The fact that flying is safer than driving is known to most Canadians.  Statistics from reputable agencies such as the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) noted that in 2013 there were ninety crashes, nine of which resulted in fatalities. Of course, any accident is considered one too many but based on the totality of their statistics, the probability of being involved in a plane crash is about one in three and a half million.

These statistics may soothe some but others believe that too many things are out of their control while flying.  This is one of the reasons that we rely heavily on safety regulations and procedures to govern plane construction and maintenance, and the safety of flight crews and passengers during air travel.

One of the most unlikely scenarios in a passenger’s mind might involve having a groggy pilot’s actions cause serious harm to a plane full of people followed by a supposed cover-up by the airline. Although it reads like a movie script, this is exactly what was alleged to have occurred on Flight 878 (a Boeing 767) traveling from Toronto to Zurich overnight, with one hundred and three passengers.  It was in mid-January of 2011 when the unfortunate incident made headlines across Canada, initially citing severe turbulence as the culprit behind the scare.

Passengers reported an unexpected chaotic scene from an otherwise seamless and normal flight when the plane unexpectedly dived then sharply rose.  Personal items and passengers alike were thrown violently up into the air and slammed back into their seats and onto the floor of the plane.

The incident didn’t last long (forty-six seconds to be exact) but it was reported that afterward none of  the crew gave an explanation of what happened and whether or not the danger was over.  They simply instructed the distraught passengers to fasten their seatbelts while those in immediate need were assessed.  Seven passengers were treated at a hospital in Switzerland after the plane landed, some suffering minor injuries such as bruises and cuts.

According to Canada’s Transportation Safety Board, the fault laid with a pilot who put the Boeing 767 flight into a sharp nose dive.  Apparently he had just woken up from a nap and was disoriented as he mistook a planet, which was visible through his windshield at that altitude, for a military plane.  Convinced that the plane was in the direct path of another, he initiated a quick reaction that caused the plane to take a nose-dive.

This sparked the topic of pilot fatigue, which has been previously debated and existing measures were again scrutinized.  One of the procedures being addressed is the “controlled rests” that pilots are afforded in the cockpit to combat in-flight fatigue.  This rest period cannot exceed forty minutes and an assigned flight attendant needs to be made aware if this rest is being utilized.

The Air Canada Pilots Association is on record as requesting Transport Canada to adjust its regulations pertaining to the scheduling of pilots to no avail.  Pilots sometimes are on duty as much as fourteen to seventeen hours straight and they believe that this poses a significant safety risk to pilots and passengers, regardless of the availability of a co-pilot.

After Canada’s Transportation Safety Board released its findings on the case, a class-action suit was filed against Air Canada for twenty million dollars in punitive and general damages (including psychological and emotional).  Punitive damages (also referred to as exemplary damages) are intended to punish and deter acts that are deemed egregious and intentionally deceptive.  In this case, representatives for the plaintiffs claim that Air Canada tried to cover up the incident, purposely giving entirely false or very little information about what actually occurred.  The suit also claims that the procedures in place to address pilot fatigue are too lax and contributed to their ordeal.

Air Canada presented a motion to only be responsible for the physical injuries and nothing else.  They cited the Montreal Convention, which governs the liability assigned to airlines and which does not make any allowances for emotional or punitive damages regardless the incident was due to the obvious negligence of airline personnel.

Based on this standard procedure agreed upon and implemented in everyday airline operation by this Act, the court agreed with Air Canada and struck out the claims for emotional, punitive and psychological damages.

Traveling by plane is second nature to many of us, quite often booking a flight without being knowledgeable of the many personal rights we waive in order to arrive at our destination.  It is important to be aware of how some of these procedures may affect you when things go wrong on a flight.