3 families suing Boeing over Asiana 214 crash

I'll see if I can find the reference. I either read or heard on the communist news network about them being required and they were looking into why that truck didn't have the mandated equipment.

News to me, as I'd always thought they are an option; as there are many CFR trucks that don't have them. The only ones that will normally have them are the ones with an articulating boom/nozzle, with the FLIR/video unit at the end of the boom near the nozzle or penetrator device. Still, it's an option from what I understand. And not all CFR trucks even have articulating booms, nor are they required to.

Regardless, with this positioning of the articulating boom (up, in order to be able to attack the fire from above), the FLIR/video unit isn't really in any position to see things that are in front of the vehicle on the ground for any kind of clearance purposes, even moreso if the nozzle next to the FLIR "eye" is going full bore. And even further, consider that there is likely only one person on the CFR truck...the driver...as his crewpersons would likely have dismounted by this time to work rescue or handlines etc, and the driver himself is maneuvering the truck by looking out the front window, not watching some small video/FLIR screen anyway, that itself isn't likely even looking anywhere near the front of the truck towards the ground.

Thirdly, if the unit was a video unit, it wouldn't see someone laying on the ground underneath the AFFF foam. And if it was a FLIR unit, with all the radiant heat in and around the burning aircraft, I doubt one could differentiate a single human body from the rest of the fire; assuming its even looking at the ground at the immediate front of the truck, and someone is actually watching the screen. The FLIR is for finding hotspots of fire to attack, not necessarily looking for human bodies.....which again, likely won't show up due to the fire itself blanking them out.

Be interesting to see what this is all about.
 
AP July 23

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — A San Francisco Fire Department spokeswoman said Monday that the agency is still investigating which rig ran over and killed a 16-year-old Asiana Airlines crash survivor, and infrared equipment wouldn't have had any bearing on the situation.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that a two-axle truck believed to have run over Ye Meng Yuan as it moved to get a better position to spray foam on fire was not equipped with infrared imaging technology now required by federal law.

However, fire spokeswoman Mindy Talmadge said officials are still probing which vehicle was responsible for the girl's death after Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed July 6.

"Our investigation is not complete," she said. "I cannot tell you what vehicle was involved."

The first trucks to respond were foam-throwing trucks, but it is unlikely Yuan was killed during that initial response, Talmadge said.

"The 16-year-old girl was under a foam blanket" when she was struck, Talmadge said, "and so I don't believe the incident occurred while crews were first responding."

Additionally, Talmadge said, all four foam-spraying rigs at San Francisco International Airport have infrared systems to identify hot spots on planes that need to be cooled down, and all four were working.

The Boeing 777 crash-landed after approaching the runway too low and too slow. The landing gear and then the tail broke off as it hit the airport seawall, and the plane skidded and spun before coming to a stop.

Two other Chinese girls also died, one who was thrown out the back of the plane and a second who died days later from her injuries.

San Francisco's airport fire divisions are equipped with four Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Vehicles — the massive foam throwers that usually respond first to crashes or fires — as well as two engines, one truck, two paramedic units, four watercraft and a command unit.

Talmadge said there has been confusion about the difference between what's known as Driver's Enhanced Vision systems, or DEV, which describes many different systems aimed at helping fire truck drivers, and Forward Looking InfraRed, which is one particular type of DEV.

The airport is still in the process of installing two other types of DEV systems, she said. One feeds a library of aircraft models and their layouts to computers in fire engines, so that when they pull up to an aircraft they have its layout available. The second is a mapping system that would allow rescuers obscured by fog or smoke to find their way around the runway.

Talmadge said neither of those systems would have made a difference in the Asiana Airlines accident because it was a clear day, rescue workers could see the aircraft, and they knew already where the fire was.

The infrared technology, developed at the FAA tech center in New Jersey and Boston Logan International Airport, was prompted by two crashes.

In 1990, visibility was so poor that rescuers drove right past two Northwest Airlines planes that had collided in dense fog on a runway at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. In 1996, when a Federal Express plane with smoke in the cabin made an emergency landing at Stewart International Airport in Newburgh, N.Y., rescuers had no idea where the fire was, so they soaked the entire aircraft with so much water and foam that the plane split in half, exacerbating the mishap.

"After those crashes, we decided to try to see if we could use some military technology to help rescuers see in low-visibility situations," said former Logan aviation director Tom Kinton.

Adapting military equipment, engineers designed a range of firefighting infrared devices, from $6,000 hand-held thermal imaging cameras with 3.5-inch screens to multimillion-dollar fire trucks with voice commands and alarms.

Kinton said the gear was rolled out almost 10 years ago, and it is only routinely used on foam-throwing fire trucks.

The heat-sensing equipment was developed to detect hot spots through the skins of planes that are burning or about to burn, said David Williams, who teaches aviation and occupational safety at the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University campus in Daytona Beach, Fla. The technology helps firefighters use a piercing nozzle to get water into the airliners without risking lives.
 
And
Survivors, firefighters and police described a hectic, fluid, and chaotic scene after the crashed plane came to a stop. As rescue teams arrived, passengers were exiting the gaping hole in the back of the fuselage where the tail was once attached, others were sliding down emergency chutes, and others still had ventured into the waters of the San Francisco Bay, presumably to douse or soothe burns and injuries.

Jet fuel gushed from the wings as the evacuation carried on. San Francisco police officer Jim Cunningham, who heroically entered the plane without any protective equipment and ushered out survivors, recalled the urgency to get to the plane being so great that while racing to the scene, he had to slow his patrol car to ensure a trailing ambulance wouldn't crash trying to keep up.

Ye's body was found near the left wing, and aerial photos taken after the crash show the yellow tarp covering her resting in the width of a visible set of tire tracks.

It was the worst possible outcome imaginable ever since authorities raised the possibility a rescue vehicle from the Fire Department's airport detail hit one of the fatal victims in the aftermath of the crash of the Boeing 777 jetliner. Hayes-White said Friday that multiple vehicles may have hit her, but that which ones were involved was still being determined.

"We commit to continue to examine our response that day. Could we have done something different faced with challenges we had in terms of passengers still on an aircraft that was engulfed in flames ... and the need to get to those flames?" Hayes-White said. "We had fuel leaking. It was a very dangerous and volatile situation."

Apparently she was not hit by the first trucks arriving on the scene, but by another vehicle that arrived later after she was already covered in over a foot foam. I don't even know if she would have/could have been seen through the foam. This article stated the the units are also used to detect debris and tires, etc., on the field. It was a terrible accident and I cannot imagine how horribly the respondents feel about this. I haven't read anything about whether she may have lived if she had not been hit either. That may be rather difficult to determine. It's just a very sad occurrence regardless.
 
Legislation by Judiciary has been warned against time and time again. Of course so have surveillance states and endless imperial wars. At least the ears all seem to be equally deaf. Yes, the tort system is wildly broken, but so is every other facet of our government. Don't sit around and pick the scandalous misappropriation of authority that suits your political predispositions best, hate them all. And vote third party, you ridiculous, servile sheep. Blaming attorneys for our nascent Kleptocracy is essentially the same as blaming toothless peasant conscripts for Katyn Massacre. They're just doing some work, like the rest of us.

They're not Bad Actors, just bad People.

I like that it sometimes takes me several read-throughs, and occasionally some light research, before I understand your posts.
 
I see nothing wrong with this. Boeing is fair game. If it even comes to trial, let them prove that the 777 is safe, training was adequate, an audible warning isn't necessary, etc.

It seems corporate America has successfully trained us to vilify trial lawyers and instantly label most liability lawsuits as frivolous without ever needing to hear the facts of the cases. The game is already rigged against the average citizen in the executive and legislative branches. The judicial system is where the average citizen has at least a fighting chance.
Prove the 777 is safe? How many years has that thing been flying?


With how many fatalities?

Some things shouldn't need to be "proven."


As far as audible warnings go, in my airplane the stick shaker is louder than hell.

Ambulance chasing isn't allowed (anymore).
Neither are steroids in baseball.


Oh wait....
 
AP July 23

SAN FRANCISCO, Calif. — A San Francisco Fire Department spokeswoman said Monday that the agency is still investigating which rig ran over and killed a 16-year-old Asiana Airlines crash survivor, and infrared equipment wouldn't have had any bearing on the situation.

The San Francisco Chronicle reported that a two-axle truck believed to have run over Ye Meng Yuan as it moved to get a better position to spray foam on fire was not equipped with infrared imaging technology now required by federal law.

However, fire spokeswoman Mindy Talmadge said officials are still probing which vehicle was responsible for the girl's death after Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crashed July 6.

"Our investigation is not complete," she said. "I cannot tell you what vehicle was involved."

The first trucks to respond were foam-throwing trucks, but it is unlikely Yuan was killed during that initial response, Talmadge said.

"The 16-year-old girl was under a foam blanket" when she was struck, Talmadge said, "and so I don't believe the incident occurred while crews were first responding."

Additionally, Talmadge said, all four foam-spraying rigs at San Francisco International Airport have infrared systems to identify hot spots on planes that need to be cooled down, and all four were working.

The Boeing 777 crash-landed after approaching the runway too low and too slow. The landing gear and then the tail broke off as it hit the airport seawall, and the plane skidded and spun before coming to a stop.

Two other Chinese girls also died, one who was thrown out the back of the plane and a second who died days later from her injuries.

San Francisco's airport fire divisions are equipped with four Aircraft Rescue Firefighting Vehicles — the massive foam throwers that usually respond first to crashes or fires — as well as two engines, one truck, two paramedic units, four watercraft and a command unit.

Talmadge said there has been confusion about the difference between what's known as Driver's Enhanced Vision systems, or DEV, which describes many different systems aimed at helping fire truck drivers, and Forward Looking InfraRed, which is one particular type of DEV.

The airport is still in the process of installing two other types of DEV systems, she said. One feeds a library of aircraft models and their layouts to computers in fire engines, so that when they pull up to an aircraft they have its layout available. The second is a mapping system that would allow rescuers obscured by fog or smoke to find their way around the runway.

Talmadge said neither of those systems would have made a difference in the Asiana Airlines accident because it was a clear day, rescue workers could see the aircraft, and they knew already where the fire was.

The infrared technology, developed at the FAA tech center in New Jersey and Boston Logan International Airport, was prompted by two crashes.

In 1990, visibility was so poor that rescuers drove right past two Northwest Airlines planes that had collided in dense fog on a runway at Detroit Metropolitan Wayne County Airport. In 1996, when a Federal Express plane with smoke in the cabin made an emergency landing at Stewart International Airport in Newburgh, N.Y., rescuers had no idea where the fire was, so they soaked the entire aircraft with so much water and foam that the plane split in half, exacerbating the mishap.

"After those crashes, we decided to try to see if we could use some military technology to help rescuers see in low-visibility situations," said former Logan aviation director Tom Kinton.

Adapting military equipment, engineers designed a range of firefighting infrared devices, from $6,000 hand-held thermal imaging cameras with 3.5-inch screens to multimillion-dollar fire trucks with voice commands and alarms.

Kinton said the gear was rolled out almost 10 years ago, and it is only routinely used on foam-throwing fire trucks.

The heat-sensing equipment was developed to detect hot spots through the skins of planes that are burning or about to burn, said David Williams, who teaches aviation and occupational safety at the Embry-Riddle Aeronautical University campus in Daytona Beach, Fla. The technology helps firefighters use a piercing nozzle to get water into the airliners without risking lives.

MikeD Looks like this is similar to the article I read.
 
MikeD Looks like this is similar to the article I read.

Interested to see what comes out of that and where it's required. Because as the article mentions, those systems (if required and even installed), are for looking for areas of fire within the aircraft, not intended for seeing a single human being on the ground in front of the truck.

So I wonder if someone, somewhere, is reaching pretty darn far with this one. Many, many CFR trucks don't have this technology installed on the truck, as like I mentioned, it has limited utility.
 
Agreed.

Which is why England's system of government has been failing since the 1200's.

Thanks - anything specific on that? All systems have failures and weak areas but it seems to work as well as can be expected. We don't have the litigation culture though, which might be an issue Stateside.
 
Thanks - anything specific on that? All systems have failures and weak areas but it seems to work as well as can be expected. We don't have the litigation culture though, which might be an issue Stateside.


England nearly invented the common law system. In fact, let's see if Wiki backs up one up...yup.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_law

Since the mid 1100's, judges have been "legislating from the bench" and the only thing it has produced is the fundamental basis of our legal system in the United States, and nothing but disease, filth and rot in Great Britain. Democracy has taken such a tumble over there that I'd say it's pretty much a failed state.

As Boris said, it's never worked, and is obviously crap. Especially here. Since around 1776. Which is 238 years.
 
Asiana Airlines Inc. has offered $10,000 to each of the 288 surviving passengers of the flight that crash landed in San Francisco last month.

Asiana spokeswoman Lee Hyomin said Tuesday the payout is not a settlement and accepting the money does not prevent passengers from suing the airline.
 
Even the 25-40% cut lawyers get is crazy. If it were truly about helping victims in large and small cases their pay should be based on billable hours for a case, not some percentage set by other lawyers (sorry "law makers"). There's a reason we have all these contingency based lawyer commercials and it has more to do with money than "victims" rights. We have a broken system, I'm not going to pretend I'm smart enough to know how to fix it, but I know it's broke. It costs us all money in most things we use/consume every day.
The contingency system allows anyone to get a lawyer. Without it only wealthy people or large corporations would be able to afford legal assistance. If pay was based solely on billable hours say for a family involved in an airplane accident the lawyer gets paid whether he wins or loses the case. But the family has to come up with the money for his time. A contingency system allows people with zero dollars to get legal help. If that case wins the lawyer is paid if they lose the lawyer gets nothing and in both cases the client pays $0 .
"Boeing won't be bankrupted by these lawsuits" is different from "Boeing isn't going to be hurt one bit." If they settle, which as you noted is encouraged by the legal system, that cost will be passed along to airlines, which is passed along to passengers. If they don't do that, it does affect their bottom line, which affects the stock price, which affects retirement accounts for many. It's not a question of how much it hurts Boeing; it's how much it hurts everyone else.

Like aobt14 says, a loser pays system would seem to be a better way. If you want court to be a level playing field, a system that strongly encourages high market cap companies to continually settle without admitting wrongdoing is not the answer.


There are positive and negatives to the loser pay system. As for how this suit could hurt Boeing, it won't. Does the price of having a legal team and multi billion dollar insurance coverages move to the consumer? Of course they do. Every business we all deal with on a daily basis has things like legal fees and insurance passed on to the consumer. It is the cost of doing business.
I personally, from what I know of OZ214 so far think its a weak case. Who knows how far it will go and maybe Boeing will stick with it and prove it was not at fault. But I'm not worried about Boeing being hurt by small suits like this. They likely spend tens of millions just on attorney salaries every year and tens of millions on insurance coverage. Again I think it's a weak case and I hope Boeing does not settle and takes it to court. But that will take some time and money to occur.
 
The contingency system allows anyone to get a lawyer. Without it only wealthy people or large corporations would be able to afford legal assistance. If pay was based solely on billable hours say for a family involved in an airplane accident the lawyer gets paid whether he wins or loses the case. But the family has to come up with the money for his time. A contingency system allows people with zero dollars to get legal help. If that case wins the lawyer is paid if they lose the lawyer gets nothing and in both cases the client pays $0 .


There are positive and negatives to the loser pay system. As for how this suit could hurt Boeing, it won't. Does the price of having a legal team and multi billion dollar insurance coverages move to the consumer? Of course they do. Every business we all deal with on a daily basis has things like legal fees and insurance passed on to the consumer. It is the cost of doing business.
I personally, from what I know of OZ214 so far think its a weak case. Who knows how far it will go and maybe Boeing will stick with it and prove it was not at fault. But I'm not worried about Boeing being hurt by small suits like this. They likely spend tens of millions just on attorney salaries every year and tens of millions on insurance coverage. Again I think it's a weak case and I hope Boeing does not settle and takes it to court. But that will take some time and money to occur.

Sorry, I wasn't clear I'm still for a contingency based system but if lawyers practiced as "zealous advocates" of the law they would do it based on billable hours and a lower hourly rate. Since it's about money and not helping victims they take a huge chunk off the top. If it wasn't about money, why do personal injury lawyers spend so much money on advertising in every state? Why are there so many did "you take this drug? Or take a drug for to long? Call us, we'll fight for you!" commercials? Again, money.
 
Next thing you know, Congress will be mandating 10000 TT minimum flight experience for FOs, cut down to 2000 for military pilots and 5000 for graduates of "higher degree" institutions :rolleyes:
 
Did you forget a sarcasm tag? I was saying it half jokingly. I thought at one time you were going to law school at the U.
 
Interested to see what comes out of that and where it's required. Because as the article mentions, those systems (if required and even installed), are for looking for areas of fire within the aircraft, not intended for seeing a single human being on the ground in front of the truck.

So I wonder if someone, somewhere, is reaching pretty darn far with this one. Many, many CFR trucks don't have this technology installed on the truck, as like I mentioned, it has limited utility.


Going to be interesting to follow but hopefully will get thrown out. I am guessing someone will settle out of court as it will be cheaper than fighting.

The US has the best legal system Money Can Buy.
 
Back
Top