News on the Air France, Flight 447 Tragedy
JULY 31, 2009 --- This morning, Airbus has asked every airline in the world using its product line to remove the Thales "AA" type pitot tube and replace at least 2 out of the 3 installed on each aircraft with the competing Goodrich pitot tubes. Many airlines have already done this (U.S. Airways and Delta).
Within the next two weeks, the European Aviation Safety Agency is expected to issue an Airworthiness Directive compelling all airlines to replace the old "AA" model pitot tubes due to the large number of pilot reports received about the intermittent loss of air speed indication.
Also, Airbus and Air France have committed to spend an additional $20.0 million to locate and retrieve the wreckage.
Facts and information on AF 447 are still forthcoming on this case. However, having a big picture before you start is crucial to efficiency and success. There are very few people out there who can execute on this plan.
We have several aviation experts who will work with us to assure success in this case. One of them, was the number one Airbus lawyer worldwide for 20 years and was involved in nearly every crash they had. He has an encyclopedic knowledge of operational difficulties in the Airbus products line.
Selecting the proper forum for suit is the single most important strategic decision one can make in an aviation crash case. Everyone readily concedes that U.S. jurisdiction will generate the highest attainable settlement values due to the ultimate threat that a local jury in the U.S. would be more generous than a single judge in France or Brazil.
From what we know to date, the Air France jet was at the assigned cruising altitude entering a known area of severe convective winds (turbulent updrafts of warm, high moisture content water vapor) when the automatic pilot disconnected as a result of an uncommanded directive from the on-board flight computer. Shortly thereafter, all air speed indicators became disabled and the artificial horizon component became inoperative. There was a corresponding cascade of failure to all the important instruments
relied upon by the crew. The crew could not know how fast the plane was travelling, what direction it was headed or what attitude it was taking, losing all ability to know spacially where they were. The plane was totally enveloped in cloud in total darkness. Two components are immediately implicated: the pitot tubes (mounted on the outside of the aircraft) which transmit data to the on-board flight computers about everything going on outside (air speed, temperature etc.) and the on-board flight computers which shut down multiple flight systems moments after the auto pilot was shut down.
The pitot tubes are manufactured by Thales Aerospace based in France which has a subsidiary located in Irvine, California, a short drive from Walter Lack’s office in Los Angeles. The AF 447’s pitot tubes experienced the same operational difficulties, reported by many flight crews. In fact a new generation of pitot tubes manufactured by Thales are available to Airbus for their entire line of A 330/340 aircraft but Air France chose not to retrofit its fleet due to the high cost. The old Thales’ pitot tubes are known to become clogged with ice or small dirt particles which can be lifted as high as the ionosphere and provide erroneous readings to the flight crew.
The on board flight computers are manufactured by Honeywell Aerospace, Defense and Space based in Phoenix, Arizona with offices in Simi Valley, County of Los Angeles (30 miles from Walter Lack’s office).
Air France flies in and out of Los Angeles International Airport with at least three scheduled daily flights which means they have a regular course of business activity within our jurisdiction. Airbus Industries sells most of its new aircraft to International Lease Finance Corp., the largest lessor of aircraft in the world, which is based in Beverly Hills, California, only two blocks from our office. We have always contended that Airbus is subject to the jurisdiction of the U.S. and particularly the State of California.
Having satisfied ourselves that personal jurisdiction over these entities would actually exist, we turn to the more problematic issue of forum non conveniens. We have faced this issue in dozens of air accident cases and are thoroughly familiar with all the legal authorities and factual arguments that each side must put forth on the issue. The legal discussion should never focus on whether you win or lose the forum non conveniens motion. The proper focus should be on the strategic benefits to be derived from filing
in the U.S. even if the prospects of losing the forum non conveniens motion are high.
Typically, there is a golden window of opportunity created to resolve a case for an amount higher than sums being offered in the foreign jurisdiction but for less than we might expect to settle for if the case were securely pending in he U.S. court. That moment in time could be anytime after the U.S. case is filed all the way up to the time we file an appeal of an order granting a defendant's motion to dismiss on the forum non conveniens argument. As long as defendants are at risk that a U.S. court will hear the case to a conclusion, the lawyers representing the insurance underwriters will be fully justified in offering a larger sum than would be offered
directly in the foreign country.
When we explain this to lawyers in foreign countries, we are sometimes met with skepticism and disbelief. However, having done this in dozens of individual cases with success, we can say that positive results occur in 9 out of 10 cases. Victims in air crash cases are reluctant to trust the legal systems of foreign countries even when their own country provides an inferior measure of compensation or where the delay in the legal process is so long that justice delayed became justice denied. When I look at the TAM crash nine years ago and the delay allowed by the Brazilian court system, I don't think the victims were well served by their legal system.
Finally, we can assure you that whether our strategy works or not, the case will always be returned to the residence country of the plaintiff or to a jurisdiction prescribed in Article 28 of the Warsaw Convention. If you decide to work with us, we will provide you with our 3 page check list, which will provide us with vital information needed for a claim’s brochure on every client. Completing the damage binder is central to the timing of this strategy.