Article from today's Seattle Times regarding a shore excursion plane crash in 2001

[jfishe]

http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2002193110_huskyfans01m.html

[jhannah]

How sad indeed! It seems there is no excuse for HAL in this tragedy. They obviously were putting profits over safety.

[sail7seas]

Sadly, I well remember that horrible event.

What a terrible tragedy.

Thank you for the link to the article.

[xpcdoojk]

It is always interesting to me how a small plane crashes and it becomes the worlds worst nightmare, but when people die on a scooter or a bus or a car, it is so common place that rarely does it stay in the mind of the public. I have flown from Cozumel to Playa to Chitzen Itza on one of those small planes. Ours was a twin engine Russian built plane that had seats like a school bus. It probably seated 20+ people. The windows opened like a school bus. The runways at both Playa and Chitzen Itza were tiny with short trees just a tiny distance from the wings of the plane. It was a wonderful trip to the ruins, and I would do it again in a heartbeat. While I am sure that the safety standards were not up to what you would find flying out of an American airport, the planes were pretty much bullet proof, and when you do adventure travel, which is what getting on a Russian built prop plane in Playa is by definition, you really are taking risks greater than standard. This is not to excuse the operators or the cruiseline, but really you have to be stupid to not realize the risks. No one was held at gunpoint to get on the plane. I guess I have travelled and done too much adventure travel and I just don't worry about it anymore. Life is short not doing things is not an option for me. I know I will not get out of it alive.

jc

[tomc]

Risk is one thing; known, avoidable danger is another. If the newspaper article is correct, it appears that the situation was substandard and a disaster waiting to happen. I would not like to know that I'm on a shorex where hq is operating on the theory that "nothing has gone wrong yet."

[jfishe]

I think that's what bothered me most... it seems like everyone, but the passengers, knew it was a problem, and nothing was done to correct it. sad....

[xpcdoojk]

Again, those who don't do their own research and rely on others to protect them, are fool hardy in my opinion. I went in 2001 on a helicopter tour with Jack Harter Helicopters on Kauai Hawaii. It was the highlight of a wonderful 3 week cruise vacation. In 2002, one crashed killing 5 people. Things happen even with a tour operator that had been in business for over 30 years, and had never had an accident. Anyone foolish enough to get on a airplane in Mexico with a name on it they have never seen in their life who doesn't realize it would be safer to walk on the beach is pretty foolish, IMHO. This doesn't mean it is not a tragedy, but honestly, the world has dangers. I get tired of the building up of danger in the publics minds when planes even in Mexico are statistically very safe. Nothing is ever completely safe, and I am sure the Mexican pilots families mourn their loss of life too. The cruiselines intentionally do not own and operate these excursions that should tell all of us something about the inherent dangers and risks. How many tourists have died all over the world including advanced countries in ferry disasters. In Venice one night last September we got on a vaporetto at St Marks that was already full to capacity in my opinion they loaded it way beyond what was comfortable. The ship listed and hung scarily as it swayed back and forth. I was trying to imagine the disaster that would occur if it turtled. I even tried to figure out how I was going to survive and save my DW. Until that moment I never thought for even a split second of any danger getting on a vaporetto.

jc

[dakrewser]

We took that tour in 1998, flying on a LET 410 with Aero Ferinco. THe scariest part of the entire excursion was the taxi ride from the pier to the airport.

There was, indeed, an "Idiana Jones" feel to the take off in Chichen Itza - wondering if we'd get up enough to clear the trees - but we never felt our safety was being compromised.

I very much remember the crash the story is about which received very little press coverage at the time (overshadowed, as it was, by the events of 9/11/01) and how sad we felt remembering the infectious enthusiasm of our tour guide (He claimed Olmec descent, and blamed all of the country's problems on the coming of the invaders - the Aztecs!) and the plane's pilot and co-pilot (when someone complained that the plane was warm - they opened their windows!).

It's doubly sad when people on a vacation are taken from us - it's happened with buses falling off mountains, trams overturning on farm/plantation tours, helicopter crashes and small plane disasters. This wasn't an isolated incident nor was it the last such incident, unfortunately.

[cru1s1ng]

:mad: Someone should go to jail over this. I see no difference between murder and telling people something is safe when they know it not to be.

[xpcdoojk]

:mad: Someone should go to jail over this. I see no difference between murder and telling people something is safe when they know it not to be.

Gee murder, that would strike me as a way over the top reaction, but to each their own. :rolleyes:

jc

[kryos]

This is not to excuse the operators or the cruiseline, but really you have to be stupid to not realize the risks. No one was held at gunpoint to get on the plane. I guess I have travelled and done too much adventure travel and I just don't worry about it anymore. Life is short not doing things is not an option for me. I know I will not get out of it alive.

Thank you for saying that, and I agree 100% with your sentiments.

I've done some crazy things myself and each and every time I realize that I am taking a risk. Like you say, no one holds a gun to their head and forces them on that airplane, and no one held a gun to my end and forced me to bungee jump off that bridge in Costa Rica or out of that airplane at one of the many drop zones around the country that I've frequented.

Small planes always have a higher risk factor. You cannot hold the operators to the same standards of safety to which you can hold a commercial carrier. Sure, you want an operator with a clean safety record, but you're not gonna get 100% no matter where you go.

I can't tell you some of the pieces of you know what I've willingly crawled into just in order to make a jump. Drop zones are not always known for having the sleekest and most modern aircraft. While they do have to keep them maintained, they generally get older aircraft that are put out of service for commuter operations.

One memory that I still laugh about today is when I was at this small drop zone about 50 miles from my house. I used to go up there with a friend on Saturday morning and my folks picked me up on Sunday nights. The winds had been high all day and I was grounded (low experience). Finally, late in the afternoon on Sunday, I finally got the clearance to make a jump. I'm standing at the boarding area in all my gear when I notice there is a little "problem" with the small four-passenger Cessna that we were using for our ride. Seems they couldn't get it started. Of course, this is just the time the folks choose to pull into the parking lot. They come looking for me and someone tells them "oh, she's getting ready to go up for a jump." So, they settle in to wait.

Dad notices there is a problem. They've now brought a pick-up truck out onto the field. They're gonna "hot shot" the airplane to get it started. Dad figures "Oh, well ... no jump for her. She wouldn't be stupid enough to get into an airplane that they are having a hard time getting off of the ground."

Guess what? They finally get the propellers spinning and dad sees me crawling into the airplane. Now, mom and dad are in their 80s at this point and neither would set foot on a commercial airliner. Dad damned near had a stroke, he was so pissed.

On the way home, he can't stop yelling. "How stupid can you be? They're having a hard time getting the plane off the ground, and you're stupid enough to climb aboard!?!?!?" Finally, I came up with the perfect answer that had to shut even him up. "Well, dad ... what's the problem? I'm wearing a parachute, aren't I?" Ummmmm, he had no answer to that one. Of course, what I didn't tell him was that my parachute would have been worthless if the plane had nosedived toward the ground below about a thousand feet. :(

But, hey ... I knew the risks and I decided to take them. These folks on this excursion plane had to know the risks too. They voluntarily took them and sadly, things didn't work out. Hopefully, they're at peace, at least.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[louiskam]

Many thanks for this on disclosing the HAL's shore excursion/business practice to us.

[dakrewser]

But, hey ... I knew the risks and I decided to take them. These folks on this excursion plane had to know the risks too. They voluntarily took them and sadly, things didn't work out. Hopefully, they're at peace, at least.


The folks on the plane should have known the risks, but most likely didn't even think about them. Based on listening to my fellow pax over the years, they mostly think that flying Aero Ferinco from Cozumel to Chichen Itza isn't much different than Flying American Eagle from San Diego to Las Vegas. They also expect hat their ship will dock in "downtown Italy," and that walking from the port to the shopping area in Jamaica is like walking from the parking lot to the mall in Jamaica Plain.

There's the man who was standing on the dock, next to the ship, in Ketchikan who asked "I wonder how far abovce sea level we are here?" or the lady in Gibraltar who asked "where's the ferry to Spain?"

People, especially Americans, tend to refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions and those actions' consquences. It's so much easier to simply ignore everything - then sue when something goes wrong.

[Kami's pal]

When I'm on a cruise, I generally relax and assume that the cruise line has done the safety checking for me. Now, I'll know differently.

I am thoroughly PO'd at this immoral greediness.

[xpcdoojk]

The folks on the plane should have known the risks, but most likely didn't even think about them. Based on listening to my fellow pax over the years, they mostly think that flying Aero Ferinco from Cozumel to Chichen Itza isn't much different than Flying American Eagle from San Diego to Las Vegas. They also expect hat their ship will dock in "downtown Italy," and that walking from the port to the shopping area in Jamaica is like walking from the parking lot to the mall in Jamaica Plain.

There's the man who was standing on the dock, next to the ship, in Ketchikan who asked "I wonder how far abovce sea level we are here?" or the lady in Gibraltar who asked "where's the ferry to Spain?"

People, especially Americans, tend to refuse to take personal responsibility for their actions and those actions' consquences. It's so much easier to simply ignore everything - then sue when something goes wrong.

Amen brother! Unfortunately our views seem to be in the minority here.:D

jc

[xpcdoojk]

When I'm on a cruise, I generally relax and assume that the cruise line has done the safety checking for me. Now, I'll know differently.

I am thoroughly PO'd at this immoral greediness.

Now there is no cruiseline offering of flights to these amazing ruins. The world is a better place for sure. :mad: :eek:

People are still finding ways to die. Someone please sue someone now to stop people from having to die. :rolleyes:

I am still struggling with immoral greediness.... :rolleyes:

[cru1s1ng]

HAL must have realized they were culpable or they would've never settled. They were/are suffering for the same lack of basic ethics as a lot of corporate america today. Its a pity.

As for risks, there are RISKS and risks. I would expect that on any excursion offered by a cruise ship there should be a high percentage of making it back alive. No one can see into the future but it sounds like they knew about problems yet put the almighty dollar above safety. Shame on them.

[Globaliser]

I would expect that on any excursion offered by a cruise ship there should be a high percentage of making it back alive.I think there was a high percentage chance of making it back alive to the ship. There was only one crash - out of how many times the excursion had run?

It was unlucky for those in the crash that the percentages happened to come out wrong for them, that day. It might happen to me too, tonight, just walking home.Amen brother! Unfortunately our views seem to be in the minority here.:D Count me in with you!

[tomc]

kyros -- These folks on this excursion plane had to know the risks too. They voluntarily took them. They would not have known the real risks or they would never have boarded the plane. I knew there were risks when I took a single-engine plane over the Juneau icefield, or flew back over the mountains from Skagway in one, but I had reasonable assumption the companies were responsible, since Alaska is such a high-volume area. We could have gone down; that was possible. But at least we weren't flying in something held together with bailing wire.

[cru1s1ng]

To those HAL boosters: Do you honestly think if the victims would've had the same information as HAL about the tour, they would've gotten on the plane?

[Globaliser]

To those HAL boosters: Do you honestly think if the victims would've had the same information as HAL about the tour, they would've gotten on the plane?So what information did HAL have about the tour? What do you know that we don't? Or are you getting all your information from that newspaper article? And if so, when was the last time that an article like this told "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

[cru1s1ng]

So what information did HAL have about the tour? What do you know that we don't? Or are you getting all your information from that newspaper article? And if so, when was the last time that an article like this told "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"?

Read the article in the link.

[Kami's pal]

using an oxymoron! I'll try again.

unbelievable greediness.

And I've seen these ruins. No flight doesn't mean you can't go there. I went by bus tour from a RCCL cruise, and walked all over the site. They are amazing.

The people who died in that flight didn't go out looking for a way to die. Nor do I think they were looking for a thrill ride, or a prelude to a parachute jump. Apparently, several of them did ask pointed questions about the safety of the plane. Their mistake was believing, as I did, before I read this, that the cruise line would not sell a tour that was unsafe.

Now there is no cruiseline offering of flights to these amazing ruins. The world is a better place for sure. :mad: :eek:

People are still finding ways to die. Someone please sue someone now to stop people from having to die. :rolleyes:

I am still struggling with immoral greediness.... :rolleyes:

[RevNeal]

I took this excursion to Chichen Itza in October 2000. The tour of the ruins was wonderful, but the flight was harrowing. I'd been on Eastern-block aircraft before, so I was used to the rickety nature of this kind aircraft, but many of those on the tour were VERY nervous by the aircraft Turismo Aviomar put us on and two refused to take the flight.

As a point of interest, I noticed in the report that the aircraft we went on in October 2000 was the very same one that went down less than a year later.

When I read about the flight going down to Christopher, he turned as white as a sheet.

[kryos]

When I'm on a cruise, I generally relax and assume that the cruise line has done the safety checking for me. Now, I'll know differently.

Oh, man ... my friend, NEVER trust your life to someone else's "checking." No one will protect your life better than you yourself can ... simply because no one could possibly love it more.

Especially when one is outside of the U.S., it can't be assumed that everything will be as "safe" as it would be on American soil. These other countries have their own ideas about safety, and many of them are not subject to the stringent laws that we have here.

It could be that HAL didn't check this operator out as closely as they should have, and because of that they probably felt it best to settle and avoid the possibility of the courts giving an even greater settlement to the victims' families. And, thanks to law suits like this ... lawsuits coming from people who, if they did not know of the risks, should have ... we have less and less choices for adventuresome excursions that make a visit to some ports so much more enriching.

There are people who like to be active, and who like to be "on the edge," so to speak. For those people, there will always be risks. I'm one of those people, and I make sure that I go into those risks with open eyes ... asking questions and making sure that I can deal with the answers. Sadly, if any of these people truly did not realize they were taking a chance ... if they did not have the judgment to make a sound decision as to whether the aircraft appeared safe or not before they climbed aboard ... then that only goes to show how some folks are willing to turn over to others the responsibility for keeping them safe.

Sure HAL should have known what type of operator they were dealing with. But things slip between the cracks. Maybe HAL was supposed to send someone on this excursion ... to evaluate it and report back. Maybe due to schedule snafu's this just did not happen. Things slip between the cracks all the time ... sometimes very important things. That's why I ask my own questions, use my own judgment, and trust my own eyes to tell me when something doesn't look "right." Then I follow that judgment and walk away if necessary. Believe me, I've done it. I'm not totally nuts. These people perhaps should have too.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[xpcdoojk]

To those HAL boosters: Do you honestly think if the victims would've had the same information as HAL about the tour, they would've gotten on the plane?

I am waiting to be called a HAL koolaid drinker any minute now!:rolleyes:

I took this trip on my own. I booked it in Cozumel and flew willingly to Chitzen Itza. It was a fun fantastic experience. I did not book this thru HAL, I have yet to sail with HAL. I knew when I saw the plane that I was not getting on a regular commuter flight. :D

TomC, I didn't see any bailing wire. ;)

When you go zip lining, hang gliding, or any high adventure activity you are risking everything. You really have a choice in life, to live it freely or in a cocoon. The cocoon isn't necessarily safer, but it sure is a lot more boring. :D

jc

[cru1s1ng]

I am waiting to be called a HAL koolaid drinker any minute now!:rolleyes:

I took this trip on my own. I booked it in Cozumel and flew willingly to Chitzen Itza. It was a fun fantastic experience. I did not book this thru HAL, I have yet to sail with HAL. I knew when I saw the plane that I was not getting on a regular commuter flight. :D

TomC, I didn't see any bailing wire. ;)

When you go zip lining, hang gliding, or any high adventure activity you are risking everything. You really have a choice in life, to live it freely or in a cocoon. The cocoon isn't necessarily safer, but it sure is a lot more boring. :D

jc

I'll not use the 'k' word. (but I bet someone will).

To the OP who said 'maybe HAL didn't know': read the article. They admitted they knew. Read it, its shameful.

[kryos]

To those HAL boosters: Do you honestly think if the victims would've had the same information as HAL about the tour, they would've gotten on the plane?
Sadly, they had MORE information than HAL in this case ... and that's the problem. HAL should have sent someone on this excursion to report back. But, HAL's slip-up, in my opinion, still does not make the cruiseline culpable. These folks stood on the tarmac ... they saw the airplane ... they saw the crew ... they had the opportunity to ask questions and then judge for themselves whether the answers met with their satisfaction.

They chose to climb aboard and therefore accepted the ultimate responsibility for their lives and safety. How many times has this operator run uneventful flights? How many friends of these passengers perhaps returned from these tours raving about them?

There was an accident in this case and sadly people lost their lives. Was the plane poorly maintained? Well, that depends on what your judgment of good maintenance is. In these countries, it may very well have been the standard level.

My heart goes out to these people and to their family. But I stand by my original assertion. You pays your money and you take your chances. Sadly, in this case, things just didn't work out. :(

Blue skies ...

--rita

[cru1s1ng]

Another one who didn't read the article....Are you HAL employees? Their PR firm?

[Globaliser]

Read the article in the link.Precisely. All you got was a selection of quotations from documents, carefully chosen by the paper to show HAL in the worst possible light and set in the context of misleading remarks which are often unrelated to the quotations to which they are linked, although designed to give the impression that they are. These journalistic techniques are common - they are good for generating shock! horror! stories that sell papers - but they have to be seen for what they are.

You have to remember that there are two sides to every story, and that HAL's side has not been heard at all. We do not know what the true position was.

HAL may have settled the case, but you have no idea for how much, and whether the amount was a small one that recognised that HAL would probably win, or a large one that recognised that HAL would probably lose. But one thing is sure: the families are continuing to sue others, so clearly they don't think that they have yet got enough money.

So when I ask you if you had any other sources of information, and you merely direct me back to the original article, I assume that you have swallowed this journo's spin - hook, line and sinker.

[kryos]

When you go zip lining, hang gliding, or any high adventure activity you are risking everything. You really have a choice in life, to live it freely or in a cocoon. The cocoon isn't necessarily safer, but it sure is a lot more boring.
Amen!

When my dad tells me that if God wanted man to fly, He would have given him wings, I respond that if God wanted man to stay put on earth, He would have given him ROOTS! :)

Blue skies ...

--rita

[Pete Jackson]

Of course, when you are deciding whether to go on an excursion arranged by the cruise line, versus making your own arrangements, the cruise line definitely maintains that you will be safer when trvelling with one of their arranged tours because they have checked them out so carefully etc...

Given this, when an accident happens on a cruise-line arranged excursion, the cruise line should really accept liability, and they can pay it out of the profits they have made on shore excursions! That would encourage them to better vet the tour operators.

Although HAL was involved in making the arrangements for this particular disaster, all cruise lines play the same game here.

[xpcdoojk]

Another one who didn't read the article....Are you HAL employees? Their PR firm?

These kind of remarks, make me dismiss everything you say as bunk. FYI.:p

jc

[Globaliser]

Another one who didn't read the article....Are you HAL employees? Their PR firm?One might just as well ask whether you've got a single critical neuron in your head when reading that article, which you seem to regard as holy gospel on this subject.

[Searanger]

I remember this well. I was on the Maasdam 2 weeks prior and had booked this excursion with my wife, however it was cancelled. If I remember correctly, the reason was for lack of participation. I guess they wouldn't disclose mechanical problems.

Unfortunately, it received very little press as 9-11 took over the news. After the crash, I was very thankful for the cancellation.

[xpcdoojk]

One might just as well ask whether you've got a single critical neuron in your head when reading that article, which you seem to regard as holy gospel on this subject.

You mean to say that everything in the paper isn't the absolute truth? C'mon say it ain't so Joe. :D ;)

It does make a good lining for a bird's cage though. :D

jc

[dakrewser]

Another one who didn't read the article....Are you HAL employees? Their PR firm?

My remarks were not a defense of HAL, per se, - as you insist - but an indictment of those who refuse to take personal responsibility for themselves. No one can guarantee you that 100% of the time you will be 100% safe. Thousands of HAL passengers had taken that tour without death or injury, it certainly appeared safe when I was on that plane.

But let's deconstruct the article to see what the journalist has done:

"Some of the cruise giant's own employees had urged cancellation of the trouble-plagued excursion to the ancient Mayan ruins years before the ill-fated Sept. 12 flight."
- 6 years before, in fact, one person (a former employee - why did he leave?) is quoted as saying that "You weren't sure whether it was going to go off as planned, and so you were holding your breath until the port-of-call day," Berge said during his deposition. "It seemed like it was constantly something that we were having to baby-sit." Nothing about safety at all!

"Passengers on earlier flights had written letters to Holland America complaining of 'white-knuckled' and terrifying experiences aboard the planes used by the charter company"
- On a seaplane flight from Victoria, BC to Seattle (booked by NCL, i might add) many pax were "white-knuckled" due to the headwinds we encountered. Should NCL abandon that service (an FAA-regulated, scheduled airline)?

"The tour was canceled in 1995 when an internal audit by the company's risk managers singled out the Chichén Itzá tour as being particularly risky because the LET 410s were manufactured in an Eastern-bloc country "
- that one is definitely hard to swallow - why would a plane built in an "eastern block country" be any less safe than one built in, say, France?

There's much more, but why belabor the obvious. This was written by someone who was being manipulated by the plaintiffs lawyer. It's a very biased, slanted report.

Yes, it was a tragedy. I might even be ready to accept that Aero Ferinco has some culpability (although it would take a more objective report than this to convince me). But neither the cruise line who facilitated booking the tour nor the travel agent who facilitated booking the cruise.

[cru1s1ng]

You have to remember that there are two sides to every story, and that HAL's side has not been heard at all. We do not know what the true position was.

So when I ask you if you had any other sources of information, and you merely direct me back to the original article, I assume that you have swallowed this journo's spin - hook, line and sinker.

Yes, I agree. There are two sides to every story and we have not and will not hear HAL's side. They choose not to tell their side by settling. The appropriate place to tell their side was in a court of law, HAL refused.

As for believeing everything I read, I weigh the sources. Major publications, maybe 80%. CC boards 50 - 50. (no offense)

[xpcdoojk]

Yes, I agree. There are two sides to every story and we have not and will not hear HAL's side. They choose not to tell their side by settling. The appropriate place to tell their side was in a court of law, HAL refused.

As for believeing everything I read, I weigh the sources. Major publications, maybe 80%. CC boards 50 - 50. (no offense)

Major publications 5% CC 25% would be more accurate! Both have lots of facts unfortunately they are buried in so much spin that the truth is obliterated. :D

jc

[xpcdoojk]

My remarks were not a defense of HAL, per se, - as you insist - but an indictment of those who refuse to take personal responsibility for themselves. No one can guarantee you that 100% of the time you will be 100% safe. Thousands of HAL passengers had taken that tour without death or injury, it certainly appeared safe when I was on that plane.

But let's deconstruct the article to see what the journalist has done:

"Some of the cruise giant's own employees had urged cancellation of the trouble-plagued excursion to the ancient Mayan ruins years before the ill-fated Sept. 12 flight."
- 6 years before, in fact, one person (a former employee - why did he leave?) is quoted as saying that "You weren't sure whether it was going to go off as planned, and so you were holding your breath until the port-of-call day," Berge said during his deposition. "It seemed like it was constantly something that we were having to baby-sit." Nothing about safety at all!

"Passengers on earlier flights had written letters to Holland America complaining of 'white-knuckled' and terrifying experiences aboard the planes used by the charter company"
- On a seaplane flight from Victoria, BC to Seattle (booked by NCL, i might add) many pax were "white-knuckled" due to the headwinds we encountered. Should NCL abandon that service (an FAA-regulated, scheduled airline)?

"The tour was canceled in 1995 when an internal audit by the company's risk managers singled out the Chichén Itzá tour as being particularly risky because the LET 410s were manufactured in an Eastern-bloc country "
- that one is definitely hard to swallow - why would a plane built in an "eastern block country" be any less safe than one built in, say, France?

There's much more, but why belabor the obvious. This was written by someone who was being manipulated by the plaintiffs lawyer. It's a very biased, slanted report.

Yes, it was a tragedy. I might even be ready to accept that Aero Ferinco has some culpability (although it would take a more objective report than this to convince me). But neither the cruise line who facilitated booking the tour nor the travel agent who facilitated booking the cruise.

Dave, you are good, fyi! :cool:

jc

[cru1s1ng]

Hi Dave. I know you're not a k, oops, booster. You're post have a "call 'em as I see 'em" flavor.

These parts are the most damning:

"The documents, including internal memos provided by Holland America, support the plaintiffs' contention that Holland America was aware of the tour's troubled history and had received numerous complaints about the safety of previous flights. "


"The tour was canceled in 1995 when an internal audit by the company's risk managers singled out the Chichén Itzá tour as being particularly risky because the LET 410s were manufactured in an Eastern-bloc country and because the tour company had almost no insurance. Holland America's policies at the time required that a tour operator or airline carry a policy of at least $40 million."

Let's face it some people don't have the common sense god gave a rock. If they would've read HAL's internal memos, they still would've gotten on the plane.

[Globaliser]

Yes, I agree. There are two sides to every story and we have not and will not hear HAL's side. They choose not to tell their side by settling. The appropriate place to tell their side was in a court of law, HAL refused.How do you know that HAL refused? Maybe the plaintiffs made them an offer they couldn't refuse? It happens, you know.

And whatever the reason for the settlement, if you believe that this selection of quotations of particular documents from the court file necessarily gives a balanced and representative view of what HAL did and didn't know, then (as I said): hook, line and sinker.

Just to give you one more example:-In 1996, the tour was again canceled when the door of an Aero Ferinco LET 410 flew off in mid-flight with Holland America passengers aboard. There were no injuries.

Shortly afterward the tour was again resumed — without apparent explanation ...The phrase "without apparent explanation" is intended by the journalist to insinuate that there was no good explanation or that the true explanation was covered up. But the truth is simply that it's a deliberately-damaging turn of phrase that means no more than "I wasn't able to see anything from the documents with which I was provided".

[cru1s1ng]

How do you know that HAL refused? Maybe the plaintiffs made them an offer they couldn't refuse? It happens, you know.



From the way you are arguing this, I doubt you'd pay out untold monies if you knew you were right.

[dakrewser]

From the way you are arguing this, I doubt you'd pay out untold monies if you knew you were right.

Sometimes (often?) it's cheaper to simply settle. Sadly, many juries are pre-disposed to believe that "big corporations" should always pay out billions to people who are in some wat aggrieved.

[cru1s1ng]

Sometimes (often?) it's cheaper to simply settle. Sadly, many juries are pre-disposed to believe that "big corporations" should always pay out billions to people who are in some wat aggrieved.

True. And sometimes they settle beause they know its cheaper, and there will be less publicity. We'll never know because the terms of the settlement are sealed.

Remember the ford 'exploding' pinto case? I'm not saying it applies to HAL, but ford calulated the cost of fixing the problem vs. the cost of settlements. They went for the settlements.

[jfishe]

To the OP who said 'maybe HAL didn't know': read the article. They admitted they knew. Read it, its shameful.


I am the OP and I NEVER said 'maybe HAL didn't know'. And I did read the article, and watch the news. Please don't say that I said things I never did. That's shameful

[cru1s1ng]

I am the OP and I NEVER said 'maybe HAL didn't know'. And I did read the article, and watch the news. Please don't say that I said things I never did. That's shameful

jfishe, I went back to my post you are quoting and indeed YOU ARE NOT MENTIONED IN IT. Your post, which did not have the maybes, was not the one I was referring to. Touchy touchy. :p

[jfishe]

Then I apologize... you said "OP" that's 'original poster'... and that would be me. Therefore, I thought you had directed your quote to me. And yep, I do get touchy touchy when people quote me incorrectly :) Lord knows I can mess up my own words without help !

[cru1s1ng]

Then I apologize... you said "OP" that's 'original poster'... and that would be me. Therefore, I thought you had directed your quote to me. And yep, I do get touchy touchy when people quote me incorrectly :) Lord knows I can mess up my own words without help !

Accepted. It was partially my fault for using OP incorrectly, meaning 'other poster'. First I thought it was 'old person'. LOL

[tbroido]

This strikes me as a case of vicarious liability. Nobody in this world can claimn to be a bigger proponent of tort reform than I, but in this case I am afraid I agree that HAL had some liability. You see, even though they say you have no recourse against them by signing the release, the court (jury) would be correct to assume that HAL disclosed everything they knew about the risks to the customer. Clearly, based on internal memos, HAL knew certain risks and acknowledged same among themselves.

By the way, even if you sign a release saying you will not sue, you usually can because undisclosed things change the game. Also, one can usually show that the release was signed under duress: "I was forced to sign or the doctor wouldn't operate."

Also, HAL was a profit participant in the income derived from the transaction.

I guess my view would be that HAL should have paid something. I think that the system, unfortunately, holds the people and entities responsible by their bank balance rather than by their percentage of liability. HAL had the deepest pockets so they went after HAL. Sure, they probably knew the airline was under-insured and that has to count for something, but $3,000,000 (estimate). Seems high based on the situation.

xpcdoojk: Boy, only 5% of what is in the mainstream news? That means 95% of what is in the news is lies. Even if you exclude the sports scores and stock quotes which are known facts, 95% lies is a gross exagerration, don't you think? You don't belong to a right-wing extremist anti-establishment group do you?

[Globaliser]

From the way you are arguing this, I doubt you'd pay out untold monies if you knew you were right.On the contrary. I happen to be a lawyer, and my clients do pay up money - sometimes big money - even if they believe they're right. (Anyway, nobody ever knows that they're right, or whether the court will find that they're right.) There are many reasons for settling a case rather than fighting it. Having your day in court, just to prove to the world that you're right, is usually one of the worst possible reasons for taking a case all the way to trial.

And I do also see the rubbish that journalists write about my cases, from the tiny fragments that they've been able to unearth of the big picture. So I also know just how misleading press articles like this one can be - as they're intended to be.

[tomc]

jc -- TomC, I didn't see any bailing wire. That's exactly the problem: they removed it before the flight. :eek:

[RedmondCruiser]

The problem with shore tours is that you don't know what you have until you get on the tour. Iv'e taken the tour mentioned and it was one of the most memorable excursions we have ever taken. That aside - the plane was not in good condition ( this was 1994 ) but you assume that it is in good mechanical condition. -- we all do rationalizations. -- We had no problems but the cab ride from the airstip to the ruins was a trip to remember. If you ever wonder what happened to your 1965 Dodge -- it is a taxi cab in the Yucatan with 500,000 miles on it. -- Ours had afgans for seat covers and a refrigerator handle for a door handle. --- stop signs meant nothing and 70 MPH to 80 was the norm. --- Yes it was white knuckle time. --- the plane ride was smooth - in fact the landing in Cozumel was one of the smoothest Iv'e ever been on.

I've been on tours (Guatamala ) comes to mind where there were a visable shortage of life preservers on a tour boat -- Where profit and safety converge we will never know for certain. I only hope that HAL learns from expiriences such as this and strives to protect it's valued customers. They have a much better picture of what is safe and what is not --- we don't.

[cru1s1ng]

Interesting followup story:


http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/214193_crashcase02.html

[xpcdoojk]

This strikes me as a case of vicarious liability. Nobody in this world can claimn to be a bigger proponent of tort reform than I, but in this case I am afraid I agree that HAL had some liability. You see, even though they say you have no recourse against them by signing the release, the court (jury) would be correct to assume that HAL disclosed everything they knew about the risks to the customer. Clearly, based on internal memos, HAL knew certain risks and acknowledged same among themselves.

By the way, even if you sign a release saying you will not sue, you usually can because undisclosed things change the game. Also, one can usually show that the release was signed under duress: "I was forced to sign or the doctor wouldn't operate."

Also, HAL was a profit participant in the income derived from the transaction.

I guess my view would be that HAL should have paid something. I think that the system, unfortunately, holds the people and entities responsible by their bank balance rather than by their percentage of liability. HAL had the deepest pockets so they went after HAL. Sure, they probably knew the airline was under-insured and that has to count for something, but $3,000,000 (estimate). Seems high based on the situation.

xpcdoojk: Boy, only 5% of what is in the mainstream news? That means 95% of what is in the news is lies. Even if you exclude the sports scores and stock quotes which are known facts, 95% lies is a gross exagerration, don't you think? You don't belong to a right-wing extremist anti-establishment group do you?

Lots of facts in the paper, no doubt about it, but the way they are presented... lots of not quite facts. I don't belong to any groups, however I am a republican. I know you will find that shocking.:D Not to mention I was making a teasing joke, do you have any clue about humor?;) :rolleyes: I don't know about your papers, but mine have more ads than news, most of the news is reprints from the AP or rueters etc. I would imagine the editors don't even read them, just cut and paste. Heck outside of the box scores and results even my sports section is mostly the opinion of the sports writers. It is one thing to report that Duke beat UNC, it is another to determine that Duke won because they made all of their free throws. That is only one aspect of why a team wins or loses. It is the opinion of the writer not a fact. You really lose your credibility, BTW, when you try to lump people into cute groups like right wing extremists.... :mad:

jc

[Globaliser]

Interesting followup story:
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/214193_crashcase02.htmlYup, that just goes to prove everything that I've been saying. You don't know, I don't know. And the people who are mouthing off are the plaintiffs' lawyer and the campaigning newspaper (or journalist).

But I therefore prefer not to hold an opinion about HAL's blameworthiness - I know the limits of my knowledge about this issue and they are not broadened by the assistance of those articles.

[cru1s1ng]

Everyone os entitled to their opinion. IMHO, they are guilty.

[Globaliser]

Everyone os entitled to their opinion. IMHO, they are guilty.Sure. We all love people who make up their minds on the basis of few and incomplete facts.

[kryos]

Of course, when you are deciding whether to go on an excursion arranged by the cruise line, versus making your own arrangements, the cruise line definitely maintains that you will be safer when trvelling with one of their arranged tours because they have checked them out so carefully etc...

But what are they checking them out for?

I think why people tend to book cruiseline excursions is not because they are safer ... i.e., a ziplining tour through the cruiseline and one on your own has basically the same risk factor. It's the activity's nature that determines its risk, not whether it is one offered through the cruiseline or not.

I think the draw to booking excursions through the cruiseline is that the cruiseline guarantees that you will not miss the ship when you take their excursions. If the bus returning you from the excursion gets caught in traffic or breaks down, and you're not gonna make sailing time, the cruiseline will either hold the ship or pay for you to get to the next port. Additionally, I believe ... and this I am not sure of ... that cruiseline tours require so many "rest stops" and a lunch stop for longer excursions. Remember, cruise ships have a lot of senior citizens who want to be sure they will have a restroom nearby, and that they will be fed after so many hours.

But, I would highly doubt a cruiseline's acceptance of a tour operator as part of their excursion program automatically means the operator is "safe" for "high risk" activities. I mean, let's be realistic ... does a cruiseline's excursion staff have the expertise to determine that an operator's plane is in disrepair? You know, a plane can look beautiful after a fresh wash and wax, and actually be a total piece of you-know-what.

In fact, I think the cruiselines are starting to get away from offering the more adventuresome activities specifically because they don't want to get sued if something goes wrong ... thus forcing people to book these adventures on their own.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[HeatherInFlorida]

Amen!

When my dad tells me that if God wanted man to fly, He would have given him wings, I respond that if God wanted man to stay put on earth, He would have given him ROOTS! :)

--rita

I'm not touching this thread with a l0 ft. pole, but Rita, I absolutely love this!!! Of course I've heard what your Dad says, but I hadn't heard your part. Thanks for the laugh in a sea of dissention.

[tomc]

But, I would highly doubt a cruiseline's acceptance of a tour operator as part of their excursion program automatically means the operator is "safe" for "high risk" activities. I'm not a lawyer, but I think the phrase "due diligence" is what I am looking for here. You check them out, then do a re-check every so often to make sure they are safe. No, you can't be absolutely sure, but you should make every good-faith effort, especially in situations where there might be more danger, to be aware of any difficulties.

Life's a crapshoot and you don't know when your number is up, where it's going to be up, or the circumstances. A friend of mine from Indiana, working in Africa, got kicked to death by a wild giraffe; who would have thought?

But if Shorex people did occasional check rides on these planes and found they were too scary, especially when speaking to the pax (and I know onboard Shorex have done incognito check rides on Alaskan boat tours wearing ordinary clothes), it might help avoid situations such as these.

[gizmo]

Life's a crapshoot and you don't know when your number is up, where it's going to be up, or the circumstances.

tomc,
Thanks for making me smile this morning.:) You made me think of my Dad who has been gone for many years. He always used the phrase "When your number is up", when referring to when it was time to leave this world.

Giz

[kryos]

But if Shorex people did occasional check rides on these planes and found they were too scary, especially when speaking to the pax (and I know onboard Shorex have done incognito check rides on Alaskan boat tours wearing ordinary clothes), it might help avoid situations such as these.
Here's my question, though. Obviously passengers on many cruises have booked this excursion. If the ride was that scarey, and they feared for their lives, or if they had real concerns about their safety on the excursion ... would not those passengers have complained about the excursion or given negative feedback on the tour in their survey? Part of the onboard surveys do ask for feedback on shore excursions.

If the cruiseline had received multiple negative feedback responses about this particular tour, I am sure they would have dumped the operator and chosen another. I am sure that's a reasonably easy switch to make.

Also, from what I understand, the shoreex staff does go on most of the excursions (as paying customers, not identifying themselves as being from the cruiseline). But, again I ask the question ... just how qualified are those individuals to determine that an airplane is not flightworthy?

No, I have a feeling this was just an isolated event ... this operator probably flew thousands of flights without incident, but on this one his luck just ran out. It's like that jump plane that went down in the Pacific Ocean off Ouhu a year or so back ... the operator had flown hundreds of satisfied customers wanting to make a tandem skydive ... a once-in-a-lifetime experience they would talk about for the rest of their lives. On this one flight, however, something went wrong ... dreadfully wrong ... and the plane landed in the drink. I believe everyone was killed.

Tragic ... yes. Any fault of the operator? Probably not. S*** happens and when you choose to climb aboard a small aircraft ... whether that be for a skydive or for a ride to the site of some ruins ... it's a risk you have to accept. You hope the operator is safe. You'd like to assume that since the pilot is aboard too ... and if the plane goes down, he's going down with it ... he's not going to take off if there are safety "issues." But, of course, especially in lesser developed countries than the U.S., you can never be sure what they consider safe or unsafe.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[tomc]

If the ride was that scarey, and they feared for their lives, or if they had real concerns about their safety on the excursion ... would not those passengers have complained about the excursion or given negative feedback on the tour in their survey? Part of the onboard surveys do ask for feedback on shore excursions. If the cruiseline had received multiple negative feedback responses about this particular tour, I am sure they would have dumped the operator and chosen another. I thought that's what happened. Yeah, I agree on the "once in a lifetime" or "once every twenty years" thing. Even the best-run operations can hit into the law of averages and we have to keep that in mind. (Tell that to the grieving families...) But my impression was that HAL had received warnings from pax.

Blue skies ... --rita Anyway, I gotta get to work. And, yes, for the first time since dinosaurs roamed the earth, we are getting blue skies here. Well, maybe it's only been a week, but it seems like a long time.

[shipcafe]

Interesting as always to read the variety of responses. It does seem strange, though, how so many are quick to assume truth from a source whose sole livelihood is to stir commotion and create drama. The media lives for publishing headlines and having readers "jump" to their conclusion and, subsequently, buy their paper - or buy their viewpoint.

Having worked for another cruise line previously in shore excursions, this particular aviation operator is used by a variety of cruise lines. All sign contracts to outsource their excursion operations as it does not make sense for the cruise line to be present in every port of call and operate these tours. Were the cruise line physically running an excursion when something were to go wrong it is a bit different than a third party vendor having been contracted to perform the job.

The following facts exist as a backdrop to the slanderous article posted by Kathy George :

- Turismo Aviomar, the tour operator, is a reputable company with a long and successful history of providing tours for cruise passengers throughout the Caribbean.

- The tour ran for more than ten years, with different air operators. During the time in which we offered the tour, we received a handful of complaints. The most serious, which occurred in 1995 with a different air provider, was promptly followed up and resolved.

- The plane that crashed was operated by Aero Ferinco, an established carrier fully regulated by Direccion General de Aeronautica Civil (DGAC), the Mexican equivalent of the FAA. US authorities have given the DGAC the highest ranking that can be afforded to an aviation regulatory authority, and the FAA accepts DGAC certification for Mexican airplanes that fly between the US and Mexico. Holland America Line had no reason to question DGAC’s regulatory practices.

- The pilot of the plane had extensive experience, including nearly 1,000 hours flying the type of plane that crashed. There was nothing in his record that would have caused anyone to question his ability prior to the accident.

- The plane involved in the accident was a twin engine turboprop that is commonly used throughout the world. The plane was built in the former Czechoslovakia – a country that was and continues to be recognized as having a highly skilled work force that produces quality products.

- Aero Ferinco carried all insurance required by Mexican law. There were periodic discussions about the level of insurance carried by the operator, which is not the same as being concerned about the safety of an operator.

With as many years in the industry as Holland America Line has (131+), how could a company maintain sustainability, profitability, and credibility by placing the safety of guests, crew, or anyone else at risk? It just does not make sense. The only thing that makes sense is the newspaper's need to get dramatic stories printed to sell more papers - to me, that is the biggest objective that is being pursued at any one (or any company's) expense. . . . even a local company with vested interest - sad, really ....

[xpcdoojk]

Thank you Shipcafe for providing the background that I assume existed and that the "journalist" ignored so that the journalist's point of view can appear to be 100% rational and proven. Which again leads me to have general distrust of anything I read in the papers.:D

jc

[dakrewser]

I thought that's what happened. Yeah, I agree on the "once in a lifetime" or "once every twenty years" thing. Even the best-run operations can hit into the law of averages and we have to keep that in mind. (Tell that to the grieving families...) But my impression was that HAL had received warnings from pax.

And that was the impression that the plaintiff's attorney, working thru the "reporter", tried to give. Yet there was only reference to one communication from one passenger speaking about a "white knuckle" flight. Now I've had "white knuckle" flights on most major US carriers starting with National Airlines and Alleghany back in the 60's thru American, Delta and United in the past few years. But I don't (and didn't) expect those airlines to be grounded.

[jhannah]

Since I work for a newspaper group, I feel I must respond to the posts that read like allegations of "yellow journalism." Yes, such does exist in many tabloids and other rags. However, you're looking at a story done by a mainstream, major metropolitan newspaper. Such entities have strict guidelines for reporting that include multiple source verification of facts. Yes, stories dealing with controversy and startling revelation sell newspapers. But to accuse such a fine newspaper of casting the story for the sole purpose of making money is sorely unfair. Our nation has been built in large part by a free press. Just because a story is not pleasant doesn't make it false or a product of yellow journalism. Thanks for listening.

[xpcdoojk]

Since I work for a newspaper group, I feel I must respond to the posts that read like allegations of "yellow journalism." Yes, such does exist in many tabloids and other rags. However, you're looking at a story done by a mainstream, major metropolitan newspaper. Such entities have strict guidelines for reporting that include multiple source verification of facts. Yes, stories dealing with controversy and startling revelation sell newspapers. But to accuse such a fine newspaper of casting the story for the sole purpose of making money is sorely unfair. Our nation has been built in large part by a free press. Just because a story is not pleasant doesn't make it false or a product of yellow journalism. Thanks for listening.

Yes, I understand. I watch the news and read papers and journals, I just know that no matter how prestigious the institution. Personal bias comes out in almost every article. Don't worry, I don't hate journalists, I just wish that the management and editors didn't try to be crusaders and would focus on as Sgt Friday would say, Just the facts, maam.

jc

[dakrewser]

Since I work for a newspaper group, I feel I must respond to the posts that read like allegations of "yellow journalism." Yes, such does exist in many tabloids and other rags. However, you're looking at a story done by a mainstream, major metropolitan newspaper. Such entities have strict guidelines for reporting that include multiple source verification of facts. Yes, stories dealing with controversy and startling revelation sell newspapers. But to accuse such a fine newspaper of casting the story for the sole purpose of making money is sorely unfair. Our nation has been built in large part by a free press. Just because a story is not pleasant doesn't make it false or a product of yellow journalism. Thanks for listening.

I never accused the paper of running the story to make money. What I said (and it seems fairly obvious if you read thru the articles objectively) was that the reporter was manipulated by the plaintiffs' attorney, who seemed to be providing much of the copy, interviewees, etc. It was not balanced coverage, it was filled with misleading gambits (such as the "white knuckled" reference I cited above).

Of course, if the story wasn't deemed of interest to the Seattle papers' readers, it probably wouldn't have been run. THat could be interpreted (by someone using the same logic as the article's writer) as being driven by a profit motive! :)

[jhannah]

I never accused the paper of running the story to make money. Nor did I accuse you ... or specifically name anyone else. But read the posts above. But you, in expressing your opinion, have accused the reporter of being manipulated by the plaintiffs' lawyer. But that is your opinion and not a fact anyone can prove. The info in the court records, depositions and the like may or may not be completely factual and/or unbiased. But they are a part of the record and were reported as such. Holland America declined to offer more than a generic statement for publication in the story. That is their right.

[kryos]

Since I work for a newspaper group, I feel I must respond to the posts that read like allegations of "yellow journalism." Yes, such does exist in many tabloids and other rags. However, you're looking at a story done by a mainstream, major metropolitan newspaper. Such entities have strict guidelines for reporting that include multiple source verification of facts. Yes, stories dealing with controversy and startling revelation sell newspapers. But to accuse such a fine newspaper of casting the story for the sole purpose of making money is sorely unfair. Our nation has been built in large part by a free press. Just because a story is not pleasant doesn't make it false or a product of yellow journalism. Thanks for listening.
I work for a newspaper group too ... although not as a reporter. While I agree that reputable newspaper reporters cannot be "bought," sadly many of them are simply lazy. They are on deadline and have to get their story filed by a certain time. They don't take the extra steps necessary for a relatively minor story to be thoroughly checked out.

Sadly, I've known several jumpers who have crashed and burned. I've either been on the drop zone when it's happened, or got the story from folks who were there. Then I read the story in the paper and am left shaking my head ... "Highly Experienced Skydiver Dies when Parachute Fails to Open." The jumper had about 110 jumps (a total newbie) and his parachute opened fine ... he just crashed it into the ground performing a "hot dog" maneuver he in no way had the experience to be trying.

TV reporters are even worse. They will find someone on the drop zone ... they are in no way affiliated with the operation ... just happened to be there on the day a tragedy occurred ... stick a microphone in their face and ask them what happened. "Oh, my ... he fell and fell ... then his parachute opened but the wind caught it and sent him plummeting into the ground." The wind caught it? No, how about he wanted to make a high performance landing and didn't time it correctly, thus plummeting himself into the ground?

Sadly, journalists are very much affected by the trend in corporate America to downsize ... or should I say "right size?" :( You've got reporters and editors and production people all under impossible deadlines. If the reporter is late transmitting his story to the copy desk, then the copy editor doesn't have enough time to lay it out, and get it positioned into the paper. If the copy editor is late doing his thing, then the pagination operator is screwed as he lays out the entire pages. And it goes on and on. Because of this, while a reporter may be conscientious and want to do a thorough job, often he has to cut corners because he simply runs out of time.

So, yes, I am sure the newspaper running this story may have been a reputable one. The reporter may have been doing their damnest to report accurately. But maybe time just ran out ... a source at the cruiseline was late getting back to the reporter for a quote ... and the story ran as is ... a bit biased ... but with all the facts the reporter had available at the time he ran up against his deadline.

God love those "right sizers" ...

Blue skies ...

--rita

[tomc]

Not only am I an on-air anchor, but I teach the stuff and I'm forever telling my students to ask, ask, ask. Facts are facts only in context. Don't go looking for facts that will support your conclusion; look for the facts and then start to form a conclusion. The few times I have watched 60 Minutes (which I personally can't stand), I got the impression they go in with a conclusion and the final stand-up already written, then they assemble the story to fit their feelings. IMO.

[tbroido]

The jumper had about 110 jumps (a total newbie)
110 jumps is still a newbie? My son is in the 82nd Airborne division and hasn't even done his 10th jump yet and the Army says he is an experienced paratrooper because he has been in combat for 4 months.

He's coming home from Iraq (Mosul) on the 25th. Yippee!

xpcdoojk wrote:Not to mention I was making a teasing joke, do you have any clue about humor?Hold on there. Just because I didn't insert a smiley icon, doesn't mean I was serious about my right wing comments. So you took things too seriously first.

I will have you know that I am one of the funniest people I know and have been told by many people that I am the funniest person they know. So, no, I don't have any problem with my sense of humor, as far as I know. Also, I have never said anything negative about you, as far as you know. ;) OK, there's your winking smiley face so that you know that I know how to be funny, no?

[dakrewser]

Nor did I accuse you

Didn't say you had, Jim. Just wanted to point out that there wre valid reasons to suspect the accuracy of the story even if the "profit motive" was taken off the table.

But you, in expressing your opinion, have accused the reporter of being manipulated by the plaintiffs' lawyer. But that is your opinion and not a fact anyone can prove.

Well, when the lead paragraph states: "Holland America went to 'significant lengths' to keep secret damaging documents ... the families' lead attorney, Bradley Keller, said yesterday." And then does nothing to corraborate the 'keep secret' part, I expect that it was probably a re-write of a press release from the lawyer.

The info in the court records, depositions and the like may or may not be completely factual and/or unbiased. But they are a part of the record and were reported as such.

Again, a close reading of the article leads me to believe that the reporter didn't actually read thru the record, but relied on a synopsis provided by the plaintiff's attorney.

Holland America declined to offer more than a generic statement for publication in the story. That is their right.

Well, if (as it certainly looks) the story was written at a press conference called by the plaintiff's lawyer then I wouldn't expect the defendent to be allowed to get up and rebut. But if you look at the 2nd article (http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/214193_crashcase02.html) you'll see that HAL's spokesperson responded extensively.

Even good papers run bad stories from time to time (e.g., the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Christian Science Monitor, the Wall Street Journal, et al).

[kryos]

110 jumps is still a newbie? My son is in the 82nd Airborne division and hasn't even done his 10th jump yet and the Army says he is an experienced paratrooper because he has been in combat for 4 months.

Ahhhhhh, your son is most definitely not a newbie ... he's doing something far more difficult (in my humble opinion) than mere sport parachuting. He's jumping with tons of gear strapped to him ... possibly into enemy territory. His parachute ride is not for thrill ... it's a matter of survival ... and that's how he's taught.

But for the sport parachutist ... most definitely 110 jumps is a raw newbie. Many jumpers on the average dz have thousands upon thousands of jumps ... especially if they are rated instructors or video people too. On a busy drop zone, staff will often make anywhere from 10 to 15 jumps a day ... sometimes more ... especially the video people. After all, just about every first-time jumper wants a video of the experience, right? :) I've got a whole DVD full of all my training jumps.

By the way, I was a raw newbie too. I had only about 96 jumps before I had my accident back in '99. I was grounded for a year after that, and while I could have certainly gone back since, unfortunately life took other turns for me and somehow I just never got around to doing the retraining necessary to get back into the air. As the years progressed, I guess I sadly lost the desire in the press of so many new pasttimes and interests ... like cruising. :)

Blue skies ...

--rita

[tbroido]

Rita-

You are right about the equipment. About 80 lbs. plus his M24 or M16 rifle. He is a Forward Observer/Sniper so he has a radio and GPS and other stuff. HE only ways 145 lbs. so it must be quite a sight.

He has not yet done a real combat jump but he sure has seen plenty of action in Mosul. Hair-raising stuff!

He wants me to do a tandem jump with him. I told him to abandon all hope. Maybe if he sets the plane I am in on fire.

It sounds like sky diving is a very expensive hobby.

-Tom

[xpcdoojk]

Most hobbies are, especially, ones that involve airplanes. :D BTW, tell your son that we are proud of him for serving!:cool:

jc

[tbroido]

Thank you xpcdoojk. We are proud of our son, especially where he got to in the last year compared to where he was.

My son had it tough growing up. He has a high IQ but learning disabilities. We depended for too long on the local school district. They were well-meaning but incapable of dealing with my son's problems. As a result he developed some greater problems (self-esteem, frustration). Anyway, he dropped out of college and bummed around for two years.

Once he decided to go into the army he decided he wanted to be a paratrooper and sure enough he did it. He is actually a forward observer in the 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment but he is attached to the 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment (both are in the 82nd Airborne Division). They seem to be a great, tight bunch of guys. I guess being at war forges friendships in a way the rest of us who haven't experienced it will ever be able to imagine.

I hope all of our soldiers come home safely from wherever they are.

[kryos]

It sounds like sky diving is a very expensive hobby.

It's only expensive while you're learning because you have to pay for the instructors and gear rental, etc.

Once you earn your license, however, and get to the point where you are no longer in need of instructor/coaching services, and once you purchase all the necessary gear, it is actually pretty cheap. In fact, technically your skydives are free. What you pay for is the lift to altitude in the airplane.

Blue skies ...

--rita

[xpcdoojk]

Thank you xpcdoojk. We are proud of our son, especially where he got to in the last year compared to where he was.

My son had it tough growing up. He has a high IQ but learning disabilities. We depended for too long on the local school district. They were well-meaning but incapable of dealing with my son's problems. As a result he developed some greater problems (self-esteem, frustration). Anyway, he dropped out of college and bummed around for two years.

Once he decided to go into the army he decided he wanted to be a paratrooper and sure enough he did it. He is actually a forward observer in the 319th Airborne Field Artillery Regiment but he is attached to the 325th Airborne Infantry Regiment (both are in the 82nd Airborne Division). They seem to be a great, tight bunch of guys. I guess being at war forges friendships in a way the rest of us who haven't experienced it will ever be able to imagine.

I hope all of our soldiers come home safely from wherever they are.

Sounds like your son found himself, and now we are all proud. My guess is he will struggle no more to find himself in the future. Confidence will be his forever.

jc

[tbroido]

My guess is he will struggle no more to find himself in the future. Confidence will be his forever. jc

From your keyboard to God's screen (the modern version of "your lips to God's ears"). Thanks for a great thought.