Only Congress can create effective, passengers rights.  Please vote accordingly.
Latest Boeing Accident: 
July 12, 2014:

Flight 214 claimed its third victim, a female under 18.

Additionally, radio recording revealed two United Airlines 747 pilots in position for take-off radioed air traffic controllers they could see ejected passengers struggling for help 500 yards from the fuselage, five minutes after the crash of Asiana Airlines Flight 214.

London:  Another Dreamliner catches fire.  Heathrow closed.  Fire out.  Everyone safe.  Arrivals, departures and Boeing stocks impacted as initial reports indicate it is the same Dreamliner flight that flew from Addis Ababa to Nairobi for the first post-grounding flight.  No passengers were onboard during the fire.

July 11, 2013 - Updates from July 10th Press Conference.

"Regulations require the pilot fly the last segment of any approach right down to the runway; a landing totally by instruments, while theoretically possible, is not permitted.  The seat-belt designs are a separate issue."

Two other dimensions to addinto the mix of the ongoing investigation into the Asiana crash at SFO.

First issue:  Flight deck crew “lulled” into some false sense of security in the belief that no matter what they were doing with respect to flying the airplane, believed it to have had a ‘built in” if you will, airspeed tracking device that would insure the proper approach speed would be maintained throughout, and/or would a warning, visual, aural* or other, in the event speed dropped below the acceptable point.  In other words, a “backup” not unlike a ground proximity warning device when a plane gets too close to terrain.

It is probably well within the current state of the art, technologically speaking, to have such a device - although it would presumably have to be programmed and activated each time, as approach speeds may differ from airport to airport, and conditions change.  Indeed, following the reports of the pilots at the briefing, several commented perhaps large commercial airliners indeed should have such devices.

 It seems the pilots also were under the impression that their glide slope profile, (angle upon which they are approaching the runway, and the progressive loss of  altitude), was also being monitored electronically by the glide slope signal.  Ordinarily , this would be so, even cases such as this, where there is full visual on the runway. But because of repairs and upgrades, we are informed the glide slope at SFO was inoperative that day, and that this information had been put out to the airlines in  the form of a “NOTAM” a Notice to Airmen,easily accessed by flight crews when filing flight plans.  Something went through the cracks, here however. Inquiry is still progressing.

However, given the clear VFR (visual) conditions at SFO that morning, most observers would maintain that while glide slope or altitude back up would be desirable,  there was no reason the flight crew could not have made a proper landing “hand tooling” the plane, that is flying it as pilots have for decades, by manually manipulating the controls.  Indeed, regulations require the pilot fly the last segment of any approach right down to the runway; a landing totally by instruments, while theoretically possible, is not permitted.

Last, represented cases where the seat-belt design was defective.

Litigated the first case pitting the absence of a 3 point vs. the conventional seat belt in a crash. Properly packaged 3 point could take up to 40 Gs in deceleration forces. The killer is the seat belt, around which the body flexes violently, thus snapping spinal cords and doing other serious internal damage at far less G forces. Spinal injuries were briefly mentioned days ago.

Most all newer general aviation aircraft now have three points, all seats.

Unfortunately, commercial airlines continue to stay with the belts only, WWI style, originally designed just to keep folks from falling out should the airplane invert.

This site will continue to monitor all of this.

*  To Mr. Correction:  Thank you for your eagle eye.  In our haste to uplooad, we sometimes miss when Spell-check changes our original correct spelling to incorrect.  So we appreciate the heads up.  Thank you again.  Onward.

July 10, 2013

Highlights from press conference: 

Traffic patterns of Asiana Flight 214

NTSB's Deborah Hersman said the pilots had an opportunity at 500 feet to recognize they were low, 34 seconds to impact.

Second question involved deference to pilot:  NTSB representative said,

"Our team has interviewed all the pilots, they're working through the transcription, that will give us tone..."

"We do know the pilot in the right seat, was the pilot in command."

Essentially, the flight attendants in the middle cabin went forward to tell the Captain about the fire.  Cabin manager was told by pilot he was working deplaning out with the tower.  Once Captain learned of the fire, he ordered evacuation and crew also helped fight fire.  Deborah Hersman's tone was carefully measured throughout.

Two slides opened up inside the plane, trapping two flight attendants. One remains hospitalized, one was released. 

Hersman added for a plane to be certified the doors have to be opened with slides out and ready to evacuate in 90 seconds.  The doors on Flight 214 weren't opened for 90 seconds.

Pilot also claims to have been blinded by a flashing light.

Important Question to be answered:  What language was being spoken by pilot and crew while plane was on auto-pilot:  Korean or English?  Day Four and we do not yet know the answer.
   Other details below.

July 6, 2013

Boeing - Asiana Airlines Flight 214 crash lands at SFO.    (See graph of APPROACH of other aircraft, below)

1.  Pilots were not alcohol or drug tested.

2.  Pilots Union is complaining too much information has been released

3.  Asiana Airlines President Yoon Young-doo stated Lee Jeong-min has experience landing at San Francisco airport 33 times in a 777, adding, "As a trainer, while 500 hours of experience is required, he has more than 3,200 hours of experience."

4.  Flight 214 was Lee Jeong-min's first time as a 777 supervisor.

LA Times reports, "
Lee Hang-kook was at the controls of the flight. It was his first time landing a Boeing 777 at the San Francisco airport, and with a key part of the airport's automated landing system not working, he was forced to visually guide the massive jetliner onto the runway."

5.  Officials said Lee and his more-experienced instructor pilot sitting next to him didn't discuss the predicament. Cockpit voice recordings show that the two didn't communicate until less than two seconds before the plane struck the sea wall and then slammed into Runway 28L.

July 9, 2013:  Why Asiana Flight 214 accident wasn't worse, is here.

July 8, 2013:  Speed of Flight 214 at impact here

July 8, 2013: 
San Francisco:   Breaking:  First important question not yet answered: 

Why was aircraft speed (137 knots) significantly lower than usual?  Answers could range from the mundane to more personal.
But a key element not yet addressed is the language used by pilot and crew.

Excerpt from LA Times article of July 8, 2013:
"Cabin manger Lee Yoon-hye said right before the plane hit the runway, she felt the plane trying to take off again, before she felt a massive impact, followed by another “great big jolt."

Lee said she rushed into the cockpit to check if the pilots were alive, and when they said they were OK, asked if she should evacuate the flight. She was initially instructed to hold off, and she made repeat announcements asking passengers to remain calm. “Then I heard, ‘Evacuate!’” Lee said, speaking matter-of-factly in Korean. “After that, we followed our training, and began yelling ‘Emergency evacuation!’ and proceeded to evacuate the plane.”

Matched to prior problems with crew interaction:


SFO Asiana crash of July 6, 2013
Legal issues that will come  
Gerald C. Sterns,   Sterns & Walker

Initial reports indicate the plane may not have been set up properly for an approach, and was probably too low. Coming in over the threshold, the plane should be only slightly nose high, essentially level, then, when over target point on runway, pilot dumps lift, and plane is supposed to settle down on the main gear, with the nose wheel coming down. Tail is never to make contact. very clear here from the post-crash pictures that the empennage section, which contains the vertical fin (“tail”) and the rear stabilizers and elevators, hit first and hard enough to literally shear off that entire section from the plane. The tailless body, then continued to move forward and down, ending up off runway as shown. The huge gap and tear in the top is not easy to explain at this point. Looks more like explosion type force from  inside than impact damage from top contacting ground

Possible factors why landing may not have been set up properly:


  1. Pilot error? simply misread factors and allowed plane to be too low and tail down?
  2. Autopilot left on too long or possible erroneous information fed into auto pilot (such as incorrect altitude) in some Boeing models, information from the one radio altimeter that Boeing designed allows info to be fed into auto pilot.    Two bad accidents have been caused by this, and Boeing may still be using same design.
  3. Possible wind shear that drove the tail down at last minute.
  4. Possible malfunction of one or more of the rear elevator servos, causing erroneous inputs and positioning of elevator to bring tail down. The 777 is one of, if not the very first commercial airliner to be designed to “fly by wire.” That is, there is no direct mechanical link between the controls on the flight deck to the main control surfaces: rudder, flaps, elevators.  Rather is all computers and wireless signals.  There were concerns early on about this design and no mechanical backup, mainly that some outside, or even in plane electronic signal could distort this system. But there have been no reported cases of this to date of which we know.
  5. Massive but unlikely shift of something in cargo hold that moved the center of gravity way aft. 
  6. There are other possibilities but all are speculation at this point.

Video of safe landing at SFO 

A.  Possible Serious Jurisdictional Issues Confronting Korean National passengers. 

The legal rights of all passengers aboard will be controlled by what is known as the Montréal 99 Convention.  This is an international Treaty sets the rules and parameters on the responsibility of the airlines and the rights of injured passengers or the families of fatally injured passengers to compensation.

Amount other things, it sets out the place where legal cases against the airline may be filed and prosecuted, This in turn, will have a large bearing on what law will be applied to the question of compensation. And these laws vary a great deal. Under Montréal, the location where the accident occurred is not one of the permitted venues. In general, they are limited to the domicile or the airline, or where it has its principal place of business; where the ticket was purchased, and what is the “Destination?”

This means final destination, that is the last line on the ticket. Thus a round trip booking from Seoul to SFO and return – no matter when. stopover time or reason is irrelevant  makes Seoul, or Korea the “final destination.” thus a Korean national, traveling on a round trip ticket would have no US jurisdiction over Asiana, even  though it flies here regularly and the accident happened here.

For any US citizen with permanent residence in the US, however, there is a “fifth venue” i.e. that domicile, the US, regardless of the ticketing.

So each passenger or family considering legal rights and alternatives has to start with a careful analysis of the ticket. In short, here are options as to the airline:

Korean citizen and resident on round trip ticket: Korea only

Same on ticket true final destination USA; no return to Korea. US or Korea

US permanent resident :US or Korea

Non Korean or US –same rules as Korean, unless their home country has service from Asiana. That could bring them under 5th venue.

B.  Rights

Right Under the Convention no matter where case may be heard: the happening of the accident itself, regardless or cause or with or without fault on the part of Asiana, triggers an obligation on part of airline to pay “up to” 100,000Special Drawing Rights (SDRs) (about US$150,000) in “compensable damages” (and this is where the question of whose law applies becomes so critical). And in death cases to make an early advance of 20,000 SDRS, which is credited against the 100,000.  If there are compensable damages over 100,000 SDR, then the case is decided on a negligence or fault basis, but the carrier has the burden of proving it was entirely free of any fault; an almost impossible hurdle in this type of case. 

Any claim under Montréal must be filed in a proper court within two years of the date of the accident. Also, under the predecessor Convention, Warsaw, damages could not be claimed for pure mental injury or anguish; there would have to be physical injury as well. This may become a factor here in that is appears many passengers may have been understandably severely shocked by t\he crash and in fear of their lives, but if they got off with no physical injury (we would argue smoke inhalation, however, is a physical injury), they may have a problem if the courts that interpret Montréal follow the Warsaw ruling. the language in the new convention has been changed from Warsaw, however, so the mental injury alone question may still be an open one.

Other possible Legal Options for Passengers.

Contrary to what may be commonly held opinion, the Montréal Convention does not apply to the entire case; only to claims against the carrier airline, here Asiana.  If there are other potential parties who may be liable contributed in some way to the accident, as in the case, for instance if some navigational component, or servo were found defective (Boeing and the supplier of the component might be involved); or the FAA possibly could be a party if evidence develops that the airplane’s  unreasonably low altitude and positioning should have been apparent to the FAA control tower in time for it to have issued some warning to the flight, and it arguably would have made any difference. At this point we have no evidence of any of this.

The rights of any of the Korean nationals that may have been aboard and traveling on roundtrip tickets that would have taken them back to Seoul at some point.  

Any US national, a permanent resident here would have jurisdiction over the airline based on what is called the “Fifth Venue,” that is the domicile, added in the new convention.

 This will make a lot of the cases, major or minor injuries or whatever, not allowable here. Unless there turns out to be some FAA Air traffic control involvement, as in should the tower have seen this coming and warned plane tail was too low?  That would be a tough sell, however, we don’t know all the facts, yet.  Sterns & Walker was able to prove FAA inadvertence in Guam, but that was not a last second tail drag.  (The plane was set up properly for an approach and flew a perfect laser shot right into the ground three miles short of the runway because it was below the guide slope. Bad pilot error, but clearly visible on radar, which the tower had on, but for some reason, ignored.

 If tower personnel were involved, a case might be made. Montreal Convention applies only to airlines.

Will be updated as needed.



Southwest's latest accident involving a Boeing,
Southwest Flight 812 from Phoenix-to-Sacramento landed safely in Yuma.

As Gerald Sterns says, "Southwest has a particular problem up and down flights as it puts a lot of stress on the plane. This is why D-checks are so important."  Click here for the news video report on Southwest.

THY crash Amsterdam

Please see explanation by Gerald Sterns, working in conjunction with Dutch investigators, Here.

Sterns & Walker has handled a number of cases for flight crew who are, unfortunately, usually the target of the first round of investigation in most crashes.  However, diligent work has shown in many cases shown that there was an airframe or component problem that compromised the crew's ability to handle the matter.  A list of the cases are:  Flying Tiger, San Francisco 1967; Lufthansa at Nairobi Boeing 747 1974; Lusaka Zambia, Dan Air 1983;  Lauda Air, Thailand 1991; Egypt Air 990, Atlantic Ocean off Rhode Island 1999; American Airlines, Cali, Columbia 1999; Avjet at Aspen, Colorado 2001; Alaska Air, Point Magu, California 2002.

Gerald Sterns revolutionized aviation litigation stemming from the Paris crash in the seventies, which was detailed in the book

"The Last Nine Minutes - the story of Flight 981."

Other recent crashes in which Gerald Sterns is representing family members.

Sizin için bu web sitesini Türkçeye çevirmeye çalisiyorum. Ümidim
 bu çeviriyi gramer hatasi olmadan yapabilmek. Ama, sizin sorulariniza acele cevap verme esnasinda yapabilecegim hatalari lütfen affediniz. Çok tesekkürler.

Initial Press Conference in Turkey

American attorney Gerald Sterns is blogging on the February 2009,  crash of Turkish Airlines

Call for details at (800) 543-2304

ABD'li bir hukuk bürosunun avukatlari, Istanbul-Amsterdam seferini gerçeklestiren uçagin inise geçtigi sirada yasanan kazadan etkilenen magdurlarin ABD'de Boeing ve diger parça üreticisi sirketler aleyhinde tazminat davasi açabileceklerini bildirdi.

Otel'de düzenlenen toplantiya ABD'li Uluslararasi Havacilik danismanlik sirketi International Aviation and Litigation Support'un sahibi Terrence Ford'un yanisira ABD'li avukatlar Gerald C. Sterns ve Martin T. Reilley ile Türk avukat Seçkin Arikan katildi.

Avukat Arikan, buradaki konusmasinda, avukatlarin havacilik kazalari ile ilgili uluslararasi düzeyde pek çok tecrübeye sahip olduklarini anlatti.

Ford sirketinin 40 yildir uçak kazasi yasayan magdurlarin ve yakinlarinin hukuki süreçlerine yardimci oldugunu ifade etti.

Avukatlarin uçak kazasi davalarinda son derece yetkin olduklarinin altini çizen Ford, avukat Sterns'in 1974'de Paris'te düsen THY'ye ait bir uçagin magdurlari tarafindan açilan bir davaya baktigini aktardi.

Ford, ''ABD'li avukatlar neden Türkiye'ye geldi?'' sorusunun akillara gelebilecegini belirterek, ABD ve Türkiye'deki mevcut yasalarin hem ABD'de hem de Türkiye'de çesitli tazminat davalarinin açilabilecegine izin verdigini dile getirdi.

Ön kaza raporlarinin Amsterdam'daki kazanin Boeing sirketinin imalattaki kusurlarinin tespit edilecegi yönünde oldugunu belirten Ford, bu sirkete ve diger parça üreticisi firmalara tazminat davasi açilabilecegini bildirdi.


Avukat Sterns ise Amsterdam'daki kazanin ardindan medya ve kamuoyunun pilot ve havayolu sirketinin kusurlarina odaklandigini, bu süreçte Boeing sirketinin de pilotlarin altimetre ve diger göstergelere dikkatli bakmalari yönünde açiklamalar yaptigini animsatti.

Sterns, daha önceki kazalarla ilgili tecrübelere bakildiginda, ''bu açiklamalarin Boeing'in bir gelenegi ve aliskanligi'' oldugunun görülecegini söyledi.

Inisin otomatik pilot tarafindan yapilmasi yönündeki elestirilerin adil olmadigini belirten Sterns, otomatik pilota girilen fit ve rakim göstergelerinin inis için
uygun oldugunu söyledi.

Boeing uçaklarinda sag ve sol altimetrelerin bulundugunu anlatan Sterns, otomatik pilota gönderilerin veri girislerinin sol altimetreden yapildigini ancak bu sistemde bir arizanin varliginin muhtemel oldugunu öne sürdü.

Sag altimetre verilerinin otomatik pilota aktarilmadigini, bu durumun uçak tasarimiyla ilgili en önemli ilkelerin ihlal edildigi anlamina geldigini dile getiren Sterns, ''Sistemler birbirini desteklemiyor. Yani sistem öyle tasarlanmali ki bir ariza oldugunda bu ariza uçagin düsmesine neden olmamalidir. Bu nedenle yedek sag altimetredeki bilgiler faydasizdir'' dedi.

Sterns, sözlerini söyle sürdürdü:

Iyi tasarlanmis bir sistem, yüzde yüz insan faktörüne güvenmemelidir. Yedekleme sisteminin felsefesi bununla iliskilidir. Hollanda'daki arastirmacilar, sol altimetrenin ariza yaptigini ortaya koydular. Sag altimetre dogru bilgileri gösteriyordu ancak bu bilgiler otomatik pilota aktarilamadi. Dolayisiyla otomatik pilota yanlis bilgiler gönderildi'' dedi.

Stern, sorun yasanmamasi için en azindan mürettebatta sorun bulundugu yönünde bir uyarinin verilmesi gerektigini belirtti.


Sterns, uçaktaki pilotlarin da sorunu kavramasinin ardindan gerekenleri en iyi sekilde yaptiklarini ifade etti.

Türk kamuoyuna, avukatlara ve magdurlara, emsal kazalarin daha önce yasandigini ve geçerli bir davanin açilabilecegini anlatmaya çalistiklarini ifade eden Sterns, ''ABD'de uçak kazasiyla ilgili bir dava açilabilir. Davayi kazanamazsak müvekkilden bir ücret talep etmiyoruz. Konuyla ilgilenenler, Türkiye'deki ilgilerle irtibata geçebilir'' açiklamasini yapti.

Sterns, Boeing firmasinin Türkiye'deki bir takim kanallari kullanarak gönderecegi bir ekiple magdurlara
para karsiligi bir anlasma imzalatabilecegi ve bu anlasmanin da bazi taleplerden ve haklardan vazgeçme anlamina gelebilecegi uyarisinda bulundu.


Avukat Reilley de kazada yalnizca Türk vatandaslarinin degil, 5 ABD'li vatandasin da yasamini yitirdigine isaret ederek, Boeing firmasinin, üretimden kaynaklanan hatalarini bu kazada da tekrarladigini, bunun sonucunda da trajedilerin yasanmaya devam ettigini söyledi.

ABD'de mahkemeye jürinin katildigini ve jüride daha önce benzer trajedileri yasayan insanlarin bulundugunu aktaran Reilley, ABD'de magdur ve ailelerine verilen tazminatlarin diger ülkelerle kiyaslandiginda çok yüksek oldugunu belirtti.


Gazetecilerin sorularini yanitlayan Sterns, bir soru üzerine kazadan fiziksel bir sorunu olmadan kurtulanlarin da psikolojik sorunlar yasadiklari gerekçesiyle dava açabileceklerini bildirdi.

Davayi ABD'de açacaklari ve dava süresinin 18-30 ay arasinda degisebilecegi üzerinde duran Sterns, bazi durumlarda kazadan 6 ay sonra mahkeme karari açiklanmadan tazminat konusunda anlasmaya varilan örnek süreçlerin yasandigini anlatti.

Sterns, baska bir soru üzerine de dava açmak için asil raporu beklemek zorunda olmadiklarini söyledi.

Tazminat miktarlariyla ilgili soruyu yanitlayan Sterns, ölümle sonuçlanan kazalarin tazminatlarinin 9 milyon dolara çikabilecegini kaydetti ve her dava için farkli rakamlarin bulunabilecegini vurguladi.

Kazada pilotlarin kusurlu oldugu yönündeki iddialara iliskin bir soru üzerine de Sterns, ''Basin onlari suçladi ancak onlar çok iyi is çikardilar. Uçak tepetaklak inebilir ve sonuç çok farkli da olabilirdi'' dedi. Sterns, mürettebatin ailelerinin de dava açmalari gerektigini dile getirdi.

Boeing'e açilan dava sonuçlarinin sorulmasi üzerine de Sterns, hukuki süreçleri hep kazandiklarini, sürecin mahkeme karari çikmadan Boeing'le yapilan anlasmayla sonuçlandigini kaydetti. Sterns, anlasmanin Boeing sirketince teklif edildigini söyledi.

Ford ise Boeing 737 uçaklarinin tüm havaciligin kilit uçaklari oldugunu, operasyonel uçaklarin yüzde 25'ini bu uçaklarin olusturdugunu ifade ederek, ''Boeing'in kesin olarak derin cepleri, yani oldukça fazla parasi var. Sterns'in Boeing davalarindaki söhreti dünyaya yayildi'' sözleriyle konusmasini tamamladi.

In Europe, please contact Seckin Arikan, of the firm of Arikan and Arikan of Ankara.

Website Builder