Flight Attendant sues Aer Lingus

TOMs WIFE

Unfortunately it's looking like we're going to have to have a gender quota on Aer Lingus planes from now on. At least 30%.

We'll need some men to help these poor damsels in distress.

gizmo555

duskyjoe wrote: »

Capt Fintan Ryan giving evidence on behalf of the plaintiff today extolling the facts in those "six seconds a decision could have been made to go around to try and land again". quote from the Indo........ This is just fascinating stuff......

smurfjed wrote: »

in the newspaper article they use the word "could" not "should".

He also stated as a fact, not an opinion, that:

. . . given the conditions with gusty wind, the aircraft should have had a rate of descent of about 500 to 600 ft per minute.

However, 16 ft above the runway, the plane’s rate of descent was 1,400 ft per minute, when it should have been reducing to 300 to 400 ft per minute.

Mr Ryan said: “It was inevitable it was going to be a firm landing.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/aer-lingus-flight-was-unstable-for-six-seconds-expert-says-1.2427604

homerjay2005

gordongekko wrote: »

if she was injured the company has a duty of care on the employee. A company does not pay someone for sitting on their backside. She earned her pay are she wouldnt have gotten it.

She is not a slave and is entitle to take legal action. When aerlingus were struggling and letting people off where was the companies loyalty to the staff then???

so a company thats going down the toilet and needs to restructure deserves to be treated like s*ite now because they laid off a few people in the past, which it turns out, was a brilliant piece of management to do so???

she is an air hostess, hired to do this job and it looks like due to her legal action, is not doing the job she is paid to do.

The sense of entitlement stinks off your post.

What evidence is he basing his "facts" on ?

gizmo555

homerjay2005 wrote: »

so a company thats going down the toilet and needs to restructure deserves to be treated like s*ite

Why is taking legal action treating Aer Lingus like ****e? If they screwed up, they screwed up, if they didn't they didn't. The court will hear the facts and decide who's right.

Given the financial risks involved, I'm sure her decision to sue wasn't taken lightly.

gizmo555

Deleted User wrote: »

What evidence is he basing his "facts" on ?

I don't know, but he obviously isn't plucking numbers from the air. What would be the point, if he couldn't stand over them? Presumably, if Aer Lingus can contradict him, they will.

billy few mates

AN air safety expert has said the approach of a flight involved in an alleged heavy landing

What the fcuk is "an air safety expert"....?
I'd like to think all professional pilots would be 'air safety experts'.....

And while we're at it what the fcuk is an "alleged heavy landing"...?
It's not a subjective opinion a heavy landing is a clearly defined event and this A/C either had one or it didn't. If it did it will be properly documented and recorded as their are a whole heap of inspections that the operator would be mandated to perform before returning the A/C to service. If it wasn't a heavy landing it might have been a common or garden firm landing which is entirely subjective and would require little or no maintenance action before the next flight. It's not uncommon for aircrew to write up 'suspect heavy landing' after a particularly bumpy one but its likewise not uncommon to ascertain that it wasn't actually a heavy landing regardless of how bad it felt.
Modern A/C like the one in question automatically print out a report detailing the G Loads encountered for the last X number of seconds of the approach and landing so it's easy enough to ascertain if there was an event. QAR data will also monitor for unstable approaches and flag it to the flight safety office when one occurs. Most airlines mandate a go around if not stable by 1000ft but this doesn't mean that even a stable approach won't be upset at any stage of the approach by downdrafts or microburst, the captain always has the final say on whether to go around or not, not some "air safety expert" that wasn't even there...

billy few mates

In answer to an earlier post, no there won't be legal aid in a HC case like this.

My guess is Aer Lingus will let this play out for a couple of days to allow the legal fees to build up before showing their hand then we'll read that the case has been settled on the steps with each side agreeing to pay their own costs (at best) but I strongly doubt this case will be put to the jury......

I could be wrong though, I usually am....

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

imurdaddy

I dont know this woman or the parameters surrounding the landing in question, but to play devils advocate I bet all the posters saying under no circumstances would the claim personal injury claims for a genuine work related accident are talking pure crap!

billy few mates

Fred Swanson wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Thanks, I wasn't sure.
What about all those exorbitant awards that juries have been giving out in recent years....?
At least that's what my car insurance company said when they upped my premium by 25% this year.....

Tenger

overcharged wrote: »

By the way, sometimes the pilots shake the plane to boost the sales on Ryanair.

Lets have no more sensationalist claptrap like this please. Verging on airline bashing

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

Unfortunately it's looking like we're going to have to have a gender quota on Aer Lingus planes from now on. At least 30%.

We'll need some men to help these poor damsels in distress.

TOMs WIFE, it appears to want an infraction. Anymore misogyny and you will get a holiday from A&A

homerjay2005

imurdaddy wrote: »

I dont know this woman or the parameters surrounding the landing in question, but to play devils advocate I bet all the posters saying under no circumstances would the claim personal injury claims for a genuine work related accident are talking pure crap!

the word genuine is a very peculiar word to use here when there is no proof of a genuine injury at all. its amazing that (so far) it appears only 1 person out of 160 people got injured or has chosen to take a legal action.

for what its worth, im one of those people you talk about and I had a chance to take an action last year and didnt even think about going through with it for 1 second.

riffmongous

I am honestly surprised at how emotive this case seems to be for some..

imurdaddy

homerjay2005 wrote: »

the word genuine is a very peculiar word to use here when there is no proof of a genuine injury at all. its amazing that (so far) it appears only 1 person out of 160 people got injured or has chosen to take a legal action.

for what its worth, im one of those people you talk about and I had a chance to take an action last year and didnt even think about going through with it for 1 second.

I used the word genuine because no one here can say if her claim is genuine or not! I didnt say she was. She may be honest or trying her luck! But if she was injured i wouldn't think worse of her claiming! Accidents happen people get hurt thats life, just because she's the only one is not to say its a false claim. Thats just my view!

As for you case you're in the minority as Id say you know!

Red Kev

Absoluvely wrote: »

I wonder how much she's looking for. I wonder if she went to the Injuries Board first.

High Court, so usually in excess of €38000.

kravmaga wrote: »

How come the Captain or the FO- Co-Pilot have not been called as witnesses yet? If so it will be interesting to hear their direct testimonies.

High Court cases can take several days. They are witnesses for the defendant so they'll probably be on last.

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

clear thinking

gizmo555 wrote: »

He also stated as a fact, not an opinion, that:

. . . given the conditions with gusty wind, the aircraft should have had a rate of descent of about 500 to 600 ft per minute.

However, 16 ft above the runway, the plane’s rate of descent was 1,400 ft per minute, when it should have been reducing to 300 to 400 ft per minute.

Mr Ryan said: “It was inevitable it was going to be a firm landing.”

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/crime-and-law/courts/high-court/aer-lingus-flight-was-unstable-for-six-seconds-expert-says-1.2427604

I make that a 25kph impact. equivalent to a rugby player sprinting into pads. Or being rear ended at low speed. I saw such a crash on a motorway and the driver did appear to have a sore neck after it.

So a pretty crap witness for the plaintiff.

Locker10a

Sounds to me like Aer Lingus screwed up and let the issue mellow, probably ignoring it and not responding how they should have .

billy few mates

At 16ft the A/C is already in the flare and a touch down would have been inevitable even if a go around were initiated at that point in time so it wouldn't have made the slightest bit of difference to the outcome as the impact would have been the same either way.
At 16ft the A/C was literally nano seconds away from touch down with the throttles already retarded (which iirc is initiated at 20ft) and the A/C was probably already on the ground before the increase in ROD was even felt.
Even if there were a hard landing caused by that drop at 16ft it's entirely possible it wasn't the fault of the PF as it might have been wind shear, or microburst etc but again the data will show any pilot input on the controls, in which case the crew should probably be commended for getting it down safely.
All speculation though until we hear their side of the story...

smurfjed

We (Not EI) had an A320 do a 4.7G landing, highest ever recorded according to Airbus rep, the flight crew and maintenance took a look at it and allowed it fly the next sector. At this stage all sorts of alarms went off in the flight data monitoring system back at base. The aircraft and crew were removed from service/duty and the crew were subsequently fired.

I would assume that in EI there are similar safety processes in use, the Captain and FO would have had a lot of explaining to do if the FDM reported an unstable approach and hard landing. If the FA reported that she was injured, then I believe that it would be classified as an incident and the IAA would be involved.

If the FA sustained a back injury that prevented her from walking and was therefore going to require lifelong medical and financial support, I believe that she would be totally justified seeking that support from the High Court as it most likely would exceed any employer insurance limits.

But unfortunately this looks likes a common whiplash injury by someone who has posted some nice photos in various international destinations which might demonstrate that she doesn't have a fear of flying, so I'm actually at a loss as to what she is actually suing for, what exactly did she loose?

homerjay2005

Locker10a wrote: »

Sounds to me like Aer Lingus screwed up and let the issue mellow, probably ignoring it and not responding how they should have .

so they should bend over and let an ungrateful employee screw them over completely?

its employess like this that make me point blank refuse to fly with the company as the sense of entitlement they appear to have is extra-ordinary which is a shame because the company has 1000's of decent people and have turned themselves around in recent years.

billie1b

Red Kev wrote: »

High Court, so usually in excess of €38000.

Could be wrong but I think its gone up now to over €75,000 since 2014, Circuit court can place a judgement of up to €75,000 for injuries, its €60,000 for personal injuries, anything over these amounts is now the High Court

gordongekko

homerjay2005 wrote: »

so they should bend over and let an ungrateful employee screw them over completely?

its employess like this that make me point blank refuse to fly with the company as the sense of entitlement they appear to have is extra-ordinary which is a shame because the company has 1000's of decent people and have turned themselves around in recent years.

All companies get sued by employees. Not all of them make it to court. If you really adopt that attitude to your life you would not be able to eat drive holiday wear clothes etc.

Crazy reason not to use aer lingus.

Stovepipe

Aer Lingus has plenty of employees who have sued them in the past. Aer Lingus, like every other company, is not faultless and does make mistakes. As Gekko says, it's more common than you think for employees to sue companies, because sometimes employers need a toe up the arse to remind them of their duty of care,etc,etc.

joeysoap

smurfjed wrote: »

We (Not EI) had an A320 do a 4.7G landing, highest ever recorded according to Airbus rep, the crew and maintenance took a look at it and allowed it fly the next sector. At this stage all sorts of alarms went off in the flight data monitoring system back at base. The aircraft and crew were removed from service/duty and the crew were subsequently fired.


But unfortunately this looks likes a common whiplash injury by someone who has posted some nice photos in various international destinations which might demonstrate that she doesn't have a fear of flying, so I'm actually at a loss as to what she is actually suing for, what exactly did she loose?

By crew do you mean pilots or maintenance?

I can understand someone who gets injured at work taking a case, but if this person managed to fly to 'various international destinations' and posted photos of same on social media (and social media appears to be her forte) then she has somewhat dimished her case, IMO.

Kev W

overcharged wrote: »

By the way, sometimes the pilots shake the plane to boost the sales on Ryanair.

How would that even work?

ectoraige

Kev W wrote: »

How would that even work?

It makes people spill their drinks, who will then order more. Also, consumer research has shown that if passengers believe a fiery death is imminent, they are more likely to take chances and purchase scratch cards.

Kev W

ectoraige wrote: »

It makes people spill their drinks, who will then order more. Also, consumer research has shown that if passengers believe a fiery death is imminent, they are more likely to take chances and purchase scratch cards.

Probably shakes the loose change out of their pockets too!

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

overcharged

Kev W wrote: »

How would that even work?

It causes the passengers stress, so they buy more.

Even CEO Mr Michael O'Leary admitted doing this practice.

ohnonotgmail

overcharged wrote: »

It causes the passengers stress, so they buy more.

Even CEO Mr Michael O'Leary admitted doing this practice.

O'Leary admitted publicly that he told pilots to deliberately shake the stick to make passengers spend more money? I'd love to see a cite for that.

overcharged

one second

smurfjed

This is from Feb 2015

An Aer Lingus cabin crew member is suing the airline over injuries allegedly received as a result of an alleged hard landing at Naples airport in Italy.
Aisling McCormack Pittion (39), Ardagh Court, Crumlin, Dublin, claims she hurt her neck and back when the aircraft landed heavily on the ground as she sat ready for landing on July 15th, 2011.
In High Court proceedings, she makes a number of claims including that the airline failed to provide a safe place or system of work, failed to train her adequately or at all and failed to implement any or any adequate risk assessment. She also claims there was a failure to land the aircraft safely.
Aer Lingus denies her claims and contends she was the author of her own misfortune, failed to take any or reasonable care for her safety and failed to exercise proper attention and follow proper procedures.
The President of the High Court, Mr Justice Nicholas Kearns, refused an application from Ms McCormack Pittion’s lawyers for the release of material held by Aer Lingus which she says she needs for her case.
The court heard the airline provided some discovery concerning “touchdown flight data” recorded as part of the flight but objected to further information then sought in relation to the approach of the flight from 2,000 feet before touchdown.
The airline argued the information sought was not necessary or relevant in light of her claim she was injured as a result of the G-forces exerted on the aeroplane. The approach flight data would provide no information in that regard, it argued.
The data sought was also subject to a confidentiality agreement between Aer Lingus and the trade unions Impact and the Irish Airline Pilots Association (IALPA) under a data gathering agreement which can only be released by court order, it said.
Aer Lingus also claimed the release of that information is not permitted under a 1996 EU regulation.
Ms McCormack Pittion’s lawyers said an expert employed by them required the information to get a better understanding of the aircraft’s approach. This would enable the expert to determine if the approach was unstable or stable until touchdown.
Mr Justice Kearns said the issue of the G-force would be subject of expert evidence at the hearing of the case. He did not believe ordering further discovery was necessary to enable Ms McCormack Pittion make her case.

It's interesting to see that the flight data information wasn't released by EI, wonder if they will try the same this time.

overcharged

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJCuYNvrE8g&list=PLT8yy2B2tPAbWJVaMmu60Iuiui8Q9_eFR

ectoraige

Yeah... same interview in which he suggests charging for use of oxygen masks, and hosting in-flight strip poker games to generate revenue.

Tenger

I do love that Farside strip. A little humour is always nice but lets hold short of slandering Ryanair please. Otherwise we'll be seeing some infraction's handed out like air sickness bags on approach into ORK.

ohnonotgmail

ectoraige wrote: »

Yeah... same interview in which he suggests charging for use of oxygen masks, and hosting in-flight strip poker games to generate revenue.

yeah im not sure he intends to be taken seriously.

Bsal

All I can say is good job she wasn't on this, oldie but appropriate for this thread :pac:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SzrNs4IJvI8

OzCam

Some of the comments on this thread are ridiculous.

IANAL, but even I know that you don't take a case to the High Court unless you (or your legal team) fancy your chances. It costs tens of thousands per day. The odds of losing your home and everything else along with it are very high. You are warned about this at the very start. I know this from personal experience. And if you do go ahead you will be reminded of the risk many times, by both your own team and, forcefully, the defendant's.

It is entirely possible for one person to be injured among 160. Maybe the attendant had her head turned at the moment of max G, or lowered, or raised, or her back was just in the wrong position, or her belts weren't tight enough, or...

It is entirely possible that the attendant was left with a back injury, which developed over time and/or which has worsened and/or not responded to treatment, and now has no choice but to sue for damages to cover medical bills.

It is entirely possible that this claimant has been badly advised.

It is entirely possible that this claimant and/or her employer have made mistakes or bad decisions.

It is entirely possible that the claimant has been confined to ground duties, and otherwise neglected by her employer.

We don't know any of the above for sure, so a little compassion is in order - at least until the case is decided.


Justice is blind. You all might know what a Heavy Landing is, and the fact that there's a specific definition, and what the exact criteria are, but the court doesn't. It's up to both legal teams to argue that out. The Court has the option of seeking independent expert testimony if it wants, but the case starts with a blank sheet unless there's an applicable precedent.

The claims, which many ordinary readers might think exaggerated, are written by the lawyers. They always claim A, plus B, plus C, plus D and E. That's just the way the process works. Giving out to any claimant about claiming for several things is not fair. You trust your lawyer to argue the case, this is how they do it.

A little bit of fairness and restraint is needed on this thread, until we know the full facts.

gordongekko

homerjay2005 wrote: »

so they should bend over and let an ungrateful employee screw them over completely?

its employess like this that make me point blank refuse to fly with the company as the sense of entitlement they appear to have is extra-ordinary which is a shame because the company has 1000's of decent people and have turned themselves around in recent years.

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/irish-tv-producer-ois%C3%ADn-tymon-sues-jeremy-clarkson-1.2428737

You wont be able to watch the bbc now either.

TOMs WIFE

OzCam wrote: »

Some of the comments on this thread are ridiculous.

IANAL, but even I know that you don't take a case to the High Court unless you (or your legal team) fancy your chances. It costs tens of thousands per day. The odds of losing your home and everything else along with it are very high. You are warned about this at the very start. I know this from personal experience. And if you do go ahead you will be reminded of the risk many times, by both your own team and, forcefully, the defendant's.

It is entirely possible for one person to be injured among 160. Maybe the attendant had her head turned at the moment of max G, or lowered, or raised, or her back was just in the wrong position, or her belts weren't tight enough, or...

It is entirely possible that the attendant was left with a back injury, which developed over time and/or which has worsened and/or not responded to treatment, and now has no choice but to sue for damages to cover medical bills.

It is entirely possible that this claimant has been badly advised.

It is entirely possible that this claimant and/or her employer have made mistakes or bad decisions.

It is entirely possible that the claimant has been confined to ground duties, and otherwise neglected by her employer.

We don't know any of the above for sure, so a little compassion is in order - at least until the case is decided.


Justice is blind. You all might know what a Heavy Landing is, and the fact that there's a specific definition, and what the exact criteria are, but the court doesn't. It's up to both legal teams to argue that out. The Court has the option of seeking independent expert testimony if it wants, but the case starts with a blank sheet unless there's an applicable precedent.

The claims, which many ordinary readers might think exaggerated, are written by the lawyers. They always claim A, plus B, plus C, plus D and E. That's just the way the process works. Giving out to any claimant about claiming for several things is not fair. You trust your lawyer to argue the case, this is how they do it.

A little bit of fairness and restraint is needed on this thread, until we know the full facts.

It is entirely possible that she is chancing her arm (with or without bad advice)

ProfessorPlum

OzCam wrote: »

It is entirely possible for one person to be injured among 160. Maybe the attendant had her head turned at the moment of max G, or lowered, or raised, or her back was just in the wrong position, or her belts weren't tight enough, or...

But given that Airlines specifically train crew how to sit and brace for landing, so that none of the above should happen, it seems unreasonable to blame the airline for what might essentially regarded as her own negligence. Unless of course she is claiming that her training was inadequate for her job, but I don't see that alleged anywhere.
Judges are human though, and we often see in courts where costs are not given against an unsuccessful litigant, (and sometimes costs are ordered to be paid by the defendant, even though there was no finding against them) and perhaps there may be a bit of that kind of hope at play. Also, as has been the case, people sometimes take these cases with the (often well founded) belief that a company will settle rather than contest anything other than a rock solid case in court. By the time the realisation dawns that that is not going to happen, a person can find themselves so far invested in it that they feel they have to continue in the hope they will win.

Just to note, my points are not necessarily aimed at this case, more some general observations.

BowWow

http://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/ireland/no-defects-found-on-aer-lingus-plane-involved-in-court-case-705582.html

Wanderer78

TOMs WIFE wrote: »

It is entirely possible that she is chancing her arm (with or without bad advice)

she must be planning on retiring soon!

...And Justice

irishexaminer wrote:

Yesterday, he told the High Court that the approach of flight EI 582 from Malaga was unstable for six seconds before it touched down.

Using a small model plane today, the air safety expert demonstrated various manoeuvres and how wind can affect an approach.

He accepted there was nothing wrong with the aircraft, but insisted its rate of descent was too high, and the only thing to do was to “get out of there and go around”.

Did the pilot go around or was his rate of decent too high for landing and he landed anyway?

billy few mates

OzCam wrote: »

Some of the comments on this thread are ridiculous.

IANAL, but even I know that you don't take a case to the High Court unless you (or your legal team) fancy your chances. It costs tens of thousands per day. The odds of losing your home and everything else along with it are very high. You are warned about this at the very start. I know this from personal experience. And if you do go ahead you will be reminded of the risk many times, by both your own team and, forcefully, the defendant's.

It is entirely possible for one person to be injured among 160. Maybe the attendant had her head turned at the moment of max G, or lowered, or raised, or her back was just in the wrong position, or her belts weren't tight enough, or...

It is entirely possible that the attendant was left with a back injury, which developed over time and/or which has worsened and/or not responded to treatment, and now has no choice but to sue for damages to cover medical bills.

It is entirely possible that this claimant has been badly advised.

It is entirely possible that this claimant and/or her employer have made mistakes or bad decisions.

It is entirely possible that the claimant has been confined to ground duties, and otherwise neglected by her employer.

We don't know any of the above for sure, so a little compassion is in order - at least until the case is decided.


Justice is blind. You all might know what a Heavy Landing is, and the fact that there's a specific definition, and what the exact criteria are, but the court doesn't. It's up to both legal teams to argue that out. The Court has the option of seeking independent expert testimony if it wants, but the case starts with a blank sheet unless there's an applicable precedent.

The claims, which many ordinary readers might think exaggerated, are written by the lawyers. They always claim A, plus B, plus C, plus D and E. That's just the way the process works. Giving out to any claimant about claiming for several things is not fair. You trust your lawyer to argue the case, this is how they do it.

A little bit of fairness and restraint is needed on this thread, until we know the full facts.

But the court does know the criteria of a hard landing, it's clearly defined by the manufacturer and and the agency tasked with the design certification, the court has no discretion on this, it's there in black and white....


Incidentally not every hard landing results in damage to the aircraft....

Fred Swanson

This post has been deleted.

Negative_G

I honestly have to say this is a bizarre case.

I sincerely hope there is no pandering to the individual in question during the case and would expect Aer Lingus to have a rock solid defence prepared.

billy few mates

The High Court has heard that an inspection found no defects on an Aer Lingus plane that is alleged to have landed hard at Dublin airport.

What inspection...? Either the A/C had a documented hard landing and the mandated inspection, or it didn't suffer a hard landing in which case an inspection is not necessary.
When an A/C like this is reported as having a suspect hard landing the first thing you do is review the data to see if exceeded the vertical g limits or not, If it didn't then no further action is required. If on the other hand the vertical g limits were exceeded the maintenance personnel must carry out(and certify) what's called a Phase one inspection, which is a qualitative inspection of a number of areas (wheels, pods, pylons, flight controls, skin wrinkling in specific areas etc) if there are no findings on a phase one inspection the A/C can be released to service. If there are findings on a phase one the maintenance personnel are mandated to carry out a phase two inspection which is far more detailed requiring far more access and down time.
The fact that it had an inspection at all suggests there probably was a hard landing recorded....