Skyservice bounces a landing; lawyers say thanks

ice ice baby · Post by **ice ice baby** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 9:39 pm

I too read the statement of claim here. I really wonder if things such as loss of sleep are not caused by her young children, or anything else (stress etc.) in her life.......

.....now back to hijacking this thread, a bit of elaboration with regards to the skydiving accident (or incident?) would interest us all.

peeelot · Post by **peeelot** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 10:20 pm

bizjet_mania...... Well how can I reply to your post..... Well my parents always said if you have nothing nice to say then don't say anything at all But......... I have to say a couple of things. First of all you are not a pilot because if you were a pilot you would know that sometimes we encounter changing winds close to the ground ( at least I have) for example I was on approach to city centre airport in Toronto and at 20 feet the wind changed and I lost 15 kts. What resulted from this? WEll my butt was pretty tender for about a week. there was nothing I could do it happened sooo fast. So I guess I should sue the flight school Because they gave me an airplane that would stall below the stall speed? Second the people who are presenting the case well I don't need to say anything because they will dig their own hole. As you can read you have not only upset me with your post but most other people on this forum you should not have posted until you have the facts that it was the airlines fault. So next time do us all one thing.... Don't post because since I know you are not a pilot when it comes to somthing about a pilot you have no idea and we don't want to hear what you think because I have lost all of my respect for your opinion.

Thank you

aero-singidunum · Post by **aero-singidunum** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:04 pm

Fluckmachine wrote:Aero, what are you trying to say? You think they deserve a large settlement?
Personally, I don't believe this will stand in court, I read the lawsuit claims, and some of it is so far fetched that the judge will throw it out. The pax. should have accepted the vouchers, the ones that were ACTUALLY injured deserve compensation, that's it.

No, i do not think they deserve a large settlement, but a better treatment by SkyService for sure. One you get name by customers that you are not looking for pax you are loosing on long run.
Lawyers from Skyservice should advice Company at that time, who ever is not feeling good will fly you back to TO, or will fly best doctors from TO to check you all, anything. At that time they will minimize possibility for this shit.
Yap, we are getting Americanized, will sue everybody for anything....

ice ice baby · Post by **ice ice baby** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:10 pm

as peelot enlightened us with

bizjet_mania...... Well how can I reply to your post..... Well my parents always said if you have nothing nice to say then don't say anything at all But......... I have to say a couple of things. First of all you are not a pilot........

sounds like someone just decided to vent all his (or her) frustration here on avcanada since this is closest thing to Jerry Springer in canadian aviation.

ROUND 1 and it looks like peelot has taken an early lead over bizjet_mania.

Now on the flying side of things peelot I'm sure this very hard landing of yours will help make you a better pilot. Yes the wind can change very rapidly

(in some places you will find wind shear mentioned in the CFS,) but when I was at or below your level flying experience I managed (due to a quick wind shift

and unforseen circumstances) to land EXTREMELY SMOOTHLY

with well over twice the max demonstrated tailwind component. Now with a tailwind of over 1/3 the stall speed I had a very fast and long roll out. Gotta love good brakes

costermonger · Post by **costermonger** » Sat Jun 04, 2005 11:56 pm

bizjet_mania wrote:If passengers were injured, the airline should pay.

Agreed, but $31k per person for an incident every single person walked away from? Gimme a break.

Here's a little except from the Statement of Claim. The plaintiff accuses Skyservice of negligence in the following areas:

a) It failed to properly maintain the aircraft
b) It failed to perform adequate safety checks of the aircraft prior to take-off
c) It failed to hire sufficient numbers of competently trained personnel to maintain the aircraft
d) If failed to hire competently trained pilots to operate the aircraft
e) It failed to employ competent personnel for the maintenance and handling of the aircraft and for the proper treatment of passengers
f) It failed to properly train its flight crew to deal with an emergency and to comfort the passengers in the face of crisis

As a result of this accused negligence, the plaintiff goes on to list damages incurred. They are:

a) soft tissue injuries
b) bruising
c) abrasions
d) sprains and fractures
e) nervous shock
f) emotional distress

Now, in my not-so-expert legal opinion, the negligence part of this suit was obviously not written by anybody who knows more about aircraft than they're those shiny things that take people places.

I have a hard time believing that having the shit scared out of you entitles you to $31K, especially when the most serious injury was an apparent sprain.

cyyz · Post by **cyyz** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:37 am

LJDriver FROM HIS QUOTE(QUOTE OF QUOTE) wrote:. People were injured and they have a right to sue.

TTC closes the doors on patrons daily..

Why have haven't the shysters started to sue the TTC??

TTail · Post by **TTail** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 1:03 am

CYYZ ummm, I never said those words. Watch who you quote buddy.

Rebel · Post by **Rebel** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:01 am

I must admit that I’m impressed with the majority of the posters on this thread that recognize this lawsuit for what it really is; a SCAM.

learcapt · Post by **learcapt** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 5:48 am

hello...b767jetmec

Both pilots have not been fired...your information is incorrect.

take care

rigpiggy · Post by **rigpiggy** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:25 am

Freaking stupid. most lawyers charge around 40% on contingency, or costs +25-30%. 31k-40%=18k or -(25%+costs easily 10-15K) 13/8k. certainly worth the cost. Not

peeelot · Post by **peeelot** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:32 am

Ice Ice Baby. When it came to that landing I did enough to save the aircraft I was already doing a short field landing so it was hanging off the prop to begin with. THe plane and I are still flying so I hope I did my job. But comming in on 33 at city centre in the fall be ready this is a warning for everyone strange things will happen.

JohnnyHotRocks · Post by **JohnnyHotRocks** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 6:39 am

Thanks for the warning peeelot, but they won't let me land my jet at city centre

BTW, I scare the sh*t out of myself almost daily....can I sue myself???

b767jetmec · Post by **b767jetmec** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 7:27 am

learcapt wrote:hello...b767jetmec

Both pilots have not been fired...your information is incorrect.

take care

Hi learcapt. This was the information I got last night at 2200 from a Skyservice employee. If the info is incorrect, I aplogize.

learcapt · Post by **learcapt** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 8:17 am

b767jetmec

hello again...the info i had friday said no...but maybe yours is more current. sucks if its true......hard landings with damage have happened before and will happen again...i hope they did not loose their jobs. thanks for the information..take care everyone....tough days for us at sky

bizjet_mania · Post by **bizjet_mania** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:00 am

31K is ridiculous. They claimed they were thrown around the cabin. Where are the seat belts?!? However with our laws who knows. I do hope the judge throws this case out the window along with these passengers. Hopefully noone was REALLY hurt. We don't know yet what caused this. Wind Shear is a possibility but so is deploying the spoilers or reversers to early. Lets wait till they finish the investigation.

I was on approach to city centre airport in Toronto and at 20
feet the wind changed and I lost 15 kts. What resulted from this

Peelot... I would have to say a sore ass resulted in this, which was because you were being careless. If you are flying into an airport you should read up on the it in a CFS prior to landing, you will notice in the Toronto City Centre section it says and I quote:

CROSSWIND CONDITIONS

Anticipate landing 05/23 & 06L/24R in crosswinds up to 25 kt at 90 degrees.

So if you are "the peelot" you have to decide whether or not you need to come in a little faster incase you do encounter a loss of airspeed unexpectantly. This I believe should have been taught to you in exercise 18.

As for not knowing anything about a pilot... yea too funny there. Hope your mom put some cream on your bum after that landing.

Good Day.

sprucemonkey · Post by **sprucemonkey** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 9:53 am

Biz - you're just too good - you should become an instructor and .........

.........start up your own flight school.

flingwing206 · Post by **flingwing206** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:33 am

Incredible - you "airline pilots" owe the existence of your so called careers to the passengers - they deserve better. At this level of your career, if you can land a 767 without bending it you are negligent!! Many passengers pay their fare's expecting the airplane to be intact after landing. Don't forget - many passengers don't really enjoy flying, and when put through an ordeal like this, they will be spooked. Like GH said - Mental Anguish

Good for the passengers.

altiplano · Post by **altiplano** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 10:58 am

flingwing206 wrote:Don't forget - many passengers don't really enjoy flying.

So take a boat...

It was a good landing... everyone walked away...

I wonder how many flew home? All of them I bet... couldn't have been too spooked.

bizjet_mania · Post by **bizjet_mania** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 11:47 am

Ok obviously everyone knows this is a money grab scheme. They even have a website to encourage those onboard to join in. But lawyers (liars) are good with twisting fact and destroying someones character. The Captain flying was doing his line and dock, so experience will come into play. He is an ex-F18 pilot, I am sure they will use that to describe his attitude. And the fact that the plane was damaged and unflyable. Now if it was a hard landing so what, but the fact was the plane was really damaged and even if they don't win what they sue for I am pretty sure they will get something for mental anguish because it was more than just a small bump.

Remember the Air Transat in the Azores? The only person hurt was a woman that broke her ankle going down the slide. The passengers still sued. Its the lawyers that are the idiots, they will look for any way to make some cash.

Now if you're displeased send an email to the law firm.

http://www.skyserviceclassaction.com/

For the record, the pilots have not been fired, I believe the captain is a union representative with the airline.

wallypilot · Post by **wallypilot** » Sun Jun 05, 2005 12:49 pm

[quote="bizjet_mania"] The Captain flying was doing his line and dock

..heh

i guess you mean line indoc....as in indoctrination?....sorry just making fun....

first of all, i agree with your general distaste for injury lawyers...however, as for the air transat incident, they should be penalised...it was blatant negligence. and I guess the passengers should be the ones to be compensated for having their lives but in undue risk by the maintenance manager....there was obvious negligence there that was uncovered in the maintenance department. Even though the maintenance lead on that airplane told the maintenance manager that he didn't want to sign the airplane out with that fuel pump installed, the maintenance manager overruled that decision and put the ac back on line with the wrong fuel pump installed. The pilots, under the circumstances, did a great job. Followed the SOP's(which were subsequently changed to prevent intentionally crossfeeding to a fuel leak), and then, when faced with an emergency got the airplane down safely. the AT event seems to me to be somewhat different than this SS event. however, we don't know the cause of the hard landing yet, so it remains to be seen.