an entire night caring for several passengers aboard an Air Canada flight bound for Paris. After the experience, Air Canada offered him a mere 10,000 miles (no free ticket) and told him that he was ethically bound to help the passengers. Dr. Coopersmith is seeking to change the way airlines compensate doctors who respond to inflight medical emergencies. I hope that Dr. Coopersmith is successful.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Alisa Brodkowitz

Injured By Turbulence On An International Flight

Alisa Brodkowitz — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 12:16:58 GMT

Many people are injured every year on international flights when their flight encounters turbulence. According to researchers at NASA, turbulence (or rough air) is the leading cause of injuries to passengers and crew in nonfatal airline accidents.

Many passengers were injured just yesterday on an international Northwest Airlines Flight from Manila to Tokyo that was bound for the United States. Passengers who are injured on international flights, depending upon the circumstances, may seek compensation under the Montreal Convention, also known as the Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules for International Carriage by Air.

The Montreal Convention is an international treaty that protects airlines from crippling liability, but also protects the rights of passengers. In order to recover under the treaty, a passenger must show that he or she was injured during an international flight and that the injury constituted an "accident." An injury is an "accident" under Article 17 of the treaty if it is caused by an unusual or unexpected event that is external to the passenger. U.S. Courts have held that turbulence meets the definition of accident.

Turbulence injuries can be serious, they include neck injuries and sometimes, broken ankles. If the Montreal Convention applies passengers must file suit within two years of the incident. Failure to do so may prevent a passenger from recovering after a serious injury.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Alisa Brodkowitz

Help Protect The Rights Of The Families Of Continental Flight 3407

Alisa Brodkowitz — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 15:49:02 GMT

After a tragedy such as the crash of Flight 3407, victim's families just want to be left alone. Our Federal law reflects this privacy. It is illegal for any attorney to contact a family member directly after a commercial airline crash. United States Code Title 49 Section 1136 "Assistance to Families of Passengers Involved in Aircraft Accidents," prohibits attorneys from contacting victims' families for forty-five days after the crash. This rule also prevents attorneys from hiring others to make contact on their behalf. Family members are grieving, they have a right to be left alone.

Friends of the family members of victims of Flight 3407 may be wondering how they can help those who are grieving. A primary way to help is to simply make them aware that they have a right to privacy. Another way to help is to connect family members to counseling. One counseling resource for family members of airplane accidents is ACCESS. This stands for AirCraft Casualty Emotional Support Services. ACCESS is an air disaster bereavement support network specifically for those who have lost loved ones in plane crashes. It is a non-political, non-profit, tax-exempt (501c3) organization established in San Francisco in 1996. The organization connects families with grief mentors who have experienced similar losses.

Families may be confused about whether they should talk to or provide statements to the airlines' insurance company. The insurance company's job, after a loss such as a crash, is to limit their exposure. They want to reduce the amount of money that they will be required to pay out. Any information provided by the families to the insurance company will be used to reduce the value of their claims. If the insurance company does not respect a family's desire to be left alone, that family should contact the New York Insurance Commissioner and file a complaint.

Originally posted at InjuryBoard by Alisa Brodkowitz