Apple gets dragged into court by relatives in a plane crash, blaming an exploding iPhone

[GoldenLag]

12 hours ago, Not_Sean said:

I'm no apple fanboy, but when apple wins I hope they sue the living crap out of TMZ for slander and all that other crap, The less of these "Publications" in the world the better. 

im no fake news supporter, but what else than reporting on the case did the publication do? 

[Wolther]

16 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

im no fake news supporter, but what else than reporting on the case did the publication do? 

 

[GoldenLag]

32 minutes ago, Wolther said:

-snip-

looks like avarage over clickbaity article if you ask me

[Wolther]

12 minutes ago, GoldenLag said:

looks like avarage over clickbaity article if you ask me

Not when 66 people die. You’d think that whole part would be more important than a possible cause. It’s clear what the intent of the article is, to get readers, not to report on information. Not to mention disrespect to families, that exclamation mark indicating excitement that it happened 

 

The entire article is built around apple.

Edited May 15, 2018 by Wolther

[Oh Schmitt]

I wonder what the effects of the continued radiation exposure from regular high altitude flights are on Lithium Batteries? I'm not saying I think this lawsuit has any merit but its an interesting thought.

[79wjd]

7 hours ago, Oh Schmitt said:

I wonder what the effects of the continued radiation exposure from regular high altitude flights are on Lithium Batteries? I'm not saying I think this lawsuit has any merit but its an interesting thought.

The, I believe, 5% higher cancer risk is probably more of a concern.

[Xanthe_2871]

20 hours ago, Cheezdoodlez said:

Using Chinese cheapo chargers and cables and dropping your phone are two things. Fast charging and wireless charging also heats up the battery more than regular chargers. 

I see, thank you. I have some cheap Chinese unbranded chargers, but I usually use them for little USB gadgets like lights or fans or such. Not charging a phone. Although I do drop my phone a lot. I didn't know that could lead to battery failure.

[Xander Cousins]

On ‎14‎/‎05‎/‎2018 at 10:00 PM, Christophe Corazza said:

 

Now, if the pilot had a Samsung phone... 

He wouldn't be a pilot, That's one of their safety checks, You carrying an Samsung Note ?

yes....?

Sorry you're not allowed to be a pilot 

[Linus_torvalds]

9 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

To be fair, she wasn't suing them over the crash itself.  She was suing them because they found a defect with the seatbelt.  Had that defect not been there Paul could have gotten out, but yes his friend was an idiot for drifting/reckless driving.

After crashing into a tree at 200 km/h+ i doubt anyone was concious in that car if they were still alive after that crash.

[79wjd]

9 minutes ago, mate_mate91 said:

After crashing into a tree at 200 km/h+ i doubt anyone was concious in that car if they were still alive after that crash.

The crash happened around 140km/h, whether or not he was conscious is something else (you certainly could still be conscious, and maybe there was evidence that he was awake?). 

 

@valdyrgramr his friend was reckless for taking the corner too fast; he was an idiot for not replacing the tires. The driver was experienced and the car is more than capable of making the turn. The problem was the tires had deteriorated to garbage.

[D13H4RD]

I really, HIGHLY doubt an iPhone that caught fire could have taken down an entire Airbus A320

 

Because think about it, don’t cockpits have a fire extinguisher somewhere? I’ve seen many in the cabin, so it’s fair to assume that the cockpit has one too. If the iPhone had caught fire, the pilots would have extinguished it in some way. Furthermore, it was right next to him. So if anything happened, you’d know they’d have dealt with it pronto.

 

If you look at past air crashes involving in-flight fires, many of them have fires that started in areas that aren’t visible at all. Some include;

• Swissair Flight 111: McDonnell Douglas MD-11 that crashed due to an in-flight fire which was caused by an arc from the IFE’s wiring, igniting flammable metallized-mylar insulation and causing a catastrophic fire behind the pilots which rendered electrical systems in the cockpit inoperable. 
• ValuJet Flight 592: McDonnell Douglas DC-9 that crashed into the Everglades shortly after takeoff due to a fire in the cargo hold caused by improperly packed oxygen generators that quickly grew uncontrollable.
• Air Canada 797: McDonnell Douglas DC-9 that suffered an in-flight fire caused by an electrical arc underneath the washroom. Although the hidden fire made the plane difficult to fly and difficult to breathe, the plane did make an emergency landing but while evacuation was underway, a flashover occurred, killing 23 who have yet to evacuate.
• Nigeria Airways Flight 2120: Douglas DC-8 wet-leased from NationAir that suffered an inflight-fire caused by landing gear tires that caught fire due to underinflation and subsequently led to the failure of critical systems and a ruptured fuel tank when the gear was retracted. Despite managing to fly the crippled jet to align with the runway, the plane sadly crashed short of it.
• Saudia Flight 163: Lockheed L-1011 which suffered an inflight-fire on its aft cargo bay. Despite managing to make an emergency landing, the delayed evacuation caused the fire to eventually consume the plane and many passengers had started to be incapacitated from the smoke.

However, there were some exceptions

• South African Airways Flight 295: Boeing 747-200M Combi which suffered an in-flight fire on its rearmost cargobay on the passenger deck. Despite attempts to extinguish it by attendants with hand extinguishers, the plane crashed, with no conclusive reason.
• UPS Flight 6: Boeing 747-400F which suffered an inflight-fire in its cargo hold caused by lithium batteries. Despite the pilots’ attempts, the plane crashed past the airport, with neither pilot surviving.

I feel that a fire in the avionics bay would have been more likely because a combusting iPhone wouldn’t have had the ability to take down an entire jetliner unless it was ignored for far too long.

[TopHatProductions115]

This case sounds suspicious for 2 reasons, as it is hinging on the cause of the crash being the iPhone. There are only two reasons that would be somewhat valid (if at all):

• Radio/communications interference, caused by the device in question operating in a matter that violates FCC policy requirements
• An immediate danger/dangerous situation caused by the device in question being (either) used improperly or with defect.

In the case of the first option, that is extremely unlikely - the testing that iPhones undergo should already cover testing for radio/signal interference. Thus, the only way this option could hold water is if the device was modified post-purchase (which is then on the user).

 

Now for the second option. If it was caused by a battery defect, the device would begin to expand/distort its regular shape first - which would be a very obvious warning sign (in addition to releasing nasty smells due to the chemical reaction in play). If you don't notice that, go see a doctor. Perhaps the device in question may have been used in a way that is outside of normal use cases, or modified (hardware only - not software) by the end-user? Even in that case, there still would have been warning. Most modern phones only explode because of one thing - the battery (can't say capacitors anymore - the ICs are too small to cause such). Once again, there would have been more than enough time to react before the event occurred. 

 

It is quite likely that something else transpired that occured, seeing that they did not radio in before being downed. Something would have to prevent:

• The radio from operating in its normal capacity, or
• the pilot/someone from being able to reach the radio

For this to occur. Thus, it is very unlikely that the iPhone caused the accident in question. It is most likely due to another factor that hasn't been mentioned yet...

[Jtalk4456]

On 5/14/2018 at 10:50 AM, NMS said:

But in the end all those batteries are the same. It's the controller on them that distributes power is different. Hence why Samsung F'ed up so hard.

But in the case of samsung it was actually faulty batteries, they are not all the same

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/01/22/business/samsung-galaxy-note-7-battery-fires-report.html

https://www.recode.net/2017/1/22/14330404/samsung-note-7-problems-battery-investigation-explanation

[79wjd]

3 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

 

Even then that's not why the maker was being sued.  According to the case she was simply suing them over a known seatbelt defect with that exact model, and had that defect not been there Paul could have gotten out.  I'm not saying the whole seatbelt defect is true, but that's why she was suing.  Not because the driver crashed the car, and not because of the tires either.

I understand why she sued, I was just pointing out that the cause wasn't the speed. The cause was the tires, which was only a serious problem because of the speed, but the tires were still the reason the car lost control. 

 

And Porsche isn't to blame for the tires, so again I understand that wasn't the reason for that particular lawsuit. Tires don't age well as the rubber compound deteriorates significantly (I believe Porsche themselves advise replacing the tires within five years), and that's even more of an issue with high performance tires (which are stupidly dangerous to drive on in just in bad conditions even when new -- e.g. High performance tires of a small window of road worthiness).

[D13H4RD]

7 hours ago, djdwosk97 said:

I understand why she sued, I was just pointing out that the cause wasn't the speed. The cause was the tires, which was only a serious problem because of the speed, but the tires were still the reason the car lost control. 

 

And Porsche isn't to blame for the tires, so again I understand that wasn't the reason for that particular lawsuit. Tires don't age well as the rubber compound deteriorates significantly (I believe Porsche themselves advise replacing the tires within five years), and that's even more of an issue with high performance tires (which are stupidly dangerous to drive on in just in bad conditions even when new -- e.g. High performance tires of a small window of road worthiness).

Not to mention that car was a Carrera GT, which is one of those cars that require immense skill to control even on the world's best tires. 

[Jtalk4456]

19 hours ago, valdyrgramr said:

Weren't the ones that had issues only from one factory?

Actually no. From what I gathered, the first set had a defect in the corners of the batteries as shown, so they immediately started recalls and switched to a second provider and started pumping out replacements, but as it turns out, that company had a completely different defect as shown with welding burrs

It was 2 different companies with 2 different defects. People were quick to blame samsung for this, but as I see it, they had some really bad luck. 

[79wjd]

11 minutes ago, Jtalk4456 said:

Actually no. From what I gathered, the first set had a defect in the corners of the batteries as shown, so they immediately started recalls and switched to a second provider and started pumping out replacements, but as it turns out, that company had a completely different defect as shown with welding burrs

It was 2 different companies with 2 different defects. People were quick to blame samsung for this, but as I see it, they had some really bad luck. 

Well, in fairness, one of the two companies that produced the batteries was technically Samsung.

[DoctorWho1975]

If the battery doesn't fit you must acquit.

[Jtalk4456]

@djdwosk97 Fair enough, though that is one mistake, and their response was quick, so i'm still not going to BLAME them, mistakes happen and they learned from it. That's part of the reason i now use an S8. The way I see it, if samsung has another recall fiasco, they might not make it. Consequently their butt was really on the line with the S8, so I trusted they would do a good job on it. And besides the newest gorilla glass being crap (not samsung's fault) I have not been disappointed

[Canada EH]

blame the person who owns the phone