dkk, thanks. I’ll be really interested what the reason for this was. And what kind of Cessna is this? Golden Eagle?
I received from my friend, but I didn’t met him.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
When it comes to saving lifes, all questions about money, stupidity of those saved and compensation, missed flights e.t.c. should step back and looked at later.
Yes, it shouldn’t be on the forefront of the discussion (although I admit I’m curious what it costs; PS: I mean the SAR part, not the airline part) but the reality is that someone has to pay for it. And I’m not offended by the idea of compensating passengers. We’re not talking about volunteers although I’m sure they would sympathize and perhaps paid twice for the journey if it meant lives were saved. Anyway, I would treat SAR the same way as bad weather – no compensation for arriving late (it wasn’t fault of the airline), but certainly refunds/ rebooking if the flight is scrapped. What do we know, perhaps they have a clause covering this in their terms and conditions.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
but joking aside, I don’t think that anyone did get “damaged” as a result anyhow. It’s not as if they had a lot of connecting flights…
I also think the damage was limited as weather precluded landing at destination anyway (and it was a possibility they were aware of when they took off). Although we don’t know whether there was a window while they were away escorting that Cessna that is whether the escort was incidental or it precluded completion of the flight and caused the passengers to return to the airport of departure.
I imagine deployment of that Hercules and a helicopter was much more expensive. And I believe they will get the bill for that as I imagine the insurance isn’t mandatory for nothing.
Martin wrote:
I certainly have no problem with passengers being refunded (or able to rebook free of charge) because an airline failed to deliver on a contract.
When it comes to saving lifes, all questions about money, stupidity of those saved and compensation, missed flights e.t.c. should step back and looked at later.
As for the pax of that flight, I would not be surprised if each and every one of them left the airplane with a sense of having been part of something remarkable. I know I would have. Apart, they got a free stop in a place they never paid for 
, but joking aside, I don’t think that anyone did get “damaged” as a result anyhow. It’s not as if they had a lot of connecting flights…
Sure, if there are insurances to cover losses e.t.c. why not use them. But unless the situation was brought about by utter carelessness then we all should maybe take a step back and think what if that had been us. I’d guess if any of us ever came into a situation where the courage of fellow humans and the willingness to help out decides whether you live or quite probably die, we’d all be happy to have been in the safe hands of that crew. They deserve our highest respect.
172driver wrote:
I find the whole idea of compensation here disgusting.
Why? I certainly have no problem with passengers being refunded (or able to rebook free of charge) because an airline failed to deliver on a contract. I don’t know what is the practice in Greenland, I’m sure they have plenty of experience with weather ruining their plans. As for compensating Air Greenland for taking part in a SAR operation, if there is a provision that entitles them to compensation, then it should be covered by insurance. And that insurance is mandatory AFAIK. If there is no such provision, it was a decision of their captain and they have to live with it. I think it would be unfortunate if he got into trouble because of it. If someone flies there without insurance, tough luck.
I have been rescued once at sea by the Royal National Lifeboat Institution (RNLI) off the coast of Dover while sailing a catamaran from France to the UK. After docking in Dover, they asked me to which address they could send the invoice for the rescue operation being amongst other, about 600 liters of Diesel for the rescue boat, the towing and staff costs. Then they started laughing and told me it was a joke and offered me a drink instead :-)
I was rescue #39 that year. I was (and still am) a member of the KNRM (Dutch version of the RNLI) which gave me some comfort, but there were no costs whatsoever involved for me.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
It never ceases to amaze me how the question of cost and suing the folks who made an error here come up in this discussion.
+1! I find the whole idea of compensation here disgusting.
Mooney_Driver wrote:
Maybe it’s typical European to think of money first and foremost in such a case.
Yes.
On a positive note: great job by the Air Greenland crew! That’s the way it should be.
Martin wrote:
It wasn’t clear whether their planned alternate was Nuuk or Sondrestrom (or perhaps both). They only wrote that it had consistently good weather or something like that. Sondrestrom is probably the best choice in all of Greenland and Nuuk was usable, but they were farther away. To me it read like they wanted to try their luck (it would be shorter via Narsarsuaq) but were ready to go to an alternate. But who knows what was the reality.
Yes and it is tempting to go and take a look. When you see the GC difference between Goose – Sondrestrom – Reykjavik and Goose – Narsarsuaq – Reykjavik. It is about 250nm. If you truly have the range to do Goose – Narsarsuaq then divert to Sondrestrom then you can make the Sondrestrom direct route. I have always advised anyone who has asked that if there is any doubt at all about Narsarsuaq then just go the long way round. You risk having to divert anyway or getting stuck on the ground. And Narsarsuaq is not a place to get stuck overnight.
JasonC wrote:
There is a failure mode in the PA46 where the gear sags (I think related to the squat switch from memory).
I don’t know about gear sag, but I do know that a faulty squat switch could lead to depressurization. Pulling the breaker on the safety valve is one of the first things to do (if the plane re-pressurizes, it was squat switch).
Mooney_Driver wrote:
I am not even sure how things work with air rescue in such cases but I know that sometimes air rescue organisations have trouble with people being rescued who fear that they will get sued and refuse help.
If you want to do the crossing, you need insurance covering SAR. IIRC, it’s a legal requirement.
Aviathor wrote:
At sea, if I remember correctly, if you accept a tow from another vessel the other vessel can claim an amount limited to the value of your vessel.
Well, this is tricky. Some people believe they’re simply being towed while it’s actually salvage. Both are possible and there is likely a big difference in cost. You really want to be sure you have a towing contract. 
I don’t think this is limited by the value as salvor can be compensated for efforts to minimize environmental damage (this can be over 100 % of the actual incurred costs, including rates for any personnel and equipment involved).
