Cheese it! The cops!
Extraneous, you’ve got some points, but drop the lawsuit. Especially now.
Drop it? You crazy? We’re in the Pit (not by my choice, BTW). We’ve got to keep this going for at least 5 pages 
I’m not rebutting points? OK - how about this:
YES, the first through twentieth rule of flying is FLY THE PLANE. I didn’t “rebut” that, because there can be no rebuttal.
Was it acceptable to allow the co-pilot to shoot the landing? Without specific knowledge as to the co-pilot’s experience in that situation (is this a 1500-hour newbie with 20 hours in a simulator trying to land in a 30-knot crosswind, was this a 10,000-hr vet with 2000 hours in type? Big difference. Until I know the co-pilot’s condition (if he was drunk at the time…), and experience and the prevailing conditions on the runway, I am not going to second-guess the pilot.
How about the pilot taking control and executing a go-around? Absolutely NO problem with that - if the plane is fishtailing and running off the runway, I damn well WANT it back up where there isn’t anything to run into.
The lawyers:
You tell me. As posited way back when, I suspect this would fall under some varient of “will infliction of mental distress”, or a breach of duty. There has to be some punitive mechanism (short of punching out the morons, which is generally frowned upon) to tell the airlines “you don’t DO things like that”.
Is there a body of law concerning malpractice/malfeasence as applied/applicable to airlines?
This is WELL beyond misplaced luggage, oversold seats, and the 1001 other indignities inflicted on the flying public.
I think being driven to crying and/or fearing for one’s life is SOME sort of harm.
The Pilots:
Can you come up with any doctrine by which the airline was not 100% responsible for this incident? It sounds like they can’t even blame the usual dog or truck this time.
Others:
Kind words are always welcome.
p.s.
j_sum1 The pilot IS responsible for the actions of the flight crew - including the cabin crew.
Michael Ellis You’ll be relieved to know that I do not drink coffee.
Futhermore, I take responsibility for my own actions and failures to act. I expect airlines to do the same - if they don’t, maybe it’s time to let the courts remind them.
“Your Honor, the wind shifted as we began to touch down, so I hit the throttle and came back around. Without my ever knowing it, apparently someone got scared. I obeyed every rule from the FAA and my company. This is something that happens without anyone’s control, and will happen again. I got the plane down without any damage to the passengers or even the plane.”
“Case dismissed.”
Seriously, dude, you’re soooo far out on a limb here. There are other posters who have shown that they can be reasoned with, but you are still arguing with people who know almost infinitely more about the subject than you do.
Just a couple of problems with that scenario:
a) That is not how the OP described the event - according to the OP, the plane was down, fishtailling, and about to run off the runway.
b) A “wind shift” of sufficient magnitude to throw off a transport’s landing is either
- incredibly rare
- reason enough not ot hand over the landing to the co-pilot
Your choice.
c) According to pilot141, his/her employer does have “inform passengers of situation” as part of its checklist
d) Again, the level of emotional distress described (preferring to take a 3-day train trip rather than fly) precludes the use of the term “unharmed” - so no, the pilot did NOT get the plane down with no damage to the passengers.
Were I so traumatized, I would definitely be googling “Aviation tort attorney” (not really, I know better avenues to locate an attorney).
e) It is the pilot’s job to KNOW what is going on in the cabin. Willfull ignorance is rarely a good defense.
To recap:
Everyone (IIRC) agrees that the pilot really should have done something.
The dispute is over:
-
As a matter of public policy, should the passengers seek legal redress?
-
Did the airline’s conduct raise to the level of a tort?
I answer in the affirmative to both, others disagree on one or both of those points.
I am also open to means of punishing the pilot and/or airline which does NOT involve litigation, but:
a) I really doubt if a complaint to the airline is going to change anything. Duh.
b) The behaviour is outside the scope of the FAR’s, so I doubt if the FAA could be expected to do anything.
This would leave us with either:
a) suck it up, wimp - so you are too terrified to fly - big deal
b) litigation
(I suppose vigilante-type stuff is an option, but I wanted to keep it within legal limits).
I suppose, one could, when pissed off at a pilot, mention to the ground crew or security that you smelled booze on the pilot’s breath as he/she passed, but that seems a tad nasty.
Bricker:
You had me at “clue.” –swoon–
A lawsuit??? Jesus. And people wonder why the U.S. is such a litigous society – well, this is why. Anything happens and the default response is Let’s sue them!!!
Okey-dokey, but it’s a little odd that you’re first recommendation is to sue, when now you’re basically admitting you don’t know if there are even grounds to sue.
“Intentional infliction of emotional distress” has to be intentional. Assuming that it was not the silence of the crew that scared the pee-widdle out of the passengers, but rather the dicey landing, you’d have to prove that the bounce-and-circle was done on purpose – highly unlikely. In order to show breach of duty you have to first show some duty (because obviously you can’t breach a duty if no duty exists). Now, assuming good reason exists not to speak to them as the events are going down – and I think we can assume the pilots were busy bringing the plane in safely and the stewards were strapped in for landing – you’d have to think of some compelling reason why they would be required to tell the passengers what happened after the fact – and to rise to the level of a “duty” it would have to be a pretty damn compelling reason, not just “the passengers would have felt better if they knew what was going on.”
Now, I’m not saying with 100% certainty there are no grounds for a suit. Who knows, maybe the pilot and co-pilot were drunk of their asses and decided to bounce the plane around for kicks. But that doesn’t seem likely, and – more to the point – YOU do not know that there ARE grounds for a suit (chances are there are not) but that didn’t stop you from reflexively sounding the clarion call of the disgruntled American: SUE THE BASTARDS!!! I see from your last post you fly right over (ha!) the more reasonable – and less expensive – means of making your commercial unhappiness known, which would be complaining to the company and reporting the incident to the proper authorities. Nope, it’s “cry havoc, and let slip the lawyers of war!”
But hey, I don’t really mind: I’m a lawyer. But the next time you feel like bitching about the state of extensive, protracted, and expensive litigation in the U.S., don’t look at us. We’re not the problem; you are.
A few more small facts: Once they were on the ground the steward came on the PA and amongst other things commented that “at least the second landing was better.” The steward told my son, when he asked, that the captain was a “training pilot” and the co-pilot was at the controls on the first attempt. Also, when they disembarked, the door to the flight deck remained closed.
I still think, just for the future peace of mind of the passengers, they should have at least been given a short explanation for what happened. When you’ve just been scared out of your wits you need some closure so you can just put it behind you and go on. And I don’t think you have to be delicate to be scared when something unexpected like that happens and you have no knowledge whether or not it’s an emergency situation. They always say look at the stewardesses for a clue, but my son said they all looked scared, so that added to the fear level.
I disagree that scared passengers should be lumped in with demanding, arrogant, asses who want to take off in a thunderstorm, or some such. It’s not the same situation.
Jodi
You are a lawyer. Fine. Do the research. In this case, that means read the damned thread.
The theory of “they were too busy” has been discussed and abandoned.
As to other remedies - as stated, I do not think a complaint will remedy the situation, and the FAA has no basis (FARs = Federal Aviation Regulations = the stuff the FAA can enforce) for action.
Hence, litigation.
Again read the thread - I originally posited an “intentional infliction of emotional distress”- like complaint.
The bounce was not intentional - the decision to say nothing and allow the passengers to be traumatized WAS intentional.
It seems to this non-J.D. that an alternate cause of action might be found in breech of duty - these were paying customers, so I’d suspect there is a level of care which attaches when money changes hands - what is the equivalent of “bailment” when talking about people instead of property?
And, until you can say there is no cause of action, don’t yell at me for suggesting that there is one.
Thank you.
overture, curtain, lights, this is it, your night of nights, no more rehearsing and nursing our parts, we know ev’ry part by heart…
=
God, if only you’d meant this.
Disagree. Captain has authority over all proceedings within the plane. Flight crew have delegated responsibility. Pilot sure as anything is not responsible if stewardess snaps at grumpy old fart who wants more peanuts.
I’m no legal expert, but it seems that gounds for a lawsuit are tenuous at best. I’m pretty sure that they wouldn’t hold in New Zealand courts. This appears to be a case of discourtesy rather than a deliberate breach of duty. Disconcerting and frightening perhaps but no real harm done.
To answer the OP, there is a protocol for these situations according to all the pilots who have answered. And there is no evidence that they failed to follow it. Extraneous, I think you are way out on the wing on this one.
Speaking of not reading, I guess you missed this in Jodi’s post
Nothing in the FAR’s require the passengers to be informed.
Case dismissed.
During my travels over the last 11 years I have had several times when, well let’s say, things got my attention
[ul]
[li]Aborted take off SEA-TAC (when the engines return to idle during a take off run it does get my attention)[/li][li]Touch and go around at Newark (landed long and hot)[/li][li]Turned onto final too close to a 747 at LAX and had to go around (wake turbulance)[/li][li]Airbus in full antilock on a wet runway at Logan (Pilot landed long and we almost ran out of runway)[/li][li]The guy flying a DC-9 who broke out of the clouds arriving at Indy and we flew nap of the earth for the last 2 miles into the airport. (never did figure that one out)[/li][li] 767 blows a tire on landing and gets a little sideways[/li][/ul]
Only 2 of those time was a PA announcement made. No one on any of those other planes thought that one was necessary.
People pay big money at theme parks to be more scared than anyone on any of those flights.
Would some pilot care to quote the relevant part of FAR (Part 61) regarding the responsibility of the PIC?
You can delegate authority, you cannot delegate responsibility.
The FAA’s enforcement actions are limited to the FARs - civil courts are not.
Please pay attention - this is the third (at least) time I’ve pointed out that, because the FAA has no jurisdiction, litigation is the choice I would make.
To prevail in civil court, as I understand it, one must show, by preponderance of evidence, that one was harmed. NOT that a criminal or administrative law was broken.
No, not exactly.
[ol][li]All parties must agree upon the standard of care, if one exists. For an airline, this will for example mean “the customer was received and delivered in a timely manner.” Any grey areas must be properly adjudicated pre-trial, lest the plaintiff be caught forever in appeals.[/li][li]Plaintiff must claim the standard of care was not upheld.[/li][li]Plaintiff, in order to claim damages, must demonstrate the ways the standard was not upheld, plus the material ramifications of the alleged negligence and the “pain and suffering” attributed to the incident.[/ol]Usually, if you are a passenger and suffer a “hard landing,” you’d best hope they clam up.[/li]
Once you’ve cleared the jetway, it’s best to kiss the ground, count your blessings and press for travel vouchers. Suing is not going to stop the odd co-pilot (if we’re to believe the OP at this point) from losing his cool and biffing the landing.
My scenario is within the paramaters of the OP’s description: “As we were coming down the last little bit, the wind shifted, and we came down real hard as we lost airspeed, and then it on the bounce, it shifted and with a slight overreaction on the controls, the plane slid sideways a bit.”
We’re not discussing if it’s rare. That’s not the point. It could be the explanation, and you’ll never prove otherwise. Wind can be very localized.
Are you actually saying that the pilot should have SEEN THE WIND and not let the co-pilot land the plane? Or should he have seen that the wind was going to shift? This is nonsense.
PLUS, you’ve ignored the fact that the pilots here have told us that the co-pilot is quite experienced in his own right, and may actually have more hours on that craft than the captain.
That’s your definition of “harmed”, as in “I’m going to sue, I’ve been so harmed”? Please, never come near me. I don’t want to get sued for blinding you with the reflection off my car window, and causing you to claim that now you’re scared to drive. No, I’m not really kidding, unless you are.
Good luck with that.
No, as stated by every pilot here, it’s his/her duty to get back on the ground as safely as possible. Knowing what’s going on in the cabin is so far down the list that I’m not even sure it’s there.
“Should” as in “it would have been nicer”, not as in “I’ll sue you for my being temporarily scared, without an explanation afterwards!”
That’s right. That’s why the FAA has rules: to define what is important enough to go to disciplinary measures over. This apparently isn’t on the list (thank God). Why do you act as though you know more about this than people who have spent their lives in the field?
So, lying isn’t wrong as long as it’s not technically illegal?
I don’t know how airplanes work. I mean, I get the physics some, and I know how to get on them at point A and get off them at point B, but I don’t know how they actually work. There are lots of gauges and dials and stuff. Presumably you need to look at some of those from time to time.
If I saw a pilot headed to the door with a parachute on his back, I’d have some serious questions that he would need to answer before I stopped hurting him.
If something happened that didn’t look right but didn’t involve the guy who knows what he’s doing trying to sneak off the plane I’d assume that he was probably at least as invested in the idea of landing safely as I was, and as aware of the ideas of gravity and kinetic energy and why it’s a bad idea to make sparks in the vicinity of jet fuel, or to run into the flight that was going to land on another strip before you got into its way, and I’d prefer that he flew the fucking plane rather than spending his time telling me that everything’s just fine.
Scared goes away. Charred lasts for a very long time.
Extraneous, so far in this thread, there have been at least three pilots who have told you you are wrong. There have been at least three lawyers who told you you are wrong. There have been a dozen dopers, Romans and countrymen who have told you you are wrong. Yet, for some reason I cannot even begin to fathom, you believe you still could be right.
OK then. Lets assume you were on the plane. Lets assume you have all the facts with you. Lets assume you get scared and decide the best course of action is to sue.
Well, first you need to find a lawyer who will take on the case. Airlines have deep pockets, and do make a worthy target. But for a lawyer to go after them on contingency basis, there has to be, you know, SOME chance of winning. If not, the lawyer is basically doing it pro bono and there’s really better ways to waste time while not earning money. I happen to like Literati on yahoo.
So now you’re either going to have to put out money (out of your own pocket) for a retainer or find a lawyer stupid enough to take it on contingency. There are probably a few of them out there who will be blinded by dollar signs. Are those the ones you want going after the airlines you, you know, probably have good lawyers on their side?
So you have a lawyer. Now what? Now you sue the bastards!
And the airline’s lawyers file a Rule 11 motion. What’s that? Glad you asked.
Rule 11 of the federal rules of civil procedure:
What does this mean? In a simplified nutshell, it means that you, your lawyer, and your lawyer’s law firm all have the potential to be fined for wasting the court’s time.
But lets even go further. Lets assume they don’t try for this. Lets assume that it goes to trial. Lets assume that the judge in the case is high on coke and rules in your favor. Lets also assume that the appellate court judges say “eh, what the fuck. We’ve got life tenure here. Lets give the guy a break” and affirm the trial court’s ruling.
Congrats! You just performed a miracle bigger than Jesus’s wet dreams. Guess what happens now?
Everyone who wants to fly on that airline must now pay more money because the airline needed to increase prices to pay their litigation expenses. All because you didn’t get to hear the stewardess suck your dick over the intercom.
Just wanted to make sure Extraneous didn’t miss this bit. In fact, it’s so good, here it is again.
Oh, what the hell, let’s go for three.
So, I get on a plane, the crew shows calloused indifference to my terror, and I am thereafter too afraid to ever board another plane.
There is no recourse?
The pilots have said that they are not required by FARs to confort terrified passengers.
The lawyers have said there is (probably) no cause of action (or at least not one likely to prevail).
Mr. B - thank you for the point about a standard of care - my question (however murky) was exactly this point - is there a standard of care applicable to an airline, and if so, what is it?
Is the standard of care REALLY just “still breathing, no (serious) visible marks”?
Tangent: what if there is no standard of care, or the parties cannot agree on a standard of care? Surely we don’t say that no suit can proceed unless there is a precedent.
Where did that happen? This co-pilot has never been identified, nor has a summary of his/her experience level or condition been established.
I am getting tired, so I’ll cut to the core on the last one - are you saying that any litigation I might file (should I choose to go Fed court) would, necessarily, be blatantly frivilious, and therefor cause for sanction? I would think that a plaintiff who is too scared to fly, as evidenced by an epic train trip, might just be worth listening to. Add the airline’s ignoring said plaintiff’s obvious distress, and I could see a case being made for culpability. Even if the case was lost, it could hardly (I hope) not be the cause of sanctions.
One last time - If you don’t want me suing the bastards, what should I do? Negotiate for vouchers? Are you kidding? Remember me? The guy who’s too afraid to ever fly again? You want me to settle for vouchers?
Goodnight