Written by Guest on 2008-06-11 11:07:02
You've just pointed out a half a dozen good reasons why the GTAA et al.should not be found responsible. The Transportation Safety Board's report(Report Number A05H0002)is available on-line. |
This e-mail address is being protected from spam bots, you need JavaScript enabled to view it
Written by Bill on 2008-06-11 09:19:37
It seems very unlikely that the GTAA would be found guilty in this action. Thunderstorm, the flight made a go-around because of cell activity in the area, the pilot was fully aware that other aircraft were diverting, but he still attempted to land, even after not being able to touch down until he was halfway down the runway. The fact that the aircraft aquaplaned due to surface water should have indicated to the pilot that he wasn't going to make a safe stop, and he should have aborted the landing. Given that the runway has a "hump", this should have made the pilot all the more cautious. (The 1st officer was flying, I think).
IMVHO, this lawsuit is just the insurance company just trying to recoup the payouts. |
