Passengers and crew who receive physical or psychological injuries as a result of an incident on a commercial transport flight are often entitled to compensation.
Carter Capner Law is conducting airline injury claims for injured passengers in the following recent accidents:

QANTAS FLIGHT 460; 582: 8 NOV 2013

Boeing 763 on approach to Sydney airport. Qantas, domestic passenger flight 460. Two passengers received substantial injuries in severe turbulence and were hospitalised. The aircraft diverted to Newcastle after 2 further missed approaches in turbulence. Qantas flight 582 arriving on approach at the same time encountered the same turbulence and effected a diversion with considerable baggage becoming airborne but no injuries reported.

Date: 08 November 2013
Aircraft: Boeing 767 300, Qantas Airlines Registration VH-OGU and Airbus A330-200
Route: Melbourne to Sydney, flight 460; Perth to Sydney, flight 582
P.O.B.: 179 passengers
Description: Flight 460 was approaching Sydney airport runway 34L at 3000 feet when it encountered severe turbulence. The crew conducted a go around first at 5000 feet and again at 8000 feet then deciding to divert to Newcastle. Two passengers injured by loose objects that was flying inside cabin during the turbulence and were hospitalised.

Qantas flight 582, an Airbus A330-200 registration VH-EBP arriving from Perth on final approach to runway 34L at the same time encountered the same turbulence and went around from low height and also diverted to Newcastle. The crew of QF-582 reported to tower that they had experienced “a big bang” from the wind changing from north to east then west. Mobile phones, laptops and hand luggage became airborne in the cabin.Unknown number of passengers injured.

LIABILITY THEORY

Tower had reported surface winds 020 degrees 22 knots 16 knots crosswind, winds at 500 feet at 040 degrees 40 knots, with arriving cells the winds changed to 250 degrees at 23 knots at about the time of final approach of QF-582, active runways were switched from 34 to 16 at the same time.

You or your family in this accident? 

QANTAS INJURIES FLIGHT QF32: 4 November 2010

04/11/2010 – Singapore – Sydney A380 service. About 15 minutes after takeoff a catastrophic failure of the port inboard (Number 2) engine occurred in Indonesian airspace. Metal from the exploding engine holed the fuselage, wing, control surfaces & controls for the left outboard engine and punctured fuel and hydraulic lines. The flight crew assessed the damage from available inputs and unable to shut down the outboard engine that was also in danger of exploding, safely returned the overweight aircraft to land at Singapore’s Changi airport one hour and 45 minutes after departure.

Carter Capner Law conducted compensation claims on behalf of affected passengers.

Claims are against Rolls-Royce.

Compensation included financial loss, general damages, pain and suffering, loss of future earning capacity, provision of family of member assistance, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of enjoyment and refunds of travel costs related to psychological injuries.

QF32 ACCIDENT HISTORY AND LIABILITY THEORY ANALYSIS

Date and time: 0201 UTC (10:01am local) on 4 November 2010
Aircraft type: Airbus A380 (super jumbo)
Route: Singapore to Sydney (second leg following LHR – Changi)
Flight identification: Qantas Flight 32
Number of passengers: 440
Number of crew: 23
Position: Batam Island, Indonesia, about 20 minutes following departure from Changi Singapore.
Initial response (airline reported): PAN and return to point of departure initiated.
Operational decisions: crew made PAN PAN emergency broadcast to air traffic control, advising of engine failure.
Consequential incidents: over-speed landing; heavy braking; tyre blowouts.
Termination of flight: The crew conducted a high-speed landing at Changi International airport about 40 minutes after the start of the event.
Potentially liable parties: Qantas – carrier; Rolls-Royce (engine manufacturer); Airbus
Liability theory: excess oil from defective seal in Rolls-Royce Trent 900 engine
Forum for legal proceedings: Australia

QANTAS FLIGHT QF74

30/08/2010 – San Francisco – Sydney (Boeing 747, catastrophic No 4 engine failure, turbine blade failure, fire, fuselage damage, emergency return to land at San Francisco) (compensation claims for this flight have closed).

Carter Capner Law conducted compensation claims on behalf of affected passengers.

Claims are against Rolls-Royce.

Compensation included financial loss, general damages, pain and suffering, loss of future earning capacity, provision of family of member assistance, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of enjoyment and refunds of travel costs related to psychological injuries.

QF74 ACCIDENT HISTORY AND LIABILITY THEORY ANALYSIS

Date and time: 11:15pm local on 30 August 2010
Aircraft type: Boeing 747-400
Route: San Francisco to Sydney
Flight identification: Qantas Flight 74
Number of passengers: 213
Number of crew: 18
Position: North Pacific Ocean, about 15 minutes following departure from San Francisco International airport.
Initial response (airline reported): engine shutdown, PAN and return to point of departure initiated.
Operational decisions: crew made PAN PAN emergency broadcast to air traffic control, advising of engine failure.
Consequential incidents: over-speed landing; heavy braking; tyre blowouts.
Termination of flight: The crew conducted a landing at San Francisco International airport about 45 minutes after the start of the event.
Potentially liable parties: Qantas – carrier; Rolls-Royce (engine manufacturer)
Liability theory: defective turbine fan blade in Rolls-Royce RB211-524 engine
Forum for legal proceedings: Australia

QANTAS FLIGHT QF6

6/11/2010 – Singapore – Sydney (Boeing 747, emergency return to Changi airport, Singapore after engine explosion) (compensation claims for this flight have closed, settlements underway).

Carter Capner Law conducted compensation claims on behalf of affected passengers.

Claims are against Rolls-Royce.

Compensation included financial loss, general damages, pain and suffering, loss of future earning capacity, provision of family of member assistance, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of enjoyment and refunds of travel costs related to psychological injuries.

QF6 ACCIDENT HISTORY AND LIABILITY THEORY ANALYSIS

Date and time: 5 November 2010
Aircraft type: Boeing 747-400
Route: Singapore to Sydney
Flight identification: Qantas Flight 6
Number of passengers: 412
Number of crew: 19
Position: About 10 minutes following departure from Singapore International airport.
Initial response (airline reported): engine shutdown, PAN and return to point of departure initiated.
Operational decisions: crew made PAN PAN emergency broadcast to air traffic control, advising of engine failure.
Termination of flight: The crew conducted a landing at Singapore International airport about 45 minutes after the start of the event.
Potentially liable parties: Rolls-Royce (engine manufacturer)
Liability theory: defective turbine fan blade in Rolls-Royce RB211-524 engine
Forum for legal proceedings: Australia

QANTAS INJURIES FLIGHT QF30

25/07/08 – Hong Kong – Melbourne (diversion to Manila) – in-flight depressurization (compensation claims for this flight have closed).

Carter Capner Law conducted compensation claims on behalf of affected passengers.

Claims are against Rolls-Royce.

Compensation included financial loss, general damages, pain and suffering, loss of future earning capacity, provision of family of member assistance, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of enjoyment and refunds of travel costs related to psychological injuries.

QANTAS INJURIES FLIGHT QF72

07/10/08 – Singapore – Perth (diversion to Learmonth) – violent nose pitch up/down incidents (compensation claims for this flight have closed, settlements underway).

Physically and psychologically injured passengers have valuable compensation rights. These claims are underway. Carter Capner Law cannot accept any further QF72 claims.

Read ATSB preliminary report:
http://www.atsb.gov.au/newsroom/2008/release/2008_45.aspx

QF72 ACCIDENT HISTORY AND LIABILITY THEORY ANALYSIS

Date and time: 1240 on 7 October 2008
Aircraft type: Airbus A330-300
Route: Singapore to Perth
Flight identification: Qantas Flight 72
Number of passengers: 303
Number of crew: 10
Incident altitude: 37,000 ft
Position: about 110 nautical miles north of Carnarvon and 80 nautical miles from Learmonth near Exmouth in north-western Australia
Initial indicia (airline reported): autopilot disconnected. pilots received electronic centralised aircraft monitoring messages in the cockpit relating to some irregularity with the aircraft’s elevator control system.
Initial response (airline reported): aircraft departed level flight and climbed approximately 300 ft.
Subsequent action (airline reported): aircraft abruptly pitched nose-down and descended 650 ft. After returning to 37,000 ft, the aircraft commenced a second pitch-down of about 400 ft.
Injury phase: during nose-down pitch, a number of passengers, cabin crew and loose objects were thrown about the aircraft cabin, primarily in the rear of the aircraft, resulting in a range of injuries to some cabin crew and passengers.
Operational decisions: crew made PAN PAN emergency broadcast to air traffic control, advising that they had experienced flight control computer problems and that some people had been injured, and they requested a clearance to divert to and track direct to Learmonth. A few minutes later the crew declared a MAYDAY and advised ATC of multiple injures including broken bones and lacerations.
Termination of flight: The aircraft landed at about 1330 local time, about 40 minutes after the start of the event.
Serious injuries: 14 people including concussion and broken bones taken by air ambulance to Perth. 30 aprox other people attended Exmouth hospital with possible concussion, lacerations and fractures.
moderate injuries: 30 people with bruises and soft tissue injuries not treated at hospital.
all passengers transported to Perth. Casualty figures subject to further clarification and confirmation.
Potentially liable parties: Qantas carrier; US component manufacturer ( air data inertial reference unit number 1 ); Airbus

Make an online enquiry 

QANTAS INJURIES FLIGHT QF68

22/06/09 – Hong Kong – Perth (over Borneo) – severe turbulence (compensation claims for this flight have closed, settlements complete).

Carter Capner Law conducted compensation claims on behalf of affected passengers.

Compensation included financial loss, general damages, pain and suffering, loss of future earning capacity, provision of family of member assistance, out-of-pocket expenses, loss of enjoyment and refunds of travel costs related to psychological injuries.

Warning: passengers’ compensation rights are likely to be adversely affected by signing release documents circulated by Qantas or its representatives following any aircraft incident or accident.