At least 10 passengers injured on a Cathay Pacific flight from Brisbane to Hong Kong may be able to seek compensation.
Cathay Pacific flight 156 encountered what the airline described as a weather system that appeared with “little warning.” However, aviation lawyer Peter Carter, director of Carter Capner Law, said that explanation should be examined more closely.
“Cathay said its aircraft encountered a weather system that appeared with ‘little warning’, much like the initial explanation by Singapore Airlines, which claimed its accident was caused by unforeseeable ‘clear air turbulence.’ However aircrews in both events would surely have received forecasts indicating the likelihood of thunderstorms on their planned route and ought to have been hypervigilant while transiting places of known convective activity,” Carter said.
He said the Cathay Pacific incident should now be reviewed based on the weather information available to the crew before and during the flight. Key questions include what weather was forecast, how close the aircraft was to storms, and how quickly the crew responded.
Carter said Cathay’s explanation may prove to be as misplaced as that of Singapore Airlines, whose initial description of "clear air turbulence" was debunked only last week after the investigation found the accident was caused by flying too close to thunderstorms.
“Pilots are trained to stay well distant from storms because aircraft can be severely affected several thousands of feet above a thunderstorm cell and up to 20 miles laterally. A further investigation will be needed for the Cathay flight to determine exactly what happened - what weather was forecast; how close were the storms; how quickly did the aircrew react?” Carter said.
The incident also raises questions about the harm passengers may suffer during severe turbulence. He said these events can expose people to sudden and extreme G-force changes within milliseconds.
In cases like that, Carter said passengers may be entitled to compensation depending on their injuries and losses.
“Even if the airline is not at fault, the Montréal 1999 Convention enables passengers to claim up to $260,000 for proven losses like medical expenses, loss of amenities of life and income loss for proven bodily injury. The airline must also pay a higher amount unless it proves the accident was not due to its negligence or that of its pilots or engineers, so in that respect there is no longer a limit on compensation,” Carter said.
“All passengers on the Cathay Pacific flight irrespective of where they live, are able to claim.”
