FF Points/Miles Calculations When Plane Crashes

[dfcatch]

"It is a QF requirement that you keep your seatbelt fastened...".

"It is a federal requirement to comply with all signs and crewmember instructions...".

So regardless of an ability to claim against negligence or fault of the airline/aircraft, and regardless of the imperfections of the law, she should have had her seatbelt fastened - period.

Unfortunately - there is no legal requirement to have any level of intelligence, nor is there a law against d$&@.heads.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

"It is a QF requirement that you keep your seatbelt fastened...".

"It is a federal requirement to comply with all signs and crewmember instructions...".

So regardless of an ability to claim against negligence or fault of the airline/aircraft, and regardless of the imperfections of the law, she should have had her seatbelt fastened - period.

Unfortunately - there is no legal requirement to have any level of intelligence, nor is there a law against d$&@.heads.

Hear what you're saying, but there are times when you don't have your seatbelt fastened, and a short announcement at the beginning of the flight can hardly be expected to be remembered hours later. The seatbelt sign is definitive, but that is only on for very short periods of time on Qantas, perhaps less so that any other carrier I know. It is extinguished almost immediately after takeoff, and I cannot remember the last time i saw it on during a flight (compare with someone like SQ or CX or any american carrier who will illuminate the sign at even mild turbulence).

Not to mention non-english speaking passengers who would look for the sign.

Passengers have a right to expect a safe aircraft. An inherent and latent defect cannot be excused simply because a passenger was not wearing a seatbelt in the absence of any illuminated sign.

If I am on an aisle seat and a passenger jumps out to get something from an overhead locker, I don't put on my seatbelt while they are fiddling around for a minute. If they then decide to visit the WC, I don't secure my seatbelt for the next three minutes either. I wait till they get back. Am I supposed to be liable for my own injury if an otherwise perfectly smooth flight plunges because of a computer error? I don't think so. Nor do I lack intelligence. I'm just being practical.

The cabin does relax after a meal service as people get up to use the bathroom, get their inflatable neck pillows out and all sorts of stuff. Until the cabin is settled again I would guess a fair few people don't have their seat belt on.

 

[harvyk]

Disagree there MEL_Traveller. Let’s take this out of the aviation environment for a second.

Both my cars have in the instruction manual that I need to wear my seatbelt on every trip. Now I don’t know about others, but I don’t need to be reminded every few hours that I need to be wearing my seatbelt. It’s one of those things I have been told, and thus just do.

Now in the event of a car crash, if I’m injured, is the manufacturer at fault? Let’s say I was injured because I chose not to wear a seatbelt, but had I done so I’d have been fine, how can the manufacturer be blamed for that one?
Now let’s say the root cause of the accident was a manufacturing fault in the brakes, surely there is some liability from the car manufacturer, however since they did provide a safety device which I chose not to wear, are they still fully liable for my injuries, even though they provided a device which would help reduce or avoid those injuries had I been using all the safety equipment in line with the manufacturers instructions?

Now as for “it was only 3 minutes” example where you said you would not put your seatbelt on for three minutes if you where in the asile seat and the person in the window seat had gotten up to use the facilities. Well lets say for example you where cutting through a hard hat area on a building site. You figured you wouldn’t wear a hard hat as you where only cutting through quickly, it’s not like you where actually doing any work there. What if something then dropped on your head and injured you as a result? Do you think work cover would simply say “Oh that’s ok, he was only cutting through the area, it’s not like he was working there” or do you think you would be blasted by the for failing to use appropriate safety equipment whilst in an area where that safety equipment is required, regardless of the overall length of time you where there.

In terms of liability, in light of the two examples above, I can easily understand someone suing Airbus if they where seated with a seatbelt on, or where walking around the cabin, which is permitted by Airbus and where injured as a result. However I can not see how someone can sue a company if they failed to use all the safety devices which that company provided and told them they must use.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Disagree there MEL_Traveller. Let’s take this out of the aviation environment for a second.

Both my cars have in the instruction manual that I need to wear my seatbelt on every trip. Now I don’t know about others, but I don’t need to be reminded every few hours that I need to be wearing my seatbelt. It’s one of those things I have been told, and thus just do.

Now in the event of a car crash, if I’m injured, is the manufacturer at fault? Let’s say I was injured because I chose not to wear a seatbelt, but had I done so I’d have been fine, how can the manufacturer be blamed for that one?
Now let’s say the root cause of the accident was a manufacturing fault in the brakes, surely there is some liability from the car manufacturer, however since they did provide a safety device which I chose not to wear, are they still fully liable for my injuries, even though they provided a device which would help reduce or avoid those injuries had I been using all the safety equipment in line with the manufacturers instructions?

Now as for “it was only 3 minutes” example where you said you would not put your seatbelt on for three minutes if you where in the asile seat and the person in the window seat had gotten up to use the facilities. Well lets say for example you where cutting through a hard hat area on a building site. You figured you wouldn’t wear a hard hat as you where only cutting through quickly, it’s not like you where actually doing any work there. What if something then dropped on your head and injured you as a result? Do you think work cover would simply say “Oh that’s ok, he was only cutting through the area, it’s not like he was working there” or do you think you would be blasted by the for failing to use appropriate safety equipment whilst in an area where that safety equipment is required, regardless of the overall length of time you where there.

In terms of liability, in light of the two examples above, I can easily understand someone suing Airbus if they where seated with a seatbelt on, or where walking around the cabin, which is permitted by Airbus and where injured as a result. However I can not see how someone can sue a company if they failed to use all the safety devices which that company provided and told them they must use.

I can appreciate your reasoning, but some areas are not correct in law.

In the case of a seat-belt in the car, it is the road rules which require you to wear a seat belt. And the road rules don't require you to wear a seat belt in the event of a manufacturing error - they are designed to restrain you and prevent injury in the event of an accident.

If you were on an isolated road, weren't wearing a seatbelt, and the brakes failed and you were injured, you would be able to sue the manufacturer for your injuries. (well - the law is slightly more complex because of the involvement of bodies such as the TAC). However, the manufacturer may well argue contributory negligence, which may reduce your pay-out.

On an aircraft, it may be a qantas requirement that you keep your seat belt fastened, but this is for turbulence, not for a mechanical or electronic failure. If you don't wear your seat-belt for whatever reason and you were injured by turbulence, you may have your claim reduced because of contributory negligence. However, a reasonable counterclaim could be set out to that in that QF does not use their seatbelt sign with the same frequency that most other carriers do. The seat belt sign is a warning. If QF does not illuminate it then you may have a good counterclaim.

again with the building site, it is the law that you are required to wear a hard hat. No ifs no buts.

completely different to an aircraft where seat belt use is recommended at all times, but not mandatory unless the sign is on (you are free to move around the cabin, you are free to stand up and get to your overhead locker etc etc).

 

[harvyk]

completely different to an aircraft where seat belt use is recommended at all times, but not mandatory unless the sign is on (you are free to move around the cabin, you are free to stand up and get to your overhead locker etc etc).

Whilst I do admit, I can't specifically remember the exact wording used in safety demo's pre QF72, I do know that it has been a QF requirement for seatbelts to be fastened whenever you are seated for quite some time.

I guess the question does come in, would a reasonable person would assume if a safety device exists it should be used, and if that is a reasonable assumption, if they knowlying chose not to use said safety device are they not then partly to blame for their own injuries in the event that something does go wrong?

It's not like they would not know of the seatbelts existence, given they are usually laid out on top of the seat and thus must be moved to be able to sit down.

Also having a distinction between simply turbulence and equipment failure, this is not the first equipment failure to have happened to an plane, it's also not the first equipment failure to have happened to a plane which resulted in rapid loss of altitude with no notice. So I don't see that such a distinction can be made in saying a seatbelts only purpose is to protect the pax in the event of turbulence, although I do understand airlines not wanting to include a line about seatbelts are also required in case of a mechanical or equipment failure in their standard safety demo, given turbulence is a fairly all encompassing word in the minds of the pax. Indeed during the events of QF72, it was widely reported it was turbulence that was at fault until the true cause was found to be an equipment fault.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

...

I guess the question does come in, would a reasonable person would assume if a safety device exists it should be used, and if that is a reasonable assumption, if they knowlying chose not to use said safety device are they not then partly to blame for their own injuries in the event that something does go wrong?

As I said - it all depends on the circumstances and what is reasonable in each circumstance.

A compensation payout may indeed be reduced if a seat belt is not being worn. But this would have to be weighed against the seat belt sign not being illuminated.

Is it reasonable to drive a car and take your seatbelt off at any time? When reversing maybe, or at a toll booth/auto barrier when you have to pay, but otherwise no. You stop the car. Is it reasonable to not have your seatbelt on at times during a 14 hour flight? yes. When people have to get out to the aisle, when you're walking around, when you go to the toilet, when you go to have a chat with your mate/spouse flying business class when you are in First.

A qantas requirement, given once, briefly at the beginning of a flight, does not constitute the law as far as I can see (maybe marginally at best). The law to comply with all cabin crew instructions and signs is a bit more immediate I would argue.

 

[medhead]

I think there are two separate matters being discussed here. The question of assisting negligence is one factor that comes after the fact. The other factor is prevention, which is equally important. Both matters are equally important.

Prevention applies regardless of who is ultimately negligent. The qantas direction is in place to prevent injury if the plane falls out of the sky for whatever reason - turbulence, design fault, unknown reasons, etc.

Really prevention is the first step in safety and it in no way impacts on the ability to argue and assign negligence, after the fact. In the same way that negligence does not limit the application of preventative measures for all expected and unexpected causes.


Sent from the Throne

 

[harvyk]

A qantas requirement, given once, briefly at the beginning of a flight, does not constitute the law as far as I can see (maybe marginally at best). The law to comply with all cabin crew instructions and signs is a bit more immediate I would argue.

I disagree, if I told you not to do something, and then you went and did it, would the fact that 13 hours had past have any bearing on the fact that I gave you a specific instruction?

We are often pretty harsh to new comers here at AFF who say something along the lines of "I was told check in closes 45 minutes before departure, why wouldn't they still let me check in at 35 minutes" even though 45 minutes was specified in the conditions of carriage. Well if you look at QF's conditions of carriage, section 11.1 it specifically states "

keep your seatbelt fastened when seated​

". That's pretty plain text and not legalese in anyone's book as far as I'm concerned, and you've agreed to that particular term before you've even gone to the airport.

 

[oz_mark]

I disagree, if I told you not to do something, and then you went and did it, would the fact that 13 hours had past have any bearing on the fact that I gave you a specific instruction?

We are often pretty harsh to new comers here at AFF who say something along the lines of "I was told check in closes 45 minutes before departure, why wouldn't they still let me check in at 35 minutes" even though 45 minutes was specified in the conditions of carriage. Well if you look at QF's conditions of carriage, section 11.1 it specifically states "

keep your seatbelt fastened when seated​

". That's pretty plain text and not legalese in anyone's book as far as I'm concerned, and you've agreed to that particular term before you've even gone to the airport.

You have that agreement with Qantas, but keep in mind that this was a settlement between the manufacturers of the aircraft and the passengers, it was not a settlement with Qantas as the operator.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I disagree, if I told you not to do something, and then you went and did it, would the fact that 13 hours had past have any bearing on the fact that I gave you a specific instruction?

We are often pretty harsh to new comers here at AFF who say something along the lines of "I was told check in closes 45 minutes before departure, why wouldn't they still let me check in at 35 minutes" even though 45 minutes was specified in the conditions of carriage. Well if you look at QF's conditions of carriage, section 11.1 it specifically states "

keep your seatbelt fastened when seated​

". That's pretty plain text and not legalese in anyone's book as far as I'm concerned, and you've agreed to that particular term before you've even gone to the airport.

you may disagree, but needing to comply with crew member instructions needs to have some reasonable immediacy.

you may not understand how the law works, but think of this example. If someone attempts to break into your house. Climbs over the fence but gets savaged by your guard dog. Guess who's responsible? Even though you're not supposed to be climbing over the fence.

Let's take the example one stage further. What if an economy passenger uses business class toilet and slips on the floor injuring themselves. Do you think the argument that the passenger should not have been there in the first place absolves the airline of liability? (They have clearly ignored a sign saying 'business class only beyond this point except in emergency'). Or what about if an economy passenger uses the airbridge marked 'first and business class', but they trip when entering the aircraft, no liability because the economy class passenger shouldn't have been there?

The conditions of carriage in this case requiring the seat belt to be fastened mean virtually nothing. contract law doesn't override negligence or any other law when it comes to liability. Might not wearing a seatbelt reduce your payout? It may, but again that will depend on the circumstances.

11.1 states... when on board: ... keep your seatbelt fastened while seated. We know that this doesn't always apply, particularly if the aircraft is being refuelled. So 11.1 is not a blanket statement

 

[harvyk]

you may not understand how the law works, but think of this example. If someone attempts to break into your house. Climbs over the fence but gets savaged by your guard dog. Guess who's responsible? Even though you're not supposed to be climbing over the fence.

Common sense states that by climbing over the fence into a yard with a guard dog, it's your own stupid fault if you get savaged. However legally speaking the owner of the dog is at fault, as more to the point as the owner you have a duty of care to ensure everyone on your property, even if there illegally, are not injured as a result. Furthermore it is your responsibility to control the dog at all times. So in this case the "crime" of trespass is considered lessor to that of an property owners responsibility towards maintaining a safe environment for all persons.
Yes I realise the law does not always equal what someone would call common sense.

I also realise that contract law does not override negligence, however negligence can be a two way street. After the pax has agreed to the conditions of carriage, and again on hearing the instruction to keep their seatbelt fastened at all times they are seated, wouldn't it then be negligent for the pax to ignore that pretty straight forward instruction? Couldn't the airline then counter-sue the pax for damage caused to their property as a result of the pax ignoring safety instructions given to them both written and verbally with witnesses?

Now in the example of Y pax using J toilets, yes the Y pax should not have been there, but again in the example above, the airline has a duty of care to prevent people being injured whilst on their property, that includes inside their aircraft. So in the example, what if the airline knew the J toilets had water on the floor, and thus where closed and locked the door to prevent pax from using it, and the Y pax ignored the "out of order" sign and forced entry in? At what point can the airline state "we did what we could to prevent this injury", would it be reasonable to have an armed guard posted outside the J toilet to prevent pax from using it? It would certainly prevent the J toilet from being used, but it could hardly be called reasonable.

 

[JohnM]

Common sense...

Now there's the genesis of an oxymoron: 'Common sense' and lawyers - and dare I say $$$$ .

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Now there's the genesis of an oxymoron: 'Common sense' and lawyers - and dare I say $$$$ .

to be fair, lawyers don't make the law. parliaments and judges do. (but ultimately, the parliament, therefore the people, can override any law and make new ones... so we have only ourselves to blame if you don't like it... )

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Couldn't the airline then counter-sue the pax for damage caused to their property as a result of the pax ignoring safety instructions given to them both written and verbally with witnesses?

no, because i don't believe airline passengers owe the airline a duty of care in this specific situation. it is not reasonable to forsee that leaving your seatbelt off is likely to cause damage to the aircraft. you may, however, owe a duty of care to your fellow passengers.

 

[JohnM]

to be fair, lawyers don't make the law. parliaments and judges do. (but ultimately, the parliament, therefore the people, can override any law and make new ones... so we have only ourselves to blame if you don't like it... )

True - change my oxymoron to 'Common sense and the law' .

 

[MEL_Traveller]

True - change my oxymoron to 'Common sense and the law' .

even if we change it to that... then we, the people are still ultimately to blame. We elect the parliament. The parliament makes law.

 

[straitman]

Whilst arguing all these technicalities of law has anyone actually looked up the aviation regulations :?:

Just thought I would ask :!:

 

[oz_mark]

Whilst arguing all these technicalities of law has anyone actually looked up the aviation regulations :?:

Just thought I would ask :!:

But which aviation regulations? Those of the operator? Those where the aircraft was? Those of the aircraft manufacturer? Those of the manufacturer of the faulty part?