Articles Posted in Aviation Accident

Whenever airline accidents occur, there are usually a cargo load of questions to be answered regarding likely causes, avoidable circumstances and other issues. But few ill-fated flights have generated as many questions left outstanding and mystery as Malaysian Airlines Flight 370, which vanished during the early morning hours of last Saturday. And San Francisco airplane accident attorney Gregory J. Brod would remind us that while airline and government officials may take weeks, months or even years before answering some of the key questions at stake here, the families of the 239 people who were on board have every right to ask why they had to lose their loved ones.

Malaysian Airlines Flight 370 departed Kuala Lumpur and was bound for Beijing when, at approximately 1:30 a.m. local time, the top-of-the-line Boeing 777-200 jet stopped communicating with air traffic controllers while traveling at 35,000 feet. The jet’s course was set for a northeasterly path over the Gulf of Thailand on the way to the Chinese capital. However, military radar detected blips from what may have been the Malaysian aircraft some 200 miles northwest of Penang, Malaysia, putting the plane well off course to the west of the Malay Peninsula and over the Andaman Sea. The last signal recorded by military sources registered at 2:15 a.m., Saturday, at 29,500 feet.

According to CNN, new information suggests that Flight 370 may have flown for several hours beyond the last transponder reading. Indeed, Malaysian authorities say that they have several “pings” from the plane’s service data system that were transmitted to satellites four to five hours after the last transponder reading. If that is so, at least one U.S. official believes that it would mean the jet flew as far as the Indian Ocean, a staggering off-course path.

“There is a probably a significant likelihood” that the aircraft is now on the bottom of the Indian Ocean,” said the U.S. official, who cited information the Malaysian government shared with Washington.

While early reports of the pings west of the Malay Peninsula sent to a satellite well after Flight 370’s last transponder signal were disputed by Kuala Lumpur, analysts from U.S. intelligence, the Federal Aviation Administration and the National Transportation Safety Board have all agreed that they were likely emanating from the missing aircraft.
But the mystery surrounding Flight 370 – as of the writing of this blog, no tangible evidence has been found regarding its fate – has become even more bizarre. It seems that an emergency beacon designed to transmit data if the plane were about to crash into the ocean failed to go off. The beacon’s distress signal would have been triggered by an interaction with water while the aircraft was on the surface of the sea.

The fact that the beacon failed to activate suggests that the airplane may not have crashed, that the transmitter malfunctioned, or that it’s underwater.

An even more strange twist concerning Flight 370 came to light Thursday evening, when two U.S. officials told ABC News that two communications systems on the aircraft were shut down. Reportedly, the plane’s data reporting system was shut down at 1:07 a.m. Saturday and its transponder that transmitted location and altitude was shut down 14 minutes later. Both circumstances beg the question of why the systems were shut down and whether it was a deliberate act.
Continue Reading ›

As the investigation into July’s crash of Asiana Flight 214 continues, the pilots and airline are laying blame on the plane’s auto-throttle, suggesting a malfunction in the device caused the Boeing 777 to crash. According to the San Francisco Chronicle, an anonymous aviation expert revealed that the carrier and pilots are focusing on the possibility that the device disengaged on its own. In contrast, Deborah Hersman, Chairman of the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”), said investigators are looking at whether the automated throttle was engaged at all and whether the pilots used it correctly. It is a debate that our San Francisco plane crash team continues to monitor and will follow as we approach a planned November date for an NTSB hearing. Attorney Brod continues to be available to talk to those injured in this or other aviation accidents.

Despite Asiana Crash, Trend Shows Greater Risk Tied to Small Planes

July’s crash at San Francisco International Airport is notable because it involved a large, commercial airliner. Approximately thirteen months prior, Bloomberg published and distributed an article examining the realities of fatal crashes. At that juncture, there had not been a fatal crash involving a major commercial airplane since the February 2009 when 50 people died after a Colgan Air flight crashed near Buffalo, New York. In contrast, between the Colgan Air disaster and the Bloomberg inquiry, 30 times as many people. Looking at this issue another way, while the number of commercial jetliner accidents fell by 85% since 2000, the private plane/general aviation rose 20% in the same time frame.

The Asiana airplane accident that occurred in early July of this year has been the subject of much press this week as more claims are filed against defendants allegedly responsible for the tragic crash. The crash occurred on a San Francisco landing strip on July 6, a clear day by all accounts. When the plane crashed into the tarmac on that day, it left 181 people injured and two teenagers dead. Complaints against the airline, airplane and airplane parts manufacturers, and other parties are now mounting as victims heal from the wreck.

According to a news report by Claimsjournal.com this week, victims have filed suit against several defendants. The laws governing suits against airline carriers may guide plaintiffs and their attorneys how they select which party to sue. Under the Montreal Convention of 1999, an international convention regarding compensation for airline accident victims, victims cannot file a lawsuit in the United States if their final destination was not, in fact, the United States. In sum, the convention gives jurisdiction to the country in which the airplane ticket was purchased. At least one legal expert notes that this may not be advantageous for people traveling to destinations outside the United States, because the United States tort system, which governs personal injury and product liability cases, may be more generous to plaintiffs.

Some plaintiffs have filed product liability suits against Boeing, the manufacturer of the airplane involved in the Asiana crash. It is important to note that the Montreal Convention does not protect such defendants, and therefore passengers on the Asiana flight who were traveling outside the United States may bring such suits. Some of the facts upon which the suits are premised include that oxygen masks allegedly did not deploy as they should have, the sliding ramps did not deploy properly, and the seatbelts in the airplane had to be cut with a knife to release passengers.

It was a harrowing scene on one of the runways at the San Francisco International Airport (SFO) early Saturday morning as a Boeing 777, part of airline company Asiana Airlines, skipped across the tarmac upon landing. First responders rushed to the scene, hoping to assist those who were still on the plane. Several emergency slides were deployed from the plane as passengers rushed to exit as the plane began to fill with smoke.

Photo: Carlos Avila Gonzalez, The Chronicle

Through data collected from the jet’s black boxes, we are beginning to have a clearer picture of what may have gone wrong. The National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) has revealed brief timeline of the final seconds before the crash.

It is a fast developing story and one that is being followed here in San Francisco and around the globe. We recognize that emotions surrounding it are fresh and that many people are still looking for answers. We also know that we’ll hit “publish” on this blog entry and that the story will continue to unfold. Still, it is an important story and one that involves our work helping accident victims in Northern California as well as one that impacts our team as members of our local communities. Airplane accidents involving larger commercial planes are relatively rare, but they are particularly frightening. Our San Francisco plane crash law firm is available to help victims make sense of and move forward from the terrifying tragedy.

Flight 214 Crashes on San Francisco International Airport Runway, 2 Dead and Dozens Seriously Injured

Asiana Flight 214 crashed onto a runway at San Francisco International Airport on Saturday, a tragedy covered by the San Francisco Chronicle and other news agencies from around the globe. The flight originated in Shanghai and made a stop in Seoul, South Korea before journeying across the Pacific to San Francisco. Witnesses report the Boeing 777 hit just short of the runway, possibly tail-first, and careened across the ground. The tail and landing gear were destroyed as the plane came to a rest on its belly and fire destroyed parts of the fuselage. Two 16 year-old girls from China died in the accident that also left 49 people seriously injured. In all, 182 of the 307 passengers and crew aboard the plane were seen at area hospitals.

Serving as a law firm for Oakland auto accident victims, the Brod Law Firmour team is keenly aware of the dangers of drunk driving in Oakland and throughout Northern California. We have seen too many innocent residents injured by a driver who chose to ignore the law and show disregard for safety by getting behind the wheel of a car after consuming alcohol. While we are proud to serve victims, we are saddened by every needless accident. Despite police crackdowns and education campaigns, drunk driving remains all too common.

Given their frequency, DUI incidents don’t always make the news but The Oakland Tribune reported this week on an unusual twist on the mix of alcohol and vehicle operation – drunk flying. The air operations division of the California Highway Patrol noticed a small plane flying erratically during the afternoon hours of Tuesday January 2, 2012. In violation of federal aviation regulations, the plane flew as low as 50 feet from the ground and a mere 100 feet from highway traffic. The CHP used the plane’s tail numbers to identify the plane which was registered in Pennsgrove. When the pilot landed at the Petaluma Municipal Airport, authorities approached and immediately noted the smell of alcohol on the sixty-two year old pilot’s breath. After administering field sobriety tests, the CHP arrested the pilot on suspicion of flying while intoxicated.

The Federal Aviation Administration reports a significant increase in serious pilot errors when the pilot’s blood alcohol concentration (“BAC”) is above 0.04% and a decline in flying skill with levels as low as 0.025%. This is significantly lower than the 0.08% BAC level that constitutes a DUI for a California driver. In recognition of the risks posed by an incapacitated pilot, federal regulations prohibit flying within eight hours of alcohol consumption or when the pilot has a BAC above 0.04%. The FAA recommends even greater caution, suggesting that pilots refrain from drinking alcohol for twenty-four hours prior to takeoff. FAA material also caution that hangover symptoms can significantly impair skills even if the pilot’s BAC has returned to a legal range.

Perhaps it is because air travel is generally among the safest modes of modern transportation that Northern California aviation accidents capture our attention. Plane accidents, such as one recently investigated in our region, are often tragic. The aftermath of an aviation accident requires intense investigation by both industry and legal experts. While some plane crashes go unexplained, often one or more causes can be identified. With the guidance of a skilled San Francisco plane accident attorney, victims in our region can pinpoint the parties and fault and recover compensation for their losses.

Tuesday’s San Francisco Chronicle provided an update on the crash of a small plane in February 2010. Doug Born held both a commercial pilot’s license as well as a flight instructor license. He was piloting a Cesna 310, with his colleagues Brian Finn and Andrew Ingram onboard, when the plane collided with high-tension wires and a sixty-foot transmission tower. All three of the men were killed when the plane broke into pieces after impact. While these losses are tragic, it is fortunate that the disaster was not compounded by injuries on the ground when pieces of the plane fell in a residential area of East Palo Alto that included a home-based day care.

The National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) is the federal organization tasked with reviewing aviation accidents. Last week, the NTSB concluded their investigation into the crash and attributed the incident to the pilot’s actions. They found that the plane was in working order, citing recordings that showed the propellers were operational and other related evidence. The NTSB noted that the control tower had warned Born against taking off during heavy fog. The tower released the plane but cautioned Born that the controller could not see the runway and that the pilot was operating at his own risk. Additional comments in the report show the NTSB concluded that Born failed to follow proper and standard departure procedures and also did not maintain the altitude necessary to avoid the power lines. The Chronicle story further references recordings of witnesses watching the crash and notes that the incident was also captured by the Palo Alto’s gunfire detection system.