Translate

Wednesday, 25 September 2013

Feds investigate Asiana response to SF plane crash


Federal officials investigating Asiana's treatment of families after deadly SF plane crash

FILE - In this July 8, 2013 file photo, an unidentified family member of one of two Chinese students killed in a crash of an Asiana Airlines' plane on Saturday, cries at the airline's counter as she and other family members check in for a flight to San Francisco, at Pudong International Airport in Shanghai, China. In the first investigation of its kind, federal transportation officials are reviewing whether Asiana Airlines failed to meet legal obligations to help the families of passengers after one of its planes crashed at San Francisco International Airport, killing three people. Under U.S. law, Asiana was required to provide a range of services to family members of the 291 passengers, from the prompt posting of a toll-free number to gather and distribute information, to providing transportation and lodging so family members can comfort injured loved ones. (AP Photo/Eugene Hoshiko, File)
LOS ANGELES (AP) -- Federal transportation officials are investigating whether Asiana Airlines failed to meet legal obligations to help the families of passengers whose flight crash landed at San Francisco International Airport.
Under U.S. law, Asiana was required to provide a range of services to family members of the 291 passengers. Among them: the prompt posting of a toll-free number to gather and distribute information, and providing transportation and lodging so family members could comfort injured loved ones.
Congress created the rules in the late 1990s following crashes after which airlines were roundly criticized for ignoring family members.
The Asiana investigation is the first into an airline's "family assistance" response of 10 major accidents covered by the rules, the U.S. Department of Transportation said. Three people died and dozens were injured when Asiana Flight 214 clipped a seawall following a trip from South Korea, where the airline is based.
Asiana's family assistance plan was last updated in 2004. The Department of Transportation audits just a few of these plans each year to check whether an airline can deliver the assurances it makes on paper. An Associated Press review of plans filed by two dozen other foreign airlines found cases in which carriers had not updated their documents as required.
After the July 6 crash, problems with Asiana's response were almost immediately apparent.
Staff with the National Transportation Safety Board, which helps coordinate family assistance after major crashes, quickly raised concerns with their Department of Transportation counterparts and presented additional evidence of problems about three weeks later, said Paul Sledzik, director of the board's Transportation Disaster Assistance Division. Citing the ongoing investigation, both the DOT and Sledzik declined to detail specifics.
Asiana spokeswoman Lee Hyomin declined to discuss the airline's family assistance plan. She said Asiana publicized toll-free numbers in the U.S., Korea and China, where many passengers came from; used emails and phone calls to communicate with the families of passengers; and flew family members to San Francisco if they wanted to go.
A review by the AP of Asiana's family assistance plan showed the airline did not meet several important assurances, including that it would keep its emergency contact information current and post a public information number within an hour.
The first record AP found of a publicly circulated number was just over three hours after the crash, but that was to an automated Asiana reservations line. The following day, the airline posted a different number, which it then changed several days later.
"Imagine the panic of a family member who realizes their loved one was on Asiana calling each hospital, calling the airport, calling anyone they can," said Robert A. Jensen, CEO of Kenyon International Emergency Services, which has contracts with hundreds of airlines to help after a crash.
The day after the accident, the NTSB called Jensen to ask if Kenyon was assisting the airline. The answer was no; Asiana had dropped the firm in 2008 and apparently did not sign up a substitute.
Department of Transportation spokesman Bill Mosley said that two hours after the crash, the agency contacted Asiana's attorney, "reminding the carrier of its family assistance obligations, and in particular of the need for the required telephone line."
The airline's plan also promised the NTSB a list of emergency contact names and numbers for "key management officials." The safety board said that information in Asiana's plan was not current, and that the airline had ignored a request in June 2012 for an update.
Attorney Michael Verna represents passengers and family members who are suing the South Korean airline.
One client, Hector Machorro, was waiting at the airport for the arrival of his wife and young son. After the crash, he was taken to an airport lounge where he waited "for hours not getting any information," Verna said, despite the requirement that airlines provide families with timely updates on passengers.
Machorro finally got word from his wife, who called his cellphone from San Francisco General Hospital, where she and their 8-year-old son were being treated for bruising. It wasn't until several days later that Asiana called Machorro, according to Verna, and then the airline's representative asked only about his son.
In looking at Asiana's performance, the AP reviewed the plans of other foreign airlines and found instances of outdated information, as well as the failure to file required updates.
For example, Malaysia Airlines last updated its plan in 2000 and did not file a required addendum in 2004, after Congress revised the family assistance law.
When AP pointed out the lack of an updated plan, the Department of Transportation gave Malaysia Airlines 21 days to refile, and agency spokesman Mosley said Tuesday that the airline had done so. The airline declined to comment.
Many of the plans were just a few pages long and contained not much beyond a list of assurances that the U.S. government has little way of knowing whether an airline can keep.
A few airlines view filing the documents as a box to check if they want to fly in the United States and don't prepare for what to do should a plane crash, according to several aviation disaster consultants.
"We do have some foreign and domestic carriers that only want to submit a plan and then do no additional consultation with us on their planning and preparedness," said Vivian Marinelli, senior director of crisis management services at FEI Behavioral Health, a firm which helps airlines devise family response plans. "It is only after an accident that they realize how critical this really is."
Airlines face up to a $27,500 penalty for each family assistance law violation.
"Our oversight, as well as the potential fines, provide a strong incentive for compliance," according to DOT spokesman Mosley.

Menteri mengeluh, pemandu-pemandu tidak beri laluan


20130926-014101.jpg
Menteri mengeluh, para pemandu tidak memberi laluan – harus menunjukkan hormat kepada pemerintah dengan memberi laluan.
Para pemandu seharusnya memberi laluan polis yang mengiring kerabat diraja dan VIP sebagai menunjukkan rasa hormat kepada pemerintah negara, dan ini patut dijadikan sebahagian dari budaya, kata Menteri Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi dan Kepenggunaan, Datuk Hasan Malek ketika sidang akhbar.
Bercakap kepada akhbar The Sun Daily, menteri tersebut turut menambah pemandu-pemandu seharusnya memberi laluan kerana orang yang diiringi perlu sampai ke destinasi mereka tepat pada masanya bagi menjalankan tugas-tugas rasmi mereka. “Saya telah menerima beberapa aduan yang para pemerintah kita ingin lalu, pengguna-pengguna jalanraya tidak memberikan jalan. Kita perlu hentikan segera perkara ini, menghormati pemerintah adalah sebahagian budaya kita,” jelas menteri itu lagi.
Walaupun sedar, dari segi undang-undang, pengguna jalanraya hanya perlu memberi laluan kepada kenderaan perkhidmatan kecemasan, Hasan mengulangi yang memberi laluan kepada anggota polis pengiring seharusnya sebahagian budaya tempatan. Menteri tersebut bukanlah asing lagi dengan kontroversi. Awal Julai lalu, bila bercakap mengenai kenaikan harga daging ayam, dengan kenyataan beliau yang terus terkenal, yang dipetik oleh media sebagai berkata “Kita masih boleh menyambut Aidilfitri (Hari Raya) tanpa ayam. Belilah daging sebagai ganti.”
Sementara itu di UK, Perdana Menteri David Cameron telah mengurangkan penggunaan polis pengiring, dengan berkata yang, melalui trafik yang sesak dengan laju menggunakan polis pengiring ialah suatu ‘kesombongan’. Polis pengiring hanya akan digunakan untuk majlis-majlis yang memerlukan keselamatan tinggi. Untuk masa-masa lain, beliau akan menggunakan kereta rasmi kalis peluru (biasanya Jaguar yang tidak mempunyai tingkap yang digelapkan) dan akan menempuh trafik seperti orang ramai lain. Pemandu-pemandu di UK terkenal dengan sikap lantang bersuara, bila mana, bagi mengatasi trafik dengan menggunakan keistimewaan polis pengiring, mereka dengan lantang menyatakan itu tidak wajar.
Ketika Tony Blair menjadi Perdana Menteri, terdapat laluan bas sepanjang M4 Heatheow-London dinamakan sempena nama beliau. ‘Blair Lane’ ialah laluan bas sepanjang 5.6km, merupakan laluan yang digunakan oleh PM dan ahli kabinetnya bersama polis pengiring untuk menghindari trafik yang sesak. Media British menyamakan laluan itu dengan laluan ‘Zil’ – yang merupakan laluan khusus untuk pegawai atasan Kremlin ketika zaman Kesatuan Soviet Komunis.
Semenjak itu, ‘Blair Lane’ terus dihapuskan.
Di dalam bulan Febuari 2010, Perdana Menteri, Gordon Brown telah menimbulkan kemarahan orang ramai selepas polis pengiring mengarahkan kenderaan-kenderaan ke tepi supaya beliau boleh melepasi keadaan trafik yang sangat sesak, disebabkan oleh kerja-kerja pembinaan jalanraya ketika itu. Keesokan harinya, di dalam surat khabar penuh dengan maklum balas marah dari pemandu-pemandu yang tidak berpuas hati, bila mereka diarahkan untuk mematuhi had laju (80km/h), dan diarahkan ketepi untuj memberi laluan kepada Brown melepasi mereka dengan kelajuan (90km/h). Ada diantara mereka sampi menghujahkan, jika perdana menteri boleh melalui laluan itu pada kelajuan melebihi had laju (yang ditetapkan), bermakna tiada apa yang perlu dibimbangkan dari segi keselamatan untuk menaikan had laju di situ!
Ketika majlis angkat sumpah yang diadakan di Istana Buckingham, Brown sampai dengan polis pengiring, manakala pengganti beliau, David Cameron sampai tanpa iringan polis. Ini membuatkan beliau jauh lebih bijak dalam memenangi hati para pengundi. Di dalam satu poll terbaru menunjukkan Cameron mengatasi pesaing-pesaingnya untuk Pemerintah Britain paling dipercayai.
Cameron turut memperkenalkan kod kementerian baharu yang mana objektifnya mensasarkan untuk mengurang perbelanjaan awam dan membina keyakinan orang awam, dengan menghadkan penggunaan kenderaan rasmi kerajaan dan menggalakkan penggunaan pengangkutan awam.
Kod itu berbunyi (lebih kurang begini) “Menteri-mentei dibenarkan menggunakan kenderaan rasmi untuk hal-hal kerja rasmi dan untuk pergi dan pulang antara rumah dan pejabat di dalam jarak perjalanan yang berpatutan, dengan kefahaman membawa bersama kertas-kertas dan dokumen-dokumen yang rasmi (rahsia). Jika boleh, menteri-menteri digalakkan untuk menggunakan pengangkutan awam.”
Perdana Menteri sendiri dilihat kadang-kadang menggunakan pengangkutan awam, tanpa rombongan.
Mungkin, pendapat menteri-menteri berbeza dengan
20130926-014117.jpg
20130926-014124.jpg

Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...

Share

Twitter Delicious Facebook Digg Stumbleupon Favorites More