skip to main |
skip to sidebar
A Note About Tam
TAM is a huge airline with all the resources necessary to have assigned human beings to notify families of their dead.
Such a notification would be painful, indeed, more than words can describe.
But even worse, imagine going on the internet, reviewing the manifest that was made available to the public within hours and finding your mom’s name or your mom and dad’s name or your wife, or your husband.
Imagine that for a moment.
Imagine that days go by and no one from TAM makes any personal notifications to families. No one calls, no one connects on a one on one basis.
What were they thinking when they released the manifest to the public prior to any attempt of locating the next of kin?
TAM, fire the person or persons who made the decision to release the manifest.
Get your act together.
What were they thinking when they released the manifest to the public prior to any attempt of locating the next of kin?
TAM, fire the person or persons who made the decision to release the manifest.
Get your act together.
Have a plan in place.
Have people who can be on call immediately to handle these matters.
No matter what you end up paying the family for their losses, they will never forget how they learned about the death of their loved ones.
Shame on you, TAM
Have people who can be on call immediately to handle these matters.
No matter what you end up paying the family for their losses, they will never forget how they learned about the death of their loved ones.
Shame on you, TAM
-------------------------
I had a conversation with a brilliant Brazilian attorney in Porto Alegre, Brazil about the failure of giving a choice to a passenger about boarding a plane that has 1/3 of its braking system disabled.
In the Tam crash of July 2007, all parties agree that the right thrust reverser was disabled. They defend that position by stating that the documentation for an Airbus A320 allows the plane to fly for up to 10 days with a disabled thruster(s).
So let's say that Tam had let everyone that was boarding that plane know about the thrust reverser. Let's say they had even played down the importance of having it operational. Had the passengers known about the disabled thruster, and had they known that it compliments the braking system, what would they have done?
It is possible that not all the passengers would have boarded. Some probably would have transferred to another flight, or would have gone home and waited for another day. But no one was given that notice.
Think about it: the wheel brakes, the wing flaps and the thrust reverser are the breaking system for an airbus a320. I'm not certain that even a seasoned flyer as I am that I would have gone on board knowing that part of the breaking system was not functional.
Mandatory warnings should be required when a plane with broken, flawed, or partially disabled systems is used as if functioning at 100%. Speaking personally on my own behalf, I believe this warning issue–or failure to warn issue–should be legally addressed.
If only one person had not boarded that plane, that would have been one less fatality.
In the Tam crash of July 2007, all parties agree that the right thrust reverser was disabled. They defend that position by stating that the documentation for an Airbus A320 allows the plane to fly for up to 10 days with a disabled thruster(s).
So let's say that Tam had let everyone that was boarding that plane know about the thrust reverser. Let's say they had even played down the importance of having it operational. Had the passengers known about the disabled thruster, and had they known that it compliments the braking system, what would they have done?
It is possible that not all the passengers would have boarded. Some probably would have transferred to another flight, or would have gone home and waited for another day. But no one was given that notice.
Think about it: the wheel brakes, the wing flaps and the thrust reverser are the breaking system for an airbus a320. I'm not certain that even a seasoned flyer as I am that I would have gone on board knowing that part of the breaking system was not functional.
Mandatory warnings should be required when a plane with broken, flawed, or partially disabled systems is used as if functioning at 100%. Speaking personally on my own behalf, I believe this warning issue–or failure to warn issue–should be legally addressed.
If only one person had not boarded that plane, that would have been one less fatality.
No comments:
Post a Comment