Updated: Bird strike costs MIA €250,000
Malta International Airport has been ordered to pay more than €250,000 in damages to Air Malta and to an insurance company for the damages an Air Malta plane sustained in a bird strike.
Presiding over the First Hall of the Civil Court, Mr Justice Raymond C Pace concluded that MIS was responsible for the damages due to the lack of an adequate bird strike reduction system.
He delivered his judgement following a writ of summons filed by Air Malta and Shield Insurance Co (Guernsey) Ltd against MIA.
Air Malta told the court that on December 2, 2004, it was operating flight KM100 to London. When the Air Malta Airbus started its take off process from MIA, a sizeable flock of starlings flew into the plane's flight path.
The flight had to terminate abruptly for reasons of safety and the plane had eventually returned to MIA. Air Malta claimed that it had suffered damages of Lm107,551 to its plane as a result of this accident which was caused by the fact that MIA did not have an adequate bird strike reduction system in place.
Shield Insurance, as Air Malta's insurer, had paid the air carrier Lm51,961 in damages, while Air Malta had made good for the remaining Lm55,590 in damages it had sustained.
Mr Justice Pace said that plaintiff companies were basing their claim on the fact that MIA, as the operator of the Malta International Airport, had failed to observe the Convention on International Civil Aviation and had not installed adequate bird control measures.
On its part MIA said that the Convention offered guidelines and recommendations and did not impose legal obligations.
The court added that when MIA was entrusted with the running of the airport, it had been bound by the government to maintain and provide at all times, facilities and operations in compliance with International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) Regulations from time to time.
As a result, MIA had a legal obligation to implement the recommendations and guidelines issued by the ICAO, including that of providing adequate bird strike protection systems.
MIA was therefore responsible for the accident.
The court ordered MIA to pay Air Malta €129,489.94 in damages and to reimburse Shield Insurance €121,037.34.
MIA REACTION
In a reaction, a spokesman for MIA insisted that the company conformed to the highest applicable standards as stipulated by the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) in all aspects of its operations.
"As to the court judgement itself the company is currently evaluating the contents of the judgement with its legal advisers and will be considering whether it should file an appeal."
Popular Stories
Update 3: Woman found dead in car,...
Updated: Woman dies in car crash
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Part of Dwejra 'Azure window' collapses
The end of the bar that ‘never closed’
Bundy does not know whether to...
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
This WAS the night - Kurt makes it...
'No need for early election if PM's...
In Discussion
Updated - Jason Micallef demands...
Gozo tunnel could take 5-7 years to...
CABS remote controlled aircraft shot...
Carm Mifsud Bonnici resigns after...
Joseph Calleja condemns portrayal of...
Second group of migrants arrives
Updated: Labour would give...
CABS drone shot down
Adrian Vassallo in scathing...
26 Comments
Post comment
Please sign in or create your Account to post comments.
Lino Busuttil
Feb 8th, 00:10
Birds have brought down an airliner in NY, all engines dead and down it went in the Hudson river. Although starlings are smaller birds, the shear number of them could mean a body mass much superior than the storks in NY. The local flocks of starlings are like dark clouds of birds and they can surely do a lot of damage. Birds for airplanes are like dears in a highway, they can do severe damage or kill. The momentum of an impact at some 200 mph is no joke. Airlines depend heavily on Airport authorities and standard practices to ensure a safe environment for planes during takeoff and landing.
Karl Attard
Feb 7th, 22:40
where are the kaccaturi when you need them?
Lino Busuttil
Feb 7th, 22:22
In 2002 MIA failed to conform to international standards of bird scaring, full stop. Today MIA should consider not spending too much money on shops and invest some on the runways and their approaches. Malta will soon fall backwards on facilities for aircraft when compared to our counterparts, facilities such as GPS approaches, GPS arrivals and Departures, power outlets for parked aircraft, proper secondary runway (23-05) maintenance and approach aids and numerous other things which would keep Malta abreast with serious main airports in Europe and make aviation through Malta more safe and efficient.
Andrew Cauchi
Feb 7th, 21:56
Why do the insurance company get double what they paid out?
Peter Bonello
Feb 9th, 09:34
note: aqra sew qabel tikteb!
John Bonnici
Feb 7th, 21:38
The court was right in this case, since both the insurance company and Air Malta are suing MIA for damages to third party in this case Air Malta. Clearly this is a case of subrogation, where both the insurance company and Air Malta suffered a financial loss. A loss which has to be compensated for.
Dennis Zammit
Feb 7th, 21:23
A much cheaper bird control measures would be to rent the airport grounds to the hunters' association and shoot down any bird that could cause a risk to the planes and passengers.
Joseph Calleja
Feb 7th, 19:01
Maybe we can start suing the birds for damages to airplanes. Guess lawyers haven't thought of that one yet, but I am sure they will... Just a little humour, how pathetic? Anything to help Air Malta. Look at it this way, it will help pay the wages of one of the big shots that ran our National Airline.
Lino Busuttil
Feb 7th, 22:42
We need 500,000 a year to pay that big shot. ...and guess what the foreign team has brought no new revenues yet!
John Borg
Feb 7th, 17:57
everybody is an expert in this country. why doesn't someone advocate that they engage hunters to wipe out birds from the airport? Does it cross anyone's mind that starlings congregate at the airport because they are so heavily persecuted all around?
M. Cardona
Feb 7th, 18:44
Mr John Borg,
"everybody is an expert in this country"; and by the looks of it that counts for you too. Evidently, you haven't got the slightest clue. Starlings are known to cause similar incidents throughout their distribution range including in those countries where they have been awarded protection (improper if I may add) simply because of their multiplying numbers and their gregarious nature.
C Falzon
Feb 7th, 19:39
"Maltese Liri ? why ?"
Why? Because that was our currency in 2004.
Anthony Formosa
Feb 7th, 19:40
I guess you are, and if this bird is heavily persecuted, then why is it listed as least concern?
A. Caruana
Feb 7th, 22:24
Prosit M Cardona. RIsposta f'waqta.
Reuben Abela
Feb 7th, 17:38
Maltese Liri ? why ?
James Dewar
Feb 7th, 18:43
T''was before the dreaded euro appeared perhaps?
Michael Seychell
Feb 7th, 18:47
Because the case goes back to 2004 - and the amounts mentioned in Maltese are equal to the figures shown in Euro in the last sentence.
Michael Seychell
Tal-Pieta
Adrian Sacco
Feb 7th, 21:00
I dare say that there are one or two civil cases still lumbering through the interminable Maltese legal system where the original pecuniary loss was measured in scudi...
M. Bezzina
Feb 7th, 16:28
no it isnt because there should be some sort of equipment fixed to prevent these birds from entering the runway and not roaming with the car allover the runway every now and then!!!With a tape and speakers on the car roof to scare them.The sound should be continuous and which does not bother the people residing around the airfield as well.....
tony abela
Feb 7th, 16:15
Let us hope that this is the only case in MIA operations which lacks to abide with ICAO Recommendations and Guidelines. All ICAO regulations are classified as 'Recommendations and Guidelines.
Joe Mallia
Feb 7th, 17:33
ICAO annexes include standards which are neither recommendations nor guidelines. Each contracting state is expected to abide by these standards.
steve Micallef
Feb 7th, 16:02
Isn't that considered an ''Act of God''???
Harold Cameron
Feb 7th, 17:07
Just another way of giving Air Malta a further €129,489.94 subsidy.
Mr Andrei Azzopardi
Feb 7th, 20:11
That's an act of birds :)
MARIO ZERAFA
Feb 7th, 20:14
Airport authorities are responsible to have the runway clear from any obstacles during takeoffs and landing by using equipment to scare birds away from runways. It is not a subsidy to AirMalta but a legitimate claim for damages suffered. Air Malta has been subsidizing MIA since its inception by which it has become almost bankrupt. Building MIA meant dismantling Air Malta.
Joe Felice-Pace
Feb 7th, 21:33
Does Mr Micallef know that the term 'act of God' has long disappeared from insurance policies which insure specified risks and not conjectures?