A complaint filed by his family on behalf of Ricardo Tazoe, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida, also names European jet manufacturer Airbus, the Goodrich Corp, and International Aero Engines (IAE) as defendants. The Miami resident died in an Airbus crash in Sao Paulo.
198 other people who were killed when the Tam Airbus A320 skidded off a rainy runway at Sao Paulo's Congonhas Airport.
TAM is charged with negligence. The plane should have been grounded because one of its thrust reversers was not working. Defendants include Goodrich, the manufacturer of the aircraft's braking system and IAE, which assembled the plane's engine.
"From the evidence gathered so far, it's clear that TAM knew there were problems with the aircraft," Steven C. Marks, an attorney at Miami law firm Podhurst Orseck, said in the statement. "Had (the thrust reverser) been operational, it may have prevented this accident."
The lawsuit seeks unspecified financial damages.
IAE is United Technologies Corp. Pratt & Whitney, Britain's Rolls-Royce Plc, Japan's Aero Engines Corp. and Germany's MTU Aero Engones.
The firm that filed the suit is also representing several families in a suit concerning an earlier crash in the Amazon this year.
About Me
A Note about Tam
TAM is a huge airline with all the resources necessary to have assigned human beings to notify families of their dead.
Such a notification would be painful, indeed, more than words can describe.
But even worse, imagine going on the internet, reviewing the manifest that was made available to the public within hours and finding your mom’s name or your mom and dad’s name or your wife, or your husband.
Imagine that for a moment.
Imagine that days go by and no one from TAM makes any personal notifications to families. No one calls, no one connects on a one on one basis.
What were they thinking when they released the manifest to the public prior to any attempt of locating the next of kin?
TAM, fire the person or persons who made the decision to release the manifest.
Get your act together.
Have a plan in place.
Have people who can be on call immediately to handle these matters.
No matter what you end up paying the family for their losses, they will never forget how they learned about the death of their loved ones.
Shame on you, TAM
----------------------
How about giving a choice to a passenger about boarding a plane that has 1/3 of its braking system disabled.
In the Tam crash of July 2007, all parties agree that the right thrust reverser was disabled. They defend that position by stating that the documentation for an Airbus A320 allows the plane to fly for up to 10 days with a disabled thruster(s).
So let's say that Tam had let everyone that was boarding that plane know about the thrust reverser. Let's say they had even played down the importance of having it operational. Had the passengers known about the disabled thruster, and had they known that it compliments the braking system, what would they have done?
It is possible that not all the passengers would have boarded. Some probably would have transferred to another flight, or would have gone home and waited for another day. But no one was given that notice.
Think about it: the wheel brakes, the wing flaps and the thrust reverser are the breaking system for an airbus a320. I'm not certain that even a seasoned flyer as I am that I would have gone on board knowing that part of the breaking system was not functional.
Mandatory warnings should be required when a plane with broken, flawed, or partially disabled systems is used as if functioning at 100%. Speaking personally on my own behalf, I believe this warning issue–or failure to warn issue–should be legally addressed.
If only one person had not boarded that plane, that would have been one less fatality.
For More of George Hatcher, visit the following links:
Such a notification would be painful, indeed, more than words can describe.
But even worse, imagine going on the internet, reviewing the manifest that was made available to the public within hours and finding your mom’s name or your mom and dad’s name or your wife, or your husband.
Imagine that for a moment.
Imagine that days go by and no one from TAM makes any personal notifications to families. No one calls, no one connects on a one on one basis.
What were they thinking when they released the manifest to the public prior to any attempt of locating the next of kin?
TAM, fire the person or persons who made the decision to release the manifest.
Get your act together.
Have a plan in place.
Have people who can be on call immediately to handle these matters.
No matter what you end up paying the family for their losses, they will never forget how they learned about the death of their loved ones.
Shame on you, TAM
----------------------
How about giving a choice to a passenger about boarding a plane that has 1/3 of its braking system disabled.
In the Tam crash of July 2007, all parties agree that the right thrust reverser was disabled. They defend that position by stating that the documentation for an Airbus A320 allows the plane to fly for up to 10 days with a disabled thruster(s).
So let's say that Tam had let everyone that was boarding that plane know about the thrust reverser. Let's say they had even played down the importance of having it operational. Had the passengers known about the disabled thruster, and had they known that it compliments the braking system, what would they have done?
It is possible that not all the passengers would have boarded. Some probably would have transferred to another flight, or would have gone home and waited for another day. But no one was given that notice.
Think about it: the wheel brakes, the wing flaps and the thrust reverser are the breaking system for an airbus a320. I'm not certain that even a seasoned flyer as I am that I would have gone on board knowing that part of the breaking system was not functional.
Mandatory warnings should be required when a plane with broken, flawed, or partially disabled systems is used as if functioning at 100%. Speaking personally on my own behalf, I believe this warning issue–or failure to warn issue–should be legally addressed.
If only one person had not boarded that plane, that would have been one less fatality.
For More of George Hatcher, visit the following links:
Subscriptions
Posts
Comments
Subscribe To
Posts
Comments
Air Crash Map
Airbus 320 Crash Mapping (partial)
1 comment:
Jet Fuel did not melt the structure of the plane, it just chared it along with gasoline. Jet fuel does not
get hot enough to melt steel like in the twin towers.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/in_pictures/6903885.stm
House hit by plane consumed with Jet Fuel did not disintegrated, destroy or collapse home in Florida.
Large explosion when the plane hit. The neighbors could smell the jet fuel, meaning not all of it ignited.
See Pictures here:
http://abc.go.com/primetime/xtremehome/gallery/416.html?photo=1
Cynthia Tate was at home when a plane crashed into the house. The pilot was killed, along with the family pets, and the co-pilot was badly burned but survived. Cynthia miraculously escaped without any injuries. If the heat would be so intense it would have melted her body as well as the pilot & co-pilot & the house & it's metal contents! That did not happen!
Post a Comment