Southwest Crash in Chicago - New Report

[scanne]

The last statement of this article is that the family of the boy who died plans to sue.

http://www.comcast.net/news/national/index.jsp?cat=DOMESTIC&fn=/2005/12/15/285031.html

It was very unfortunate what happened, but how would sueing make the family feel better? No amount of money can replace a loved one. What's your opinion?

Am I opening a can of worms for a major debate here? If so, break out the popcorn!

 

[Minnie824]

DH & I were just talking about this last night, since there was another incident in Chicago in construction, where 2 workers died, and they're sueing already too. Its one thing to sue people after a death, but my gosh, the child and the construction workers aren't hardly buried yet! Its like 2 sec after it happens, its time to sue. I think people need to take their grieving process and take some time, and then rationally decide on it. On the other hand, I'm going to guess that in both cases the families were contacted my many lawyers looking to represent them.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

There were a lot of factors which contributed to the death of this little boy. And yes, filing suit does not bring him back, but it does hold the company accountable. Actually Southwest would not be the only one I would be suing, but it does have the deepest pockets. Something needs to be done with increasing the safety area.

 

[scanne]

Miss Jasmine,

I totally agree with someone being held accountable! But (my rhetorical question of the day) is why do people think that sueing is the answer? Isn't there a federal aviation committee or something that will investigate and fine or punish those who are responsible?

 

[Kim&Chris]

After this incident, I looked at my 6 year old niece, and for one chilling moment, thought to myself "what if it were her in that car?". I think my heart skipped a beat.

I am someone that abhors the "I am going to sue" mentality of today, but in this case, a suit is justified. The runways at the older airports are too short, which, combined with the weather, caused this (unless they've determined other causes that I'm not aware of). A suit will force airports to build longer, safer runways.

 

[C.Ann]

Runway was built too short, a tail wind caught the plane, and the pilots did everything they possibly could to stop the plane under less than ideal circumstances..

If anyone should be sued, it should be the airport and the designers..

 

[Tigger_Magic]

The family knows full well that a lawsuit or monetary damages will not bring back their child. Unfortunately, filing a lawsuit is probably the only way to hold SW accountable for their employee's errors.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Miss Jasmine,

I totally agree with someone being held accountable! But (my rhetorical question of the day) is why do people think that sueing is the answer? Isn't there a federal aviation committee or something that will investigate and fine or punish those who are responsible?

The FAA??!!??!! Yeah right. Look at the article, the new barriers do not have to be installed until 2015.

Midway is among nearly 300 commercial airports in the U.S. that don't have adequate runway buffers. A recently passed federal law requires the airfields to extend runway barriers by 2015 or build the concrete beds.

So in actuality Midway is NOT in violation. The FAA needs to be called to the carpet, as well.

I guarantee another aircraft will overshoot this runway before that date.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

Runway was built too short, a tail wind caught the plane, and the pilots did everything they possibly could to stop the plane under less than ideal circumstances..

If anyone should be sued, it should be the airport and the designers..

I don't agree.

First, the pilot landed the aircraft long.

Second, there were mechanical issues with the aircraft. Thrusters did not engage.

Third, Midway is not in violation according to FAA mandates.

 

[Kim&Chris]

The family knows full well that a lawsuit or monetary damages will not bring back their child. Unfortunately, filing a lawsuit is probably the only way to hold SW accountable for their employee's errors.

I don't think SW will need to assume full liability for this. They were advised that it was safe to land, and the pilot landed. The runway was too short, the weather too bad, and the winds too strong. If anything, the guy who told them to land holds more liability here than SW!

Midway will probably need to assume most of the liability in this case.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

Miss Jasmine,

I totally agree with someone being held accountable! But (my rhetorical question of the day) is why do people think that sueing is the answer? Isn't there a federal aviation committee or something that will investigate and fine or punish those who are responsible?

I dislike lawsuits, but I believe the family is entitled to some compensation for their loss. I would be inclined to try to work something out with SW before calling a lawyer and filing suit, but that's just me.

 

[Ava83]

The SW CEO was on the news here in Chicago, telling the family they would do what they can to assist them and stating that his intent was to meet with the family.

The family's lawyer was on the news asking for witnesses.

I am not negating the family's loss, it is tragic and my prayers go out to them and it looks like there may have been negligence somewhere, but to have their lawyer on the news asking for witness?

 

[Tigger_Magic]

I don't think SW will need to assume full liability for this. They were advised that it was safe to land, and the pilot landed. The runway was too short, the weather too bad, and the winds too strong. If anything, the guy who told them to land holds more liability here than SW!

Midway will probably need to assume most of the liability in this case.

Before determining who is truly liable, one needs to consider the facts.

1. The plane glided over the runway, wasting precious stopping distance, before the captain planted the landing-gear wheels more than 2,000 feet beyond the edge of the 6,522-foot runway. The pilots needed at least 800 more feet of runway to avoid a collision, according to the National Transportation Safety Board, which released a report Thursday updating the status of its investigation.

2. As they approached the airport Dec. 8, the pilots and a Southwest dispatcher were confident a landing could be accomplished, despite contending with low visibility, a nettlesome tailwind chasing their plane and reports of poor braking power on snowy Runway 31 Center, they later told NTSB investigators. Note: The pilots based their decision to land on the dispatcher's positive assessment, their piloting experience and flight data they entered into a cockpit computer.

3. The 59-year-old captain, who was flying the plane, missed the landing zone.

4. About 20 minutes before the accident, visibility was only one-half mile--less than the three-quarter mile of visibility the Federal Aviation Administration requires for an approach to 31 Center. Making a landing with only a half-mile of visibility would violate FAA regulations. About 23 minutes after the accident, "a special observation revealed" that visibility was only one-fourth mile.

5. The aircraft's thrust-reversers, which help the automatic-braking system the pilots used to stop the plane on the ground, were not functional until more than midway through the landing.

6. Many pilots who have flown into Midway during inclement weather have questioned the judgment of the Southwest crew.

 

[RadioFanatic]

I would also sue, and use the money to make a memorial scholarship in my child's name. I also agree with those who stated that the companies need to be held accountable.

 

[Toby'sFriend]

if that were my son, I absolutely would be seeking action in the courts.

I fly in and out of Midway a couple of times a year. It is a tricky airport. At other airports you kind of glide gently down and gently touch the runway - at Midway, you come down much steeper and faster and then the brakes get slammed on, and that is in good weather. Reading the reports, my amateur view is that I'm really surprised they attempted it in bad icy weather.

 

[Nancy]

The family knows full well that a lawsuit or monetary damages will not bring back their child. Unfortunately, filing a lawsuit is probably the only way to hold SW accountable for their employee's errors.

How was it the airlines error? They were doing what they were told to do by the control tower which is run by the airport, not the airline. It was an accident, accidents happen.

In this rush to sue world the only ones that are getting anything from this is the lawyers...(and I'm going to the mom of a future lawyer...and I hate this part of it.) So they sue SW and win lots and lots of money. SW can't afford it and they go bankrupt and shut down, we now have another airline gone and people without jobs...all because of an accident.

 

[Miss Jasmine]

How was it the airlines error? They were doing what they were told to do by the control tower which is run by the airport, not the airline. It was an accident, accidents happen.

In this rush to sue world the only ones that are getting anything from this is the lawyers...(and I'm going to the mom of a future lawyer...and I hate this part of it.) So they sue SW and win lots and lots of money. SW can't afford it and they go bankrupt and shut down, we now have another airline gone and people without jobs...all because of an accident.

Control towers are not run by the airport.

And Southwest won't be thrust into bankruptcy over this. That is what insurance is for.

 

[Geoff_M]

While I generally dislike lawsuits, if the facts presented by Tigger_Magic hold true, then the death certainly cannot be attributed to an "Act of God", freakish unforseen accident, or unexpected equipment failure. It appears to be human error/bad judgement... SW better pucker up.

 

[Tigger_Magic]

How was it the airlines error? They were doing what they were told to do by the control tower which is run by the airport, not the airline. It was an accident, accidents happen.

Please read post #13. The initial report released yesterday places a lot of the blame for the accident squarely on the shoulders of SW. I know there are a ton of SW fans on this board, but in this case, it looks like SW goofed up big time.

In this rush to sue world the only ones that are getting anything from this is the lawyers...(and I'm going to the mom of a future lawyer...and I hate this part of it.) So they sue SW and win lots and lots of money. SW can't afford it and they go bankrupt and shut down, we now have another airline gone and people without jobs...all because of an accident.

This was a preventable accident. If this were an emergency landing, I might have more sympathy for SW. But there was no emergency and the flight could have diverted to another airport to wait out the storm. There is no reason for this to have happened, except for the SW mindset of getting the plane down, unloaded, reloaded and back in the air -- all for the money.

 

[palmtreegirl]

I am someone that abhors the "I am going to sue" mentality of today, but in this case, a suit is justified. .

I agree, I'm against frivolous law suits and this isn't one.