Mumbai, , India
Aptitude, Strategic Development, C Language
0 टिप्पणी करें | 13 लोगो ने देखा है | 15 जून 16  | Dr S M Satheesan
In an effort to enhance aircraft flight safety in the air as well as on the ground, significant endeavors are made and considerable funds are invested from the side of airport operators, aircraft operators, aircraft manufacturers and others in order to prevent bird strikes. We are aware absolute protection of aircraft against bird strikes as well as absolute bird presence prevention on airports and their neighbourhood are next to impossibility. Because of these circumstances, all parties involved in aircraft flight safety should take over the obligation of constant application of all necessary preventive measures 24 x 7 to avoid bird strikes the most efficient way, or at least to reduce them maximally. The development of awareness of air traffic exposure to bird strike hazard is indispensable. The reason we emphasize all mentioned above is prevention of greater damages (direct or indirect), loss of lives and serious injuries, as with regard to airports so with regard to air carriers and their insurers. Taking into consideration seriousness, danger and consequences of bird strike, all air traffic participants should follow the warning by the famous London solicitor, Tim Scorer, who says: “Prevention is better than legal liability”.

rd compensation for economic losses, but laws vary on whether you will be able to seek punitive damages and non-economic damages. Lawyers who are familiar with the laws in your state can explain what damages you might recover.

Passengers delayed by bird strikes can claim compensation, judge rules (Oliver Smith, UK, 29 April 2015)

In what could amount to a fresh blow to airlines over flight delay compensation, a judge at Manchester County Court has found in favour of Timothy Ash, a Thomas Cook passenger whose flight from Antalya to Manchester was delayed by more than five hours.

Thomas Cook had refused to award compensation under EU Regulation 261/2004, arguing that the cause of the delay – a bird strike – was an “extraordinary” circumstance for which it was not liable. However, district judge Iyer ordered the company to pay Mr Ash and four other passengers around £310 each.

“Bird strikes happen every day, in fact many times a day, and would hardly be worthy of comment but for the delay which they cause. They do not fall within the same category as a motorway collision between a car and my previous example of a horse, which would be extraordinary, for the simple reason that our skies are populated with birds, whereas our roads are not populated with horses.” A Liverpool County Court judge has ruled that budget plan Airline company can no longer delay payment of compensation for delayed air travel (June 25, 2015).

According to EC261/2004, passengers are entitled to between £90 and £430 in compensation, depending on the length of their wait, if their flight is delayed by three hours or more. Flight delay Policy (EC) No 261/2004 develops typical guidelines on payment and help to travelers in the event of denied boarding, air travel cancellations, or long flight delays. Policies specify that travelers flying with an EU-based provider or from an EU airport who reach their location more than three hours late can declare as much as EUR600 (£ 448) plus expenditures, per individual if the delay is within the airline company’s control.

However, airlines can avoid paying compensation if the problems are caused by “extraordinary circumstances”. According to the Civil Aviation Authority, “extraordinary circumstances” include acts of terrorism, hijacking, unruly passengers, extreme weather conditions, crew illness, industrial action and – currently – bird strikes.

Birds costs airport a Bomb

A bird strike had proved costly for Malta International Airport, which was yesterday ordered to pay €250,000 in damages to Air Malta and an insurance company.

The national carrier submitted in court that on December 2, 2004 flight KM100 was leaving for London when a sizeable flock of starlings flew into the plane’s flight path. The flight had to be aborted for safety reasons and the plane returned to base.

Air Malta said the plane sustained damages amounting to €250,526 and it blamed MIA for not having an adequate bird strike reduction system in place.

Shield Insurance Co. (Guernsey), as Air Malta’s insurer, paid the carrier €121,036 in damages and Air Malta covered the rest.

Mr Justice Raymond Pace said both the airline and the insurance company were basing their claim on the fact that MIA had failed to observe the Convention on International Civil Aviation and had not installed adequate bird control measures.

MIA argued that the convention offered guidelines and recommendations but did not impose legal obligations.

The court ruled that when MIA was entrusted with running the airport, it had been bound by the government to maintain and provide, at all times, facilities and operations in compliance with International Civil Aviation Organisation regulations.

As a result, MIA had a legal obligation to implement the recommendations and guidelines issued, including that of providing adequate bird strike protection systems. MIA was, therefore, responsible for the accident.

The court ordered it to pay Air Malta €129,489.94 in damages and to reimburse Shield the sum of €121,037.34, which it had paid to Air Malta in damages.

To reduce Liability Airport Operator should do the following:

Adopt a Wildlife Strike Hazard or BASH Management plan and instructions related to prevention of bird and wildlife presence at airport, and stipulate relevant measures and activities,
Follow SOPs for the Best Practices followed globally and have all necessary modern equipment for bird/animal detection and repulsion,
Establish a relevant service in charge of implementation of such measures and activities,
Keep evidence of all the measures and activities on prevention of movement and stay of wildlife at the airport, Without documentation no work is complete
Prepare procedures for emergency situations that affect safety of aircraft and are caused by presence of birds or mammals in a flying zone of the airport or movement zone, that should include the following: assessment of wildlife threat, adopted procedure for protection against birds and wildlife at airport, and
Appoint persons in charge of wildlife control who are experts and give the phone numbers on which they are available after working hours.
Get airports audited frequently (every 2-3 years) by experts and implement their recommendations and get air side employees trained by experts on BASH Management

    • इस ब्लॉग के लिए सामाजिक शेयर

पोर्फोलिओ और ब्लॉग
Dr S M Satheesan विभिन्न कंपनियों का अनुसरण करता है, ये कंपनियां और नियोक्ता Dr के फिर से शुरू देख सकते हैं
सबसे अच्छा नौकरी के अवसर पाने के लिए अपना फिर से शुरू करें अपलोड करें

मुफ्त रजिस्टर करें!