Erebus Accident Issues - Case Study Example

Erebus Accident Student’s Name Institutional Affiliation The Courtroom The courtroom environment was tense and formal. Except for the background noise of the typing machines, calm was maintained all through the court proceeding. The court environment was also well lit and there were sound systems to ensure that the words spoken were audible to the rest of the court members (Masri, 2015). When the time for asking questions reached, every individual involved took their time to answer (Erebus, 2015). There is somehow some observable body language displayed by different individuals indicating some extent of nervousness. Mr. Ron Chippindale for example, displays a series of non-verbal cues. When answering questions, he frequently clears his throat and fails to maintain eye contact with the lawyer who is cross examining him (Masri, 2015). His nervousness can also be explained by the fact that he did not stand still as the other witnesses such as Captain Barry Irvine and Charles Hewitt the flight operator for Air New Zealand, who stood still and maintained eye contact when answering questions (Erebus, 2015). The occasion is very formal. This is best explained by the manner in which the participants are talking as well as the manner of dressing. The English used is also formal except for a few jargons that are used by the lawyers. Additionally, reference is made on reports earlier presented and there is also mention of technical scientific terms used frequently in the air operations such as coordinates among others (Masri, 2015). There are different people drawn from different professional backgrounds, involved in the trial. They include the judge, the prosecution legal team, stenographers who can be heard from the back ground, defense legal team, and the witnesses. The latter included the flight operators, captains, and the investigation team. The Accident itself The video regarding the accident reveals a lot about the Erebus accident. First off, there is an indication of some investigations being done by one team that then writes a report, and also another separate team that also produces its alternative report (Erebus, 2015). The video also reveals that there were some evidence that went missing that were deemed pertinent to the case. The video also explains the basis of the report by Justice Mohan indicating that the crew was not to blame as previously opined by Ron Chippindale (Masri, 2015). The eyewitness video presents the court scene and later an interview with the prime minister seeking to reveal some of the truth behind the Erebus accident. There are two conflicting reports as can be seen in the video. First there is the report that was written and presented by chief inspector of air accidents in New Zealand, Mr. Ron Chippindale (Erebus, 2015). The report was released on 12th June in the year 1980, citing the pilot error as the probable cause of the air accident. The second report, which forms the basis of the court proceeding presented in the video is Justice Mohan’s report following the public demand that made it necessary to form the one-man Royal Commission Inquiry on the accident that claimed a lot of lives. Unlike the first report, of course Mohan’s report comes later, 27th April 1981 with an aim of exonerating the crew as the probable cause of the accident Erebus, 2015. Instead, this report takes a twist with regard to the probable cause, stating categorically that the major probable cause of the accident could have been the change of the flight plan coordinates in the ground without advising the crew members. The new flight plan saw the aircraft fly over the mountain as opposed to the flank. The flight crew could not really identify the mountain ahead of them owing to the whiteout conditions (Masri, 2015). The communication center based in McMurdo station authorized Captain Collins to ascent to 450 meters below the minimum allowed level. It is noteworthy that there were two reports owing to the fact that the first inquiry by inspector Chippindale indicated some problems which were discredited by Mohan’s inquiry into the probable cause of the accident as aforementioned (Erebus, 2015). There were some documents that went missing from the accident scene. The documents included the briefing documents, documents and briefcase at the accident scene and Captain Collins’ black book pages, which were viewed as pertinent evidence in the case (Masri, 2015). Air New Zealand’s witness attributed the destruction of the destruction to the irrelevance of the documents being that they had been damaged beyond any use and thus irrelevant to the case. The Interview with the Prime Minister of New Zealand on Airline New Zealand The prime minister believed that the airline was New Zealand’s number one and thus had a strong defense. The prime minister believed that if the airline was not supported it will end up losing track and its reputation will be damaged in the process (Erebus, 2015). Additionally, the general manager of the airline was a good friend of the prime minister as well. In case there was sufficient evidence to support the fact that the airline was responsible for the fault the reputation of the airline will be stained and thus the airline will incur losses. The prime minister also feared that the accident would also lead to financial loss and a possibility of the airline being declared defunct (Masri, 2015). It is also obvious that the airline will have to foot the budget of compensate the affected families. On the same note, the families of the pilots would demand for more compensation based on the fact that the original inquiry by Chippindale defamed the pilots as incompetents (Masri, 2015). This would also twist the case in a new direction that would call in the action of the government that had differing opinions in the case. The due course of the law will also be followed and other necessary measures will be taken (Erebus, 2015). The company will also loose public confidence in the airline. The management or rather the board of the airline will have a case to answer pertaining the evidence that was destroyed. The airline being a corporation and thus insured, will have the benefit of the insurance companies meeting the claims. There are a number of national airlines that have gone bankrupt and have thus been declared defunct. Examples of such airlines included the Cook strait airways, East Coast Airways, New Zealand Aero Transport Company, Skybus, Freedom Air, and Ansett New Zealand among others. The first four are actually inexistent Erebus, 2015. The Opinion of a lawyer Following the demise of the 257 individuals aboard the plane that belonged to Airline New Zealand, there is need to compensate families and relatives of the victims. Margaret Vennel; a lecturer in air space, indicated that the compensation will be under the Accident compensation act that covers the carriage by air act (Masri, 2015). The carriage by air Act part two will be applied in compensating the families and relatives of the victims who were New Zealanders. The carriage by air act was passed in the year 2001 after the Montreal convention in 1999 (Masri, 2015). The code that supports the compensation in the case where the families and relatives in question are from New Zealand is called code four for domestic air carriage as further shown by Vennel. The general set amount of compensation each family would receive was $42000 (Masri, 2015). However, if one was not satisfied with the amount, there was open room for the claimant to take the airline to court provided sufficient evidence that in deed there was breach of the duty of care by the airline. In this case, the claimant has to prove that there was negligence and liability on part of the airline and that they had prior notion that the accident could have occurred (Masri, 2015). In this case then, the insurer will ensure that the orders of the court are obeyed and the victim’s family compensated at a rate above the $42000 which was just a flat rate figure defined in the carriage by air act (Masri, 2015). For victims from other countries say overseas, there is a likelihood that they can lodge a higher separate claim (Masri, 2015). This is because, the victims and their families as well come from different countries which have different legal ramifications on matters pertaining to air accident compensation (Masri, 2015). Similar to the New Zealanders, these claimants will also have to show that in deed the airline had breached the duty of care and that liability and negligence can be incorporated in the claim. However, to do this, the claimants from overseas have to produce a booking receipt or documents that can corroborate the fact that the victims were on their way home or had booked the airline from overseas (Masri, 2015). The overseas claimants can then use this as a chance to bring actions to courts in their native countries (Erebus, 2015). For example, if a victim’s family is from America the family must show the documents indicating the booking, and the nationality of the deceased as well as the family light that was booked. Having done this the family is qualified to bring action to the airline (Masri, 2015). Reference Erebus. (2015). The Erebus Story. Retrieved from http://www.erebus.co.nz/ Masri, R. (2015). Erebus Disaster Eye Witness Report. Retrieved from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T95HNiZ5V1s&feature=yo Read More