Unexpected coffee spills that cause injury on an aircraft should be classified as accidents under the terms of the Montreal Convention, a European Court of Justice advocate general has formally opined. The advisory ruling from advocate general Henrik Saugmandsgaard Oe follows a case against the now-defunct Austrian budget airline Niki. It concerns a six-year old child who suffered second-degree burns from a hot coffee spill during a flight between Spain and Austria in August 2015. Her father, seated beside her, had received a cup of coffee – without a lid – from the cabin crew, and placed it on the folding table in front of him. The container slipped and its contents spilled, although it could not be established whether this resulted from a defective table or aircraft vibration. Niki filed for insolvency in 2017. The child, represented by her father, sought compensation of up to €8,500 from the airline's bankruptcy administrator, which denied liability by claiming that the event did not meet the definition of an accident under the Montreal Convention. While a regional court in Korneuburg, Austria, sided with the plaintiff in December 2015, a higher regional court in Vienna disagreed, arguing that the Montreal Convention only covered accidents caused by an inherent risk in air transport – and that the plaintiff could not prove this. But the case was subsequently heard by the supreme court which sought the European Court of Justice opinion as to whether the definition of 'accident' applies when a cup of coffee, placed on a table, spills for unknown reasons and burns a passenger. In his newly-published opinion the advocate general has ruled that the Montreal Convention's meaning of 'accident' must be interpreted as a sudden or unusual event on board, external to the passenger concerned, which causes injury – crucially "without it being necessary to ascertain whether the event is due to a risk inherent in air transport".

Source: FlightGlobal

Brussels Airlines has already stepped up to maintain Star Alliance links to the Slovenian capital Ljubljana, following the collapse of Adria Airways. The Belgian carrier says it will open a six-times-weekly service from Brussels from 4 November, using Airbus A319s configured with 141 seats. Brussels Airlines has not specifically mentioned the demise of Star partner Adria but its decision to launch the new route comes just 24h after the Slovenian airline revealed it would file for bankruptcy. Ljubljana airport operator Fraport Slovenija's managing director, Zmago Skobir, has welcomed the quick response from the Belgian airline. "I'm convinced that a carrier with an attractive network of flights, including onwards from Brussels, will attract many business and tourist travellers," he says. "We hope that this will be reflected in the occupancy of the aircraft from the initial flight period." Adria's failure has taken place just as work has started on an expanded passenger terminal for the airport, intended to relieve bottlenecks during peak periods in summer. The €17.3 million project will be carried out over the next two years. Fraport Slovenija's full-year pre-tax profit increased to €14.2 million, from €11.6 million, over the course of 2018. Operating revenues rose to €46.5 million. Domestic carriers, however, accounted for more than 50% of the airport's passenger numbers. "The capacities of airlines already flying to Ljubljana airport are already increasing, while our activities are focused on establishing connections with new airlines as soon as possible," says Skobir. "Visibility of Slovenia in foreign markets is increasing, and as a result the interest in travelling to Slovenia is increasing."

Source: FlightGlobal

Air Greenland has revised its centre-of-gravity considerations after a serious incident in which a Bombardier de Havilland Dash 8-200 failed to rotate on departure owing to higher-than-assumed passenger and baggage weights. The turboprop had been conducting its take-off roll from Nuuk's runway 05 and had reached its rotation speed of 88kt, but when the first officer pulled back on the control column there was no response from the aircraft. This prompted the first officer to abort the take-off by reducing throttle and applying maximum anti-skid braking, and the aircraft stopped about 50m from the end of the 950m runway. The surface was dry at the time. Twenty-nine passengers and three crew members had been on board the 30 May service to Kangerlussuaq, which meant the aircraft was fully laden. Pre-flight calculations – using standard weight figures for the occupants – had assumed a cabin weight of 2,445kg, evenly distributed, and this resulted in a centre-of-gravity within the aircraft's limits. But the actual weight was closer to 2,740kg with the first three rows of seats particularly heavy, at over 160kg more than the assumed figure. The pilots' weight was also heavier, and the overall discrepancy across the crew, passengers, baggage and wardrobe amounted to a 13% increase. Danish investigation authority HCL says the crew had been "aware" of a forward centre-of-gravity issue before departure, and an off-duty crew member had repositioned from the cockpit jump-seat to the cabin. But the inquiry found that the centre-of-gravity – when calculated using actual, rather than assumed, weights – was still 2.4in (6.1cm) forward of the aircraft's operational limitation. Even though the aircraft had reached rotation speed during the take-off run, the crew chose to abort after believing the lack of response signified a flight-control failure. "The rationale behind the decision on aborting the take-off roll complied with the operating procedures and potentially prevented a more severe outcome," says the inquiry. Air Greenland has since revised its centre-of-gravity envelope to account for increased passenger weights, and amended its method of passenger distribution during seating to achieve greater control of extreme forward or aft positioning.

Source: FlightGlobal