@@paxundpeace9970 Fuel system problems that were known for years and years that in my opinion the FAA should have forced the issue with an airworthiness directive like they do in fixed wing aircraft. I agree with the amount only because these companies will continue to ignore issues as long as it doesn't hurt their pockets. This would hurt their pockets and hopefully force the change. I would bet they appealed and it was lowered anyway.
It's always interesting to read the thoughts of a troll and what spurs them on to write as they do, especially where there is no semblance of reasoned argument. Thank you, Derek, for highlighting this aberration. Robert, UK.
Agreed. He knew the risks and he chose to fly. Should his medical bills be covered? Yes, absolutely. $100 mil for pain and suffering for a risk that you willingly took? No.
After medical bills and lawyer fees plus future medical care/ costs? Plus the pain he has gone through and will continue to go through the rest of his life? That's an ignorant statement.....
@@benjamin4394you’re nuts. Most of these companies are too cheap to fit their aircraft with crash resistant fuel tanks. He would have been fine had the fuel tank not ruptured and ignited. And when you do something negligent like what caused this crash in the first place, you can bet that the company responsible will be sued.
Sorry, but, as a flight nurse you accept the risk of crash related injury every time you suit up. Suing the manufacturer is absurd. He knew what could happen if the chopper were to crash. It's like a soldier suing a gun manufacturer because they were wounded in battle. Come on guy..... you lived to see another day. Be thankful.
if the gun explodes in his hands because of an error that's different... idk what caused this but if it's Airbus fault he has every right to do what he did.
I'm a full-time flight nurse/ medic. There are acceptable risks when we fly, yes. But a well known design flaw the manufacturer and helicopter operator has known about for years and did not correct is not an acceptable risk. Until this crash most of us medical providers in the helicopters were not aware of the fuel bladders on A-Star model helicopters were so easily prone to rupture, but it was known by the FAA, the manufacturer, and the helicopter operator. They chose not to retrofit the helicopter with a crash resistant fuel system most likely because of cost. I fly on Bell 407 & 429 helicopters which have crash resistant fuel systems which lessens the chance of a post-crash fire. Watch again how fast the fire starts after the crash..... "Federal investigators also found that the fiery crash was survivable, but that since the helicopter wasn’t equipped with a crash-resistant fuel system, a post-impact blaze made it lethal.......... Paramedic and flight nurse David Repsher and flight nurse Matthew Bowe were critically hurt in the July 3, 2015, crash. Attorneys for the pair say Repsher had 90 percent of his body burned in the post-crash fire while Bowe suffered severe internal injuries and permanent disabilities." www.denverpost.com/2017/03/28/flight-for-life-crash-caused-by-hydraulic-issue/ The fuel bladder used in the A-Star helicopter that crashed and caught fire significantly made a survivable crash catastrophic. Yes I accept many risks every time I go on shift, but I do not throw caution to the wind and we try to make the job as safe as we can for us and the patients we care for. 100 million is not worth what that guy went through and will continue to go through the rest of his life. Most of that money will be towards medical anyways....
@@RyanKelley56 I definitely stand corrected, and can fully admit it. Note to self, educate yourself on the specifics prior to opening your pie hole. I work ER/Trauma so my only knowledge/experience is when you guys land and hand off care or land and receive care.
@@benjamin4394 Benjamin, much respect from me to you. These days it is nearly impossible to have any civil discourse or disagreement, such as this in person, let lone the internet. I understand how difficult it is for me to admit when I'm wrong for sure and I've been wrong on things plenty of times over the years. One thing to keep in mind, all air-medical companies are different from one another....culture, attitude towards safety, professionalism of the crews, standards, etc. Air medical crews have gotten a bad reputation for thinking they know it all or act like they are better than everyone else. We are not all like that. The company I work for is a small (5 helicopters, 3 bases), non-profit, and has approximately 50 employees. This is the only company I have ever flown for and the reason I am still here after 12+ years is the safety culture, professionalism, and we are treated w/ respect by our management. We also make it a point to never arrive to a call and "take over" or make fellow first responders or hospital personnel feel disrespected or beneath us. Hats off to you, in the end we all are on the same team for the patients...take care.
