The world’s a scary place sometimes, no one owes it to you to make things easy, and if you get where you’re going with your ass intact then you best be grateful.
Seriously, I’m wondering if your point of view is what people mean when they complain about how schools these days spend too much time teaching self-esteem at the expense of performance. Because you seem to hold your right to comfort above all other considerations, and that just isn’t reality. Reality is they got there; it would have been great if the pilot had been sufficiently composed to talk to the passengers, but that ain’t what happened. So be it.
OTOH, I know we’re not supposed to be pulling up chairs, but I have to say I’ve really enjoyed this thread - I learned so much from you pilots! Thank you for taking the time to post your well-crafted replies!
As a passenger I’ve been in some humdingers (including a rough landing in a small plane wherein the pilot jumped out as soon as we stopped rolling & came back with a Sheriff who informed us that the plane was too heavy to make the next leg of the journey and so some passengers WOULD be LEAVING the flight - you betcha I volunteered!). Oh, yes, and a landing that was aborted twice - that time the pilot did make an announcement afterwards wherein he cursed the air traffic controllers at some length. Finding out that we had come close to a disaster wasn’t welcome news, but it also didn’t change the central and overriding fact that we HAD LANDED with POSTERIORS PRESERVED.
Shit, as an extra bonus Mr. B even gave those damn lyrics I’ve never been able to get straight!
That’s going to be really hard, dude, since Part 61 is about what you need to qualify for a pilot license (technically, it’s a “certificate”), not about responsibility of the pilot. THAT’s in Part 91. I think the airlines have some additional stuff, but since that’s not the type of flying I’m not going to elaborate on that. I think that’s in Part 121 and 135, but don’t quote me on it.
I am sick to death of people who think that the world is made to serve them. The pilot got you down very safely under difficult circumstances, and your thought is to lie about his state of alleged inebreation. I thought I would never say this to anyone, even in the Pit, but you’re making me sick. Stop it! Grow the Freak UP! The world does not owe you either a living or a bed of roses.
Good Lord, what do you expect out of life? Have you no shame? Be a man (especially if you are one), and suck it pickin’ up. Something happened that was disconcerting. It happens. It gets dealt with. It can be hard. But it’s not the other person’s fault, who had just as much at stake as you did. He may have had more kids to support.
You are seriously saying that you want to sue the airline because THEY DIDN’T EXPLAIN IN SIMPLE LANGUAGE TO YOU WHAT HAPPENED AFTER THE FACT? If that’s the case, and I’ve been reading this, and I’m almost positive it is, I might just quit coming back to this thread. Some people aren’t worth the time. NO ONE HERE AGREES WITH YOU. This is not like abortion, or tax cuts, or the rights of Palestinian refugees. NO ONE AGREES WITH YOU. This should be a gigantic clue, but it seems to only bouce of your head.
Oh, and you’re not good at reading apparently, either:
I quote Broomstick:
I didn’t say that this co-pilot had more hours, but that it wouldn’t be unusual, and you certainly don’t know anything about it. THE CO-PILOT IS DEEMED MORE THAN ADEQUATE FOR THE OPERATION OF THE AIRSHIP BY DEFINITION. He /She has been retained by the airline as a competent pilot under all circumstances. He possibly has more hours in the air than you do at the keyboard. Step off.
Your honor, I am in fact suing the postmaster general, as the fact that a lightning bolt struck the post office while I was in it has made me too afraid to buy any stamps. I give as evidence my late bills, which were waiting for stamp delivery from my internet order. I think it was the postmaster’s duty to inform me exactly the conditions that caused the bolt to strike that building, so I could feel safe there again, and I seek damages for pain and suffering.
What do you mean, “A fine”? “Frivolous”? But I have emotional scars!! Put me down! I’m an American citizen! I have rights! I have the right to be happy! You haven’t heard the last of this! I’ll [slam]
Well, when I got tired of being afraid to fly I took flight training and eventually earned a license. I was still scared the first time I got back on a jet - hell, I fear-puked twice at the boarding gate, no joke - but I (eventually) overcame the fear. Is everybody going to do this? No. As I said, I have no problem with people take a train or bus. Plenty of folks are horribly afraid to fly and they’ve never been off the ground - should they sue the airlines just for existing?
Yeah, I can understand folks being afraid to fly. But they have a choice about whether to face and overcome their fears, or to let their fears control them.
You are correct. We are not obligated to comfort the terrified, although it’s usually in our best interests to do so. Also, some of us are decent human beings who would not intentionally scare the crap out of people.
I’m not Mr. B, but what the hell - Yeah, basically, that IS the standard of care.
There is no way to know what the co-pilot’s quialifications are in this particular situation. However, a pilot’s status at an airline is determined solely by senority, the time spent at the airline. Although not what I would call a common circumstance, it is quite possible to have a co-pilot with more total time and even more time in type than the plane’s captain. American Airlines has a co-pilot who used to be a space shuttle commander who has more skill and experience than any other pilot in their line-up - he’s still co-pilot because he hasn’t been there long enough to be captain. A captain from a failed airline who joins another airline starts again as co-pilot regardless of the amount of experience or status at his prior employer.
But even if it was the co-pilot’s first day on the job with the airline, he will STILL have many more than the 1500 hours total time quoted earlier. A “rookie airline pilot” is still a highly trained and compentant professional.
Even outside of the airlines, who is in command is not dependent solely on total hours of experience. I have flown as pilot in command on flights where my “co-pilot” has decades more experience and thousands of more hours than I do - I am still pilot in command and I am the one who would be held legally responsible for any problems on that flight. (Needless to say, I do make use of my partner’s greater experience whenever possible - that is one of the ways you become a better pilot). Granted, it’s not as formal a process as the airlines, but a ship can only have one captain and it’s a good idea to figure out who that is before you take off.
Flight carries certain inherent risks. If you board an airplane there is a risk you’re going to get the crap scared out of you.
IF the pilot did something stupid it might fall under the “flying in a hazardous manner” part of the regs but doing a go-around after a fish-tailling set-down would probably not qualify. That’s usually seen as a sensible way to salvage a bad situation.
Tell your complaint to the airline. If everyone on a flight bitches yes, the airline will do something. YOU may not see it - but the airlines DO listen to passengers, they DO have an interest in statisfying customers (if they don’t, they don’t stay in business) and if a pilot continually generates complaints something will be done.
IF, however, a lone passenger out of 100 bitches - no, it’s not likely they’ll pay attention. After all, 99 people didn’t complain. And if you’re that 1 in 100, ask yourself if your reaction is porportional to the event.
The airlines are legally obligated to get you safely from point A to point B. That’s it. The rest is a matter of customer service - very important to a successful, long-term business but not mandated by the FAA or anyone else.
Extraneous, I guess you’d be too scared to drive if you ever got in a car accident. Coz’ you have a WAY better chance of dying in a fiery car wreck than anything ever happening to you in a plane crash.
Jeez…did you grow up in a freakin BUBBLE or something?
My forte is criminal law, so I welcome corrections from the civil side of the house… but yes, you have to be able to point to some authority that imposes a duty of care before you may sue. If this were not so then a person could be sued for violating a duty that he had no way of knowing existed.
“Some authority” doesn’t necessarily mean “some previous case.” But it does mean that you have to be able to point to some law, rule, regulation, accepted and required practice – SOMETHING – that mandates a particular course of action, and then show that the action wasn’t taken, and that negligence was the cause.
Nobody in this thread seems to think you can do that. While admittedly this is not an exhaustive search of all relevant authority on air travel, I do think it’s rather compelling that not one poster here has identified a breach of duty.
I am no civil law expert, but I can’t see a winning case here. I’m not sure I can see a colorable claim here.
Wait a minute - so someone did come on the PA after all?
Your OP said:
And your son’s complaint is that they didn’t also explain why they needed a second attempt? It sounds to me like whoever made the announcement thought that was sufficient, and was trying to joke about it like the standard “whoa, easy now” type of commentary when you get a bumpier-than-usual landing.
Spiff, you’re coming down unfairly on Extraneous. There’s nothing wrong with feeling upset about poor treatment or even perceived poor treatment. Additionally, there’s been nothing posted here that denies the legitimacy of a plaintiff’s claim of “pain and suffering.” Dare I mention Post Traumatic Stress Disorder?
Extraneous is failing by simply ignoring the machinery involved in bringing forth a successful civil case: one must prove the airline owes a soothing PA after the hard touch ‘n’ go or one’s claims are simply worthless. This is Extraneous’s burden here. If (s)he cannot meet this, yet keeps on keepin’ on, why then (s)he might just be a fuckwit.
I read the thread, the whole thread, and nothing but the thread. I always read the whole thread before I post.
Heh. Abandoned by you, you mean. Here’s the distinction I’m drawing: There’s no time to do it during the incident. Do they have a duty to explain after the incident, when everything’s okay? No. Why would they? It would be nice if they would do so, but they in all likelihood do not have a duty to do so. IFAIK, there’s no duty to ensure nobody ever gets scared on an airplane, especially when a not-insignificant number of people are always scared on airplanes.
But you see, you are assuming complaints will not work. And you assume the FAA has no basis for action. You assume there’s no other proper agency to which to make a complaint. As it happens, two minutes’ worth of internet research shows this is largely incorrect. Of course, there’s no way to know exactly how the airline would handle a complaint, but that’s where to start. General complaints regarding airline service can be directed to the Aviation Consumer Protection Division of the Department of Transportation. Complaints regarding airline safety are received, reviewed, and, where warranted, investigated by the FAA.
My point is that litigation should always be a last resort. That’s where you end up when nothing else works; it’s not where you start. It’s expensive, protracted, time-consuming, and emotionally draining, and for these reasons should never be the first thing you do.
You should not be encouraging people to bypass the usual channels for making unhappiness known, in order to incur the time and expense of filing suit, when you (a) don’t know that the usual channels won’t work and (b) don’t know any grounds for suit exist. And contrary to your assertion, it is not incumbent on me to prove that absolutely no grounds for suit exist, but rather incumbent on you to explain that reasonable grounds for suit do exist – since suing was your suggestion. Your two guesses so far – intentional infliction of emotional distress, and breach of some unknown, unspecified duty – do not appear workable, as several people have told you.
And I’m not yelling at you. Nothing about this thread or our exchange pisses me off in the least. It’s just that, as a lawyer, I hear too much bitching about the misuse of the justice system, and I truly believe that suggestions like yours are one of the chief reasons why.
Gee, am I ever lucky I stumbled on this thread. I have a question regarding my right to sue, and after reading this thread I have determined that you are the only one who can help me. Friday night, someone was shot and killed about 20 yards from my apartment around 3am. I haven’t slept more than 20 minutes at a time since then, and I’m scared in my own home. Should I sue the muderer, the gun-maker, the police for not being there, or should I just GROW THE FUCK UP, DEAL WITH THIS AS SOMETHING THAT HAPPENS WHEN YOU LIVE IN THE CITY AND MOVE THE FUCK ON ALREADY?
Mr. B - I swear I did see your highlighting of this late addition. I just wanted to re-emphasize it for some people (cough) who might still be ignoring it, and to ask if the fact that no explanation of why exactly the plane had to try again was the issue; that the usual joking apparently wasn’t sufficient for the couple mentioned by the OP.
EXTRANEOUS, I say this in all seriousness: Knowing when to throw in the towel is a mark of intelligence. You don’t have to admit you’re wrong, or further insist you’re right, you just have to have the sense to know when to stop.
One of the things you’ll discover if you continue to post around here is that a lot of us don’t have that level of sense, or don’t have the self-discipline to actually do it (give up the argument) when we know we really should. Arguing for argument’s sake is fun, but it’s easy to lose perspective on when to let things go, especially in the Pit. Keeping that perspective is a mark in your favor. Really.
Ok, I’ll go ahead and say that it is an admirable thing to know when you’re licked, and admit it. Thanks for not just pushing this until everyone just wrote you off.
I still disagree with what you said as much as it seemed I did, but it is certainly something not to have the intellectual dishonesty to refuse someone’s point out of spite.
I just wanted to re-emphasize it for some people (cough) who might still be ignoring it, and to ask if the fact that no explanation of why exactly the plane had to try again was the issue; that the usual joking apparently wasn’t sufficient for the couple mentioned by the OP.