Foreigners Hit Jackpot in US Court: Garuda Crash Settles | Aero-News Network
Aero-News Network
RSS icon RSS feed
podcast icon MP3 podcast
Subscribe Aero-News e-mail Newsletter Subscribe

Airborne Unlimited -- Most Recent Daily Episodes

Episode Date

Airborne-Monday

Airborne-Tuesday

Airborne-Wednesday Airborne-Thursday

Airborne-Friday

Airborne On YouTube

Airborne-Unlimited-05.05.25

Airborne-NextGen-05.06.25

AirborneUnlimited-05.07.25

Airborne-Unlimited-05.01.25

AirborneUnlimited-05.02.25

Thu, Sep 25, 2003

Foreigners Hit Jackpot in US Court: Garuda Crash Settles

You may remember it, almost six years ago (September 26, 1997): Flight 152, a Garuda Indonesia Airlines A300, went through a horrible crash, cartwheeling down a mountainside in Sumatra, Indonesia. All 234 aboard, including two Americans, died.

Chicago's Nolan Law Group figured out a way to have the trial in the US, despite there having been just two Americans aboard the foreign-made plane, flown by foreigners for a foreign airline, that crashed in a foreign country. The money's just too good, from the juries and courts in the USA...

The settlement for 28 victims' families, reached Tuesday, minutes before trial, does not cover the two Americans' deaths.

Sundstrand (now part of Honeywell) is being sued jointly and severally, for everything the lawyers can think of. Sundstrand manufactured the early-1980s-design Mk II GPWS (ground proximity warning system); and plaintiffs claim that some malfunction, or the design itself, caused the crash. In fact, reports say, lawyers say the crash would have been totally avoidable, had the system worked as designed. The more-common theory of the crash (the official investigation hasn't released conclusions; but those well-researched reports are excluded from American court proceedings, as they tend to deflate lawyers' wallets) is that smoke from extensive forest fires obscured visibility, and that some ATC communications with the crew were misunderstood.

The flight left Jakarta, and was headed for Medan. the crash was about eighteen miles short of the destination airport, which had been closed on and off in the preceding days, due to that fire activity.

The confusion in the cockpit was exacerbated by confusion on the ground. 'Left' and 'right' were not clear -- directions to turn one way, were followed by confirmations of turns in the other direction. But, of course, it was all Sundstrand's fault.

FMI: www.honeywell.com

Advertisement

More News

ANN's Daily Aero-Term (05.05.25): Circle To Runway (Runway Number)

Circle To Runway (Runway Number) Used by ATC to inform the pilot that he/she must circle to land because the runway in use is other than the runway aligned with the instrument appr>[...]

ANN's Daily Aero-Linx (05.05.25)

Aero Linx: National Aviation Safety Foundation (NASF) The National Aviation Safety Foundation is a support group whose objective is to enhance aviation safety through educational p>[...]

NTSB Prelim: De Havilland DHC-1

At Altitude Of About 250-300 Ft Agl, The Airplane Experienced A Total Loss Of Engine Power On November 6, 2024, at 1600 central standard time, a De Havilland DHC-1, N420TD, was inv>[...]

Classic Aero-TV: The Boeing Dreamliner -- Historic First Flight Coverage

From 2009 (YouTube Edition): Three Hour Flight Was 'Flawless' -- At Least, Until Mother Nature Intervened For anyone who loves the aviation business, this was a VERY good day. Afte>[...]

Airborne-NextGen 05.06.25: AF Uncrewed Fighters, Drones v Planes, Joby Crew Test

Also: AMA Names Tyler Dobbs, More Falcon 9 Ops, Firefly Launch Unsuccessful, Autonomous F-16s The Air Force has begun ground testing a future uncrewed jet design in a milestone tow>[...]

blog comments powered by Disqus



Advertisement

Advertisement

Podcasts

Advertisement

© 2007 - 2025 Web Development & Design by Pauli Systems, LC