"flight control no dispatch" - causes
Mar 20, 2015 | 7:04 am
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: SOF
Programs: FB
Posts: 4
"flight control no dispatch" - causes
Hi,
does anybody know the underlying causes of this error message?
Bulgaria Air refuses to pay out compensation for flight delay as per EU regulation 261/2004. The reason being a "technical defect - flight control no dispatch", which is outside of their control and so it is deemed an extraordinary circumstance, so they don't need to compensate passengers.
However the above error message is not a defect, it's an error message , for which the underlying causes can be different, some perhaps in the airline's control (e.g. could have been avoided through proper maintenance), some perhaps outside of their control.
Most probably these circumstances can be uncovered in a legal trial, but I'd like to have an idea what could come out during a technical investigation, if requested during the trial.
thank you
EDIT:
They also refer to the MEL (Minimum Equipment List) which is basically a list of all components that are required to be functioning before take-off, and which components are not required. But they don't say which exact component was inoperable, and how come it was fixed after a reboot of the aircraft.
does anybody know the underlying causes of this error message?
Bulgaria Air refuses to pay out compensation for flight delay as per EU regulation 261/2004. The reason being a "technical defect - flight control no dispatch", which is outside of their control and so it is deemed an extraordinary circumstance, so they don't need to compensate passengers.
However the above error message is not a defect, it's an error message , for which the underlying causes can be different, some perhaps in the airline's control (e.g. could have been avoided through proper maintenance), some perhaps outside of their control.
Most probably these circumstances can be uncovered in a legal trial, but I'd like to have an idea what could come out during a technical investigation, if requested during the trial.
thank you
EDIT:
They also refer to the MEL (Minimum Equipment List) which is basically a list of all components that are required to be functioning before take-off, and which components are not required. But they don't say which exact component was inoperable, and how come it was fixed after a reboot of the aircraft.
Last edited by goldfrapp001; Mar 20, 2015 at 7:22 am Reason: add information
Mar 20, 2015 | 8:00 am
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Pittsburgh
Programs: MR/SPG LT Titanium, AA LT PLT, UA SLV, Avis PreferredPlus
Posts: 31,224
It sounds like the aircraft was not airworthy, missing a piece of equipment required to be ready for flight.
You may want to follow up on this
Sturgeon Ruling
You may want to follow up on this
Previously, airlines routinely refused to pay out for delays caused by a technical fault, claiming they counted as extraordinary events. Yet last year, two landmark Supreme Court rulings declared that carriers should pay out when a delay was caused by a technical fault.
...
This means that you can challenge the technical faults defence on the basis that an airline should have reasonable expectation that things can go wrong on an aircraft and should have contingency plans in place, ie replacement parts or access to them where it operates.
If your airline tries to claim extraordinary circumstances, challenge them to explain exactly what they were and why they could not have been reasonably avoided. The onus is on them to prove this.
...
This means that you can challenge the technical faults defence on the basis that an airline should have reasonable expectation that things can go wrong on an aircraft and should have contingency plans in place, ie replacement parts or access to them where it operates.
If your airline tries to claim extraordinary circumstances, challenge them to explain exactly what they were and why they could not have been reasonably avoided. The onus is on them to prove this.
The Sturgeon Ruling of 19 November 2009 was a joined case of passengers against airlines Condor and Air France. It was ruled that despite there not being express provision in Regulation (EC) no 261/2004 to compensate passengers for delays, passengers would now be entitled to the compensation as set out in Article 8 for any delay in excess of three hours, providing the air carrier cannot raise a defence of 'extraordinary circumstances'.
...
It was also ruled that under the definition of 'extraordinary circumstances', technical faults within an aircraft should not be included and therefore an air carrier cannot rely on a technical fault within an aircraft as a defence from a valid claim under the Regulation. Various passenger rights groups reported the case and encouraged passengers to bring claims against airlines in the event of a delay of over three hours.
The Sturgeon ruling was reconfirmed in a ruling of the European Court of Justice on 23 October 2012 in Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG and R (TUI Travel, British Airways, easyjet and IATA) v Civil Aviation Authority.
...
It was also ruled that under the definition of 'extraordinary circumstances', technical faults within an aircraft should not be included and therefore an air carrier cannot rely on a technical fault within an aircraft as a defence from a valid claim under the Regulation. Various passenger rights groups reported the case and encouraged passengers to bring claims against airlines in the event of a delay of over three hours.
The Sturgeon ruling was reconfirmed in a ruling of the European Court of Justice on 23 October 2012 in Nelson v Deutsche Lufthansa AG and R (TUI Travel, British Airways, easyjet and IATA) v Civil Aviation Authority.
Last edited by CPRich; Mar 20, 2015 at 8:05 am