Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Friendliest aviation Ccmmunity on the web
  • Modern site for PC's, Phones, Tablets - no 3rd party apps required
  • Ask questions, help others, promote aviation
  • Share the passion for aviation
  • Invite everyone to Flightinfo.com and let's have fun

SWA Pax file suits; Swa, Boeing, Chicago and MDW Airport Named...

  • Thread starter Thread starter FN FAL
  • Start date Start date
  • Watchers Watchers 11

Welcome to Flightinfo.com

  • Register now and join the discussion
  • Modern secure site, no 3rd party apps required
  • Invite your friends
  • Share the passion of aviation
  • Friendliest aviation community on the web

FN FAL

Freight Dawgs Rule
Joined
Dec 17, 2003
Posts
8,573
[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Southwest Passengers File Lawsuits against Southwest, Boeing and the City of Chicago, for the Midway Airport Crash in Chicago [/FONT]

[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Los Angeles, CA 90025 [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]December 20 2005 [/FONT][FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Chicago, December 20, 2005 - - Two passengers filed lawsuits today in the Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois against Southwest Airlines, Boeing, and the City of Chicago, for negligence, conscious disregard for safety and strict liability for causing the December 8, 2005 Southwest Airlines Flight 1248 to run off Runway 31C and crash-land during a snowstorm. The Boeing 737-700 plowed through a fence and onto a busy street, striking several vehicles. The plane landed on top of a car, killing a young boy and injuring his family members. Passengers suffered among other things fear, pre-impact terror, distress, and physical harm. During the following hours they were confined in buses and the terminal.

Mariko L.A. Bennett and Stanley L. Penn were traveling together to celebrate Stanley’s birthday. Mariko suffered internal injuries and Stanley’s back was injured. They were kept on the plane with the other passengers for a very long time and felt trapped. When the paramedics arrived, they told them that they were directed to the wrong place, which contributed to the delay. They were forced to evacuate the airplane using the emergency slides, and thereafter were confined in a Shuttle Bus for nearly three hours.

Ronald L. M. Goldman, also a private pilot, was a lead attorney handling the discovery deposition efforts and Clark Aristei acted as lead plaintiffs' counsel for the Coordinated Discovery Cases in the Southwest Airlines Flight 1455 runway crash-landing in Burbank, California on March 5, 2000. That plane came in “hot and high” and careened off the end of the runway, through barriers, crossed the street, hit a car, and came to rest mere feet from gasoline pumps at a service station. The Midway crash in Chicago is frighteningly similar to the Burbank crash.

In the Burbank case, Mr. Goldman and Mr. Aristei deposed the pilots who were flying the airplane, as well as senior Southwest Airlines personnel, including the Vice President of Safety and their Chief Pilot. The Captain of Southwest Flight 1455 continued his approach into Burbank even though his approach was well outside the required glide path, as well as approach speed and landing speed. The Southwest Airlines pilots landed notwithstanding the dangers of their approach.

Attorneys at Baum Hedlund said it appears that the lessons of the March 2000 Burbank accident were not learned: the only safe course of action to follow if an approach to landing is not within the rules and standards required for safe landing, is to abort the approach and either try again or go to an alternate airport.

“In the Midway crash, the complaint alleges the pilots may have approached the landing with too much speed, an inexcusable and unsafe condition anytime, but crucially dangerous where the conditions also included a short runway with a notoriously difficult approach, a tailwind and a snowstorm,” Ron Goldman stated, “These were aggravating ingredients for this recipe for disaster. Southwest and Boeing will have to explain the disastrous delay of about 18 seconds after touchdown before reverse thrust activated to help slow the airplane.”

“We are examining the similarities of these two accidents, some of which are already appearing,” stated Clark Aristei, “The obvious one being ‘get-there-itis’.”

David E. Rapoport, a lifetime resident of Chicago and the Rapoport firm's lead trial attorney added: "I grew up near Midway and have watched as Southwest has grown and profited wondering not if, but when a disaster like this would happen In the last few years I've prosecuted two airlines in wrongful death cases involving jets that landed, failed to stop on the runway, then ran off crashing into fixed structures and resulting in devastation. This has got to stop, and until it does, we will continue to extend our best efforts to bring those responsible to justice."

See attached Fact Sheet

FACT SHEET

Against Southwest Airlines: Negligence and Conscious Disregard for Safety
Against Boeing: Strict Liability
Against The City of Chicago: Negligence

Against Southwest Airlines:

• As a common carrier Southwest had a duty to its passengers to use the highest degree of care to protect their safety. On December 8, 2005, in violation of this duty Southwest negligently, carelessly and improperly: began an unsafe approach given the prevailing weather, visibility and runway conditions; failed to abandon the approach before it was too late; touched down too far from the threshold of runway 31C; lost control of the aircraft; and failed to stop the aircraft on the runway.

• At the time of the accident, the negligent pilots were unable to stop the aircraft because of its excessive speed upon landing, given a short, slippery runway, the point of touchdown. The company policy against use of the autobrake system, lack of proper instruction and training in its use, contributed to the crash.

• Attempting to make up for lost time, the Southwest pilots intentionally, willfully, recklessly and wantonly flew the airplane in a dangerous manner, including, but not limited to, flying the landing approach at dangerous speeds well in excess of safe speeds for the conditions of short runway length, slippery runway conditions, tailwind, wind speed, visibility, and snow, among other things, during the approach to land and landing on runway 31C at Midway Airport.

• Failing to abort the landing at Midway Airport and execute a “go-around” or request diversion to an alternate runway or airport despite notice and knowledge that the landing was unsafe and was likely to result in a crash landing posed a serious risk to, and endangered the lives of, their crew, passengers, and others on the ground.

• Southwest pressured the pilots by scheduling only a 20-minute “turn around” in Midway before flight 1248 was scheduled to depart for Las Vegas. On December 8, 2005, Flight 1248 was already two hours late to Las Vegas.

• Failing to stop the aircraft within the perimeter of Midway Airport, such that it crashed through two fences at the perimeter of the airport and emerged into traffic on South Central Avenue and West 55th Street, public streets in Chicago.

Against Boeing:

• Boeing’s autobrake system and the reverse thrust system aboard the jet airplane were each defective in design and manufacture, and failed to safely or properly operate in the manner intended by defendants, and failed to safely or properly operate as reasonably expected by users, including the Southwest Flight 1248 pilots. Boeing represented and advertised that these systems would safely and properly operate as intended by Southwest and other operators.

Against The City of Chicago:

• The City of Chicago negligently, carelessly and improperly failed to: monitor the conditions of runway 31C; maintain runway 31C in a reasonably safe condition for air carrier operations; and failed to close runway 31C in order to clear snow, ice, etc.

As a result of the acts and conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiffs, and each of them, have been injured in their health, strength and activity, and have been caused physical and mental pain and suffering, including, but not limited to, physical injury, pre-impact fear of injury and emotional distress by each plaintiff.

The Firms’ Aviation Background:

National aviation law firm, Baum Hedlund, includes three pilots (including a former airline captain and current jet fighter pilot), and has represented victims and their families in almost every major airline crash in the world involving U.S. defendants since 1985. The firm has handled 55 airline disasters in the last two decades....

...Attorneys of Baum Hedlund are described in Aviation Counsel Magazine's list of Recommended High Flyers (considered by International Air Transport Association's (IATA) Legal Department to be one of the most elite lists of aviation law practitioners ever produced) to be “among the best aviation lawyers in the world by the aviation legal community.”

Rapoport Law Offices has successfully represented clients involved in airplane crash cases in venues all across the country. The firm includes two pilots and a former Deputy Director of the National Transportation Safety Board. One of the Rapoport firm's pilot-attorneys currently chairs the Chicago Bar Association's Aviation Law Committee.

David E. Rapoport, in addition to being Board Certified by the National Board of Trial Advocates as a Certified Civil Trial Advocate, serves as Illinois' State Coordinator for the Board. He has collected a number of record high jury verdicts and settlements in aviation cases. Mr. Rapoport has often been appointed by federal judges to serve on Plaintiff's Steering Committees in major air crash litigation.

[/FONT][FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]Robin McCall ([email protected])
Media Relations Director
Baum Hedlund, A Professional Corporation
12100 Wilshire Boulevard, Suite 950
Los Angeles, CA 90025
Phone : 310-207-3233
Fax : 310-820-7444
[/FONT]
:eek:
 
Especially a lawyer who is a PPL. WTF is he thinking? If there's anything I learned about professional pilots from being here, it's that an ATP is a completely different animal from a private pilot and no private pilot has any right whatsoever to second-guess or criticise an ATP. Private pilots by definition can't know JACK crap about how airliners fly or operate. It's like a 7-year-old thinking he has the right to second-guess his father.
 
dseagrav said:
Especially a lawyer who is a PPL. WTF is he thinking? If there's anything I learned about professional pilots from being here, it's that an ATP is a completely different animal from a private pilot and no private pilot has any right whatsoever to second-guess or criticise an ATP. Private pilots by definition can't know JACK shoot about how airliners fly or operate. It's like a 7-year-old thinking he has the right to second-guess his father.

You're confusing flying process with civil court process and...

Don't worry, there will be plenty of ATP expert witnesses called up to the witness booth to testify.
 
Last edited:
Great, time to get some malpractice insurance.

Lowecur can I get a quote.......
 
LearAv8r said:
Great, time to get some malpractice insurance.

Lowecur can I get a quote.......
SWA bashing aside, you can get in the same trouble with civil suits and criminal charges in your car on the drive home from the airport.
 
Wait....this is the lawsuit on the behalf of the pax? WTF are they suing for? Did anyone get hurt? I doubt it...

This is total BS. Sure, they had to sit in the jet for a couple extra hours. So did the pax who had to wait on Clinton while he got that haircut. I don't see a reason to sue.

Now, the parents of the child that was killed in the car might have a lawsuit on their hands. I can see some reasoning behind that one, for certain.
 
Fury220 said:
Wait....this is the lawsuit on the behalf of the pax? WTF are they suing for? Did anyone get hurt? I doubt it...
Actually, the two passengers that filed this lawsuit did allegedly get hurt. One is claiming internal injuries and the other, back injuries.
 
riiiight... back injuries.... internal injuries....

"Southwest made me carry my bags back to the terminal and I hurt my back!"
"I bruised my kidney when I was held captive on that horrible bus!"
"We want $10 million for mental anguish and lost wages!!!"

America. Sometimes it makes me sick. The worse thing is that the first suit comes from a bunch of passengers, and not the family that actually was affected.
 
a little off topic, but I watched two pilots use the UA sim the other day in Denver while on a layover and it was not a very pretty thing. They plugged in rwy 31C at midway and attempted to land the 737 on that runway. We gave it poor braking action on the runway and an 8 knot tailwind. We did not use autobrakes and we went off the end. Then we took out the 8 knot tailwind and we were able to stop no problem. What a difference 8 knots of tailwind will do. With the tailwind we went off the end at about 50 knots!
 
Against Boeing:

• Boeing’s autobrake system and the reverse thrust system aboard the jet airplane were each defective in design and manufacture, and failed to safely or properly operate in the manner intended by defendants, and failed to safely or properly operate as reasonably expected by users, including the Southwest Flight 1248 pilots. Boeing represented and advertised that these systems would safely and properly operate as intended by Southwest and other operators.

This whole thing is really stupid, but this part really got me. They are claiming the design of the autobrakes and thrust reversers are faulty based on this one accident? What about all those thousands of other B737s that appear to land and stop just fine several times a day? Oh yeah, I forgot, Boeing actually had nothing to do with this accident but they have lots of money so we had to include them somehow... scumbag lawyers (the pax who immediately went out and hired them are not much better).:angryfire
 
D@mn, now all they need to do is include mother nature in the lawsuit, claiming that she intentionally provided weather conditions that were unsafe and detrimental to the operation of aircraft at that time, and this whole farce will be complete. What a bunch of BS.
 
[FONT=Verdana,arial,Helvetica]and have been caused physical and mental pain and suffering, including, but not limited to, physical injury, pre-impact fear of injury and emotional distress by each plaintiff.[/FONT]

I'm not very up to speed on legalize. What is pre-impact fear of injury? Did the pax think they were going to go off the end of the runway or get hurt before touching down? If that's the case, I should have a lawyer on retainer for my landings...

~wheelsup
 
agpilot34 said:
D@mn, now all they need to do is include mother nature in the lawsuit, claiming that she intentionally provided weather conditions that were unsafe and detrimental to the operation of aircraft at that time, and this whole farce will be complete. What a bunch of BS.

That is exactly what I was thinking. What a bunch of F'ing morons. They are a dime a dozen and they will be successful in getting some type of compensation. Don't you know the government controls the weather? I think George Bush caused this to take focus off of Iraq. A fellow pilot told me a story of how their airplane was brushed by another during push back. There was no damage. Of course about six months later he was asked about the incident since the airline was being sued. The passengers claimed injuries and claimed it was like being hit by a freight train. Scumbags like this will try anything to get money out of anyone. Sadly for the most part it is socially acceptable these days.
 
I read the initial NTSB report on this accident. They confirmed that there was an 18 second delay upon touch down from the time the pilot tried to activate the reversers until the engines actually went into reverse thrust!! Landing on a snow and ice covered runway, at night, in a snow storm, and having to wait 18 seconds for the reversers to work is a life time!!

I used to instruct on the B-727 and B-737 for a major airline. Normally, when the pilot raises up the reverser levers, they come up about an inch and then stop - there is a physical interlocking device that stops the levers from being lifted up any higher at that point.

This is called the 'detent' position. It's purpose to to send an 'unlock' and then 'deploy' signal to the cowling doors on the engines and cause the reverser doors to deploy by sliding aft on the outside of the engines. This will expose those reverser deflector vanes you can see when landing if your sitting in a pax seat next to an engine.

Once the reverser doors have slid fully aft and have locked into the reverse position, that interlocking pin in the clockpit is pulled out of the way and *now* the pilot can continue pulling the reverser levers up and aft to increase reverse thrust action. This normally takes about 1 to 2 seconds max. The pilot not flying (PNF) then calls 'two green lights' so the pilot flying (PF) knows he now has full reverse thrust capability. When the reverser doors unlock there are two amber 'unlock' lights that illuminate...when the doors slide fully aft and lock in reverse thrust position, two green lights illuminate indicating the doors have position properly and the pilot can now continue to pull up and aft for reverse thrust (the green lights also mean then interlocking pin is now out of the way of the levers).

The reverser levers once past the unlocking detent actually just work as thrust levers...pull up and aft and you'll increase engine thrust which pushes more air out the reverser vanes deflecting much of the thrust forward. My private pilot friends who have not piloted jets are surprised when I tell them the engine don't actually 'reverse' their rotation to generate reverse thrust on landing!

Anyway, an 18 second delay in getting reverse thrust on that SWA 737 tells me the reverser doors for some reason didn't slide fully aft to release that interlocking pin device up in the cockpit. The pilot can keep pulling up and aft on the reverser levers all they want but they will never break that steel interlocking pin. In that initial detent position, once the reverser doors have slid fully aft, the engine are in idle reverse thrust. So, unless you can continue to lift the levers up and aft, you won't get any reverse thrust to speak of.

In summary, from reading the initial NTSB report, it does sound to me like there was some mechanical problem with the reversers going into the reverse thrust mode for some reason.
 
Mariko L.A. Bennett and Stanley L. Penn were traveling together to celebrate Stanley’s birthday. Mariko suffered internal injuries and Stanley’s back was injured. They were kept on the plane with the other passengers for a very long time and felt trapped. When the paramedics arrived, they told them that they were directed to the wrong place, which contributed to the delay. They were forced to evacuate the airplane using the emergency slides, and thereafter were confined in a Shuttle Bus for nearly three hours.

Directed to the wrong place? Was there another 737 sitting in the street somewhere that they were directed to instead? :)
 
Interesting how some of you guys think the lawyers are at fault when 2 pilots run an airplane off the end of the runway and kill a child and endanger the lived of 90+ people. Maybe some of you need to consider what it would be like to lose a child for no reason other than the fact someone f*ed up. The bottom line is someone died because of someone's carelesness. Whether the fault lies 99% with a mechanical issue and 1% pilot error or vice versa is for the NTSB and a jury of 12 of your peers to decide. Lawyers did not kill this child, maintain the airplane, set company policies, or decide to shoot the approach onto a contaminated, short runway with a tailwind, and touch down late nor will they decide who is wrong or right and decide the punishment. Their job is to present facts and represent those who were killed and injured to the best of their ability.
 
flydog said:
Interesting how some of you guys think the lawyers are at fault when 2 pilots run an airplane off the end of the runway and kill a child and endanger the lived of 90+ people. Maybe some of you need to consider what it would be like to lose a child for no reason other than the fact someone f*ed up. The bottom line is someone died because of someone's carelesness.

I agree. There is a place for a lawsuit here, and the courts can decide who's at fault.

But a class-action-ish suit on the behalf of the passengers? YGBSM. If someone recieved a back injury, fine...pay the man his money. But 90+ pax getting money for "mental anguish" and "time delayed?" Are you SERIOUS? What about last week, when I bought some White Castle hamburgers? I spent a long time there because they messed up my order. Should I sue for the time I lost? They added too many onions and too much special sauce...so should I sue for the ensuing gut-rot that occured 6 hours later? I was briefly uncomfortable, but I didn't suffer any legnthy ill affects nor did I have to pay a doctor any money to fix my momentary discomfort...should I be owed money? Cm'on...you can't so much as *breathe* on someone else nowadays without considering the legal consequences.

The real crime is the loss of life. If I were those parents, I'd be filing in court. I don't think anyone is going to argue with that. They have a case.
 

Latest resources

Back
Top