Emirates Flight 521
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Emirates Flight 521
Boeing 777-31H, Emirates AN1633283.jpg
A6-EMW, the aircraft involved in the accident, pictured in 2009 at Dubai International Airport
Accident summary
Date 3 August 2016
Summary Crashed during go-around attempt, fire, under investigation
Site Dubai International Airport
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Runway 12L
Passengers 282
Crew 18
Injuries (non-fatal) 14[1][2]
Fatalities 1 (firefighter)[1][3]
Survivors 300 (all)
Aircraft type Boeing 777-300
Operator Emirates
Registration A6-EMW
Flight origin Trivandrum International Airport
Thiruvananthapuram, India
Destination Dubai International Airport
Dubai, United Arab Emirates
Emirates Flight 521 was a scheduled international passenger flight from Thiruvananthapuram, India, to Dubai, United Arab Emirates,[4] operated by Emirates using a Boeing 777-300.[5] On 3 August 2016, the aircraft carrying 282 passengers[6] and 18 crew[7] crashed upon landing at Dubai International Airport, at approximately 12:45 local time.[8][9]
All 300 people on board survived the accident and were evacuated from the aircraft. Thirteen injuries were reported; ten of those injured were taken to a local hospital, while the remaining three received treatment at the airport.[10] An airport firefighter died during the rescue operation.[3] This accident was the first hull loss of an aircraft operated by Emirates airlines.[11]
Contents [hide]
1 Aircraft
2 Flight
3 Passengers and crew
4 Investigation
5 Aftermath
6 References
7 External links
Aircraft
The aircraft involved was a 13-year-old Boeing 777-31H with the registration A6-EMW, serial number 434. It made its first flight on 7 March 2003. It was delivered new to Emirates on 28 March 2003 and was equipped with two Rolls-Royce Trent 892 engines.[12]
Flight
On 3 August 2016, Flight EK521 took off from Trivandrum International Airport (TRV) at 10:34 IST (05:04 UTC), 29 minutes after its scheduled departure time. It was scheduled to land at Dubai International Airport (DXB) at 12:24 GST (08:24 UTC).[13]
The approach and landing were normal from the air traffic control (ATC) point of view, with no emergency declared according to ATC recordings at the time.[10][14] The crew reported that they were going around, after which the tower instructed them to climb to 4,000 feet, which was acknowledged by the crew. Shortly after, the tower instructed the next flight to go around and alerted emergency services.[10] Wind shear and an ambient temperature of 48 °C (118 °F) were reported.[15] Eyewitness accounts suggested that the landing gear retracted during a failed go-around attempt.[10]
The incident occurred at 12:44 Gulf Standard Time (08:44 UTC). Footage was taken showing the aircraft skidding along runway 12L after striking the tarmac with its right wing.[16][15] All 300 passengers and crew were safely evacuated.[17] Reports were of a major fire and large amounts of black smoke on the runway. The airport was closed during and following the incident, which resulted in major diversions.[18]
Photographs of the aircraft on its belly[19] suggest the landing gear may have collapsed on landing or been up for the whole approach. It is unclear whether the landing gear was retracted during a go-around attempt. Passengers were told by the pilot moments before landing that there was a problem with the landing gear.[19] Before the aircraft finished skidding down the runway, the number 2 (starboard) engine detached.[20] Large explosions were observed flipping objects around during the post-evacuation fire. The aircraft was completely destroyed by the ensuing fire.[21] An explosion resulted in the death of a firefighter, a Ras al-Khaimah resident named Jasim Issa Mohammed Hasan.[19]
Passengers and crew
The aircraft had 282 passengers and 18 crew members.[22] The captain was a Dubai native and the first officer was Australian.[23] Passengers were criticized for giving priority to luggage instead of deplaning urgently.[24]
Investigation
The General Civil Aviation Authority (GCAA) is responsible for investigating civil aviation accidents in the United Arab Emirates. It has opened an investigation into the accident.[25] According to the GCAA, the investigation will take three to five months to complete and will be assisted by Emirates, Boeing and Rolls-Royce.[26] In addition, the NTSB have sent a five-person team to join the other investigators.[27] On 4 August 2016, the flight data recorder and cockpit voice recorder were recovered.[28][29]
Aftermath
A memorial poster in a fire station in Kerala of Jasim Issa Mohammed Hasan, the Emirati fire fighter who lost his life in the rescue efforts.
Following the accident, the airport was closed for 5½ hours; several flights were diverted to nearby airports such as Sharjah International Airport and Al Maktoum International Airport.[30] The closure led Emirates and Flydubai to cancel several of their flights,[31][32] and also affected 23,000 passengers at the airport.[33] Dubai International Airport resumed operations at 18:30 local time,[34][35] at restricted capacity, utilizing only one runway and maximizing the use of the runways at Al Maktoum International Airport.[33] Arrival flights were prioritized over departure flights.[36]
On 4 August 2016, Emirates and Dubai Airport announced that there would be flight disruptions for 48 hours, the airport being in recovery mode as an effort to handle backlogged flights affected by the accident.[36][37] Around 19,000 passengers were affected by the disruption when several inbound and departing flights were cancelled.[38] The second runway was repaired and reopened at 17:45 local time.[39] On 6 August 2016, the airport resumed normal operations, 72 hours after the accident.[40][41]
References
^ Jump up to: a b Dean, Jon (3 August 2016). "Emirates plane crash fire: Live updates after jet crash-lands at Dubai International Airport with 24 Brits on board". Mirror. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Burke, Louise (3 August 2016). "Dubai plane crash: Emirates expects network-wide delay after flight EK521 bursts into flames on crash-landing". Telegraph (UK). Retrieved 3 August 2016.
^ Jump up to: a b "Firefighter dies responding to Emirates plane fire at Dubai airport". The National (UAE). 3 August 2016. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Emirates (3 August 2016). "Emirates airline on Twitter" (Tweet).
Jump up ^ "Playback of Emirates flight EK521". Flightradar24. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Mitchell, Georgina (3 August 2016). "Smoke pours from plane after 'crash-landing' incident at Dubai Airport". The Sydney Morning Herald. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
Jump up ^ "Emirates flight EK521 from Thiruvananthapuram crash lands at Dubai airport – Firstpost". 3 August 2016. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Emirates (3 August 2016). "Emirates airline on Twitter" (Tweet).
Jump up ^ "Emirates plane crash-lands at Dubai airport". BBC News. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
^ Jump up to: a b c d "Accident: Emirates B773 at Dubai on Aug 3rd 2016, touched down during go-around without gear, aircraft on fire". Aviation Herald. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
Jump up ^ "Fire guts Emirates jet after hard landing; one firefighter dies". Reuters. 3 August 2016. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
Jump up ^ "mages Of The Emirates Plane That Burst Into Flames In Dubai". NDTV. NDTV Convergence Ltd. Retrieved 6 August 2016.
Jump up ^ "Emirates 521 – 03-Aug-2016/ TRV – DXB". FlightAware. Retrieved 8 July 2013.
Jump up ^ "OMDB Towers, 3 Aug 2016 0830-0900Z". LiveATC.net. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
^ Jump up to: a b "A6-EMW Accident description". Aviation Safety Network. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
Jump up ^ "Dubai airport fire: Emirates plane in flames on runway after 'crash landing'". Independent.
Jump up ^ DXBMediaOffice (3 August 2016). "All reported safe" (Tweet).
Jump up ^ FlightRadar24 (3 August 2016). "Dubai International Airport remains closed for takeoffs & landings after earlier #EK521 accident." (Tweet).
^ Jump up to: a b c "Alive! 300 passengers – including 24 Brits – escape when their Emirates jet crash-lands at Dubai airport after catching fire in the air and EXPLODING on landing". Daily Mail. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Flight_Report (3 August 2016). "Seconds after the crash, aircraft sliding on his belly with engine No. 2 detached" (Tweet).
Jump up ^ UAVPilot07 (3 August 2016). "Flight 521 explosion on DXB tarmac" (Tweet).
Jump up ^ "Emirates airliner with 300 on board crash-lands in Dubai ." Associated Press at the Los Angeles Times. 3 August 2016. Retrieved 3 August 2016.
Jump up ^ "Australian co-pilot Jeremy Webb escaped Emirates plane crash in Dubai". News.com.au. 5 August 2016. Retrieved 6 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Bhattacharya, Sindhu (5 August 2016). "Emirates flight EK521 crash: Why passengers think about bags, not lives in emergency". Firstpost. Retrieved 6 August 2016.
Jump up ^ General Civil Aviation Authority [gcaa_uae] (3 August 2016). "(untitled)" (Tweet).
Jump up ^ Alexander Cornwell (4 August 2016). "Exclusive: Emirates EK521 investigation to take 3 to 5 months". Gulf News. Al Nasir Publishing. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
Jump up ^ "Emirates jet tried to abort landing shortly before Dubai crash (VIDEO)". Malay Mail Online. Dubai. 6 August 2016. Retrieved 7 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Kelly Clarke (4 August 2016). "DXB facilities now 'fully operational', black box recovered". Khaleej Times. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Alexander Cornwell (4 August 2016). "Investigators recover EK521 recorders". Gulf News. Al Nasir Publishing. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
Jump up ^ "Flight EK521: Landing gear issues not confirmed". Gulf News. Al Nasir Publishing. 4 August 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Sneha May Francis (3 August 2016). "Flydubai cancels all flights". Emirates 247. Dubai Media Incorporated. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
Jump up ^ "Flight operations resume at Dubai airport". Khaleej Times. 3 August 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
^ Jump up to: a b "Dubai airport day 2: Flight cancellation and warning of delays". Gulf News. Al Nasir Publishing. 4 August 2016. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Kelly Clarke and Nivriti Butalia (4 August 2016). "Emirates incident: Guess what costs $1 million a minute?". Khaleej Times. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Sneha May Francis; Bindu Rai (3 August 2016). "DXB departures, arrivals resume". Emirates 247. Dubai Media Incorporated. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
^ Jump up to: a b Nadeem Hanif (4 August 2016). "Flight disruptions expected at Dubai airport for 48 hours following crash landing". The National. Abu Dhabi Media. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Aarti Nagraj (4 August 2016). "Dubai airport on 'recovery mode' for next 48 hours". Gulf Business. Motivate Publishing. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Cleofe Maceda (4 August 2016). "19,000 passengers affected by EK521 accident". Gulf News. Al Nasir Publishing. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Shoshana Kedem (4 August 2016). "Dubai International Airport reopens runway after fire on Emirates flight". 7Days. Catchpole Communications FZ-LLC. Retrieved 4 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Alexander Cornwell. "Dubai International returns to full capacity after Emirates fire". Gulf News. AL Nasir Publishing. Retrieved 6 August 2016.
Jump up ^ Ismail Sebugwaawo (6 August 2016). "Dubai airport flights 'back to normal' after Emirates accident". 7Days. Catchpole Communications FZ-LLC. Retrieved 6 August 2016.
Monday, August 8, 2016
Saturday, July 23, 2016
Lukács v. Canadian Transportation Agency Federal Court of Appeal Decision copy
http://decisions.fca-caf.gc.ca/fca-caf/decisions/en/item/145216/index.do?r=AAAAAQA4THVrw6FjcyB2LiBDYW5hZGlhbiBUcmFuc3BvcnRhdGlvbiBBZ2VuY3ksIDIwMTYgRkNBIDE3NCAB
Date: 20160609
Docket: 16-A-17
Citation: 2016 FCA 174
CORAM:
GAUTHIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
GÁBOR LUKÁCS
Appellant
and
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AND NEWLEAF TRAVEL COMPANY INC.
Respondents
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 9, 2016.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY:
GLEASON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
GAUTHIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
Date: 20160609
Docket: 16-A-17
Citation: 2016 FCA 174
CORAM:
GAUTHIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
GÁBOR LUKÁCS
Appellant
and
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AND NEWLEAF TRAVEL COMPANY INC.
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
GLEASON J.A.
[1] The appellant, Dr. Gábor Lukács, is seeking leave to appeal Decision 100-A-2016 of the Canadian Transportation Agency, issued on March 29, 2016 [the Decision]. In the Decision, the Agency made two determinations. First, it decided that resellers of domestic air service are no longer required to hold licences under the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10 [the CTA], so long as they do not hold themselves out as an air carrier operating an air service. Second, in application of the foregoing, the Agency held that the respondent, Newleaf Travel Company Inc., was such a reseller and therefore not required to hold a licence. In so deciding, the Agency modified its previous interpretation of subsection 55(1) and paragraph 57(a) of the CTA that it had applied to several other domestic resellers of air services.
[2] Dr. Lukács submits the Agency made an error of law as its changed interpretation of subsection 55(1) and paragraph 57(a) of the CTA is unreasonable. He also alleges that the Agency lacked jurisdiction to undertake the inquiry which led to the new interpretation of the licencing requirements applicable to resellers of domestic air services. The issues in the proposed appeal therefore raise questions that fall within the scope of section 41 of the CTA.
[3] Newleaf does not contest this but rather says that Dr. Lukács lacks standing to commence this appeal as he was not a party to the proceeding before the Agency. It also asserts that Dr. Lukács has failed to raise an arguable case in respect of the issues that he has raised.
[4] Contrary to what Newleaf asserts, the materials filed do raise an arguable case and Dr. Lukács does have standing to commence this appeal, either as a private or public interest applicant.
[5] Dr. Lukács participated in the consultation before the Agency undertaken with respect to the change in the interpretation of the licencing requirements applicable to domestic resellers of air service, which is sufficient to afford him standing to launch this appeal.
[6] Even if this were not the case, he would possess standing as a public interest litigant. The test for public interest standing involves consideration of three inter-related factors: first, whether there is a justiciable issue, second, whether the individual seeking standing has a genuine interest in the issue, and, third, whether the proposed proceeding is a reasonable and effective way to bring the matter before the courts: Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524 at paras. 36-37. As leave is being granted, this appeal raises a justiciable issue. It is undisputed that Dr. Lukács is an air passenger rights advocate, who has frequently brought applications to this Court in respect of Agency decisions, and therefore does have a genuine interest in the issues raised in this appeal. Finally, an appeal by someone like Dr. Lukács is an effective way for the issues raised in this appeal to be brought before the Court as Newleaf would not challenge the Decision rendered in its favour.
[7] Thus, leave should be granted to Dr. Lukács to commence this appeal.
[8] Dr. Lukács requests that this appeal be expedited and joined for hearing with an earlier judicial review application he commenced, challenging the jurisdiction of the Agency to embark upon the inquiry that led to the Decision (Federal Court of Appeal File A-39-16). The judicial review application in File A-39-16 is being conducted on an expedited basis. If the judicial review application is not rendered moot by this appeal, it makes sense that this appeal and the judicial review application be heard one immediately after the other by the same panel of this Court as there is considerable overlap between the files. It also is appropriate to expedite this appeal due both to the fact that the judicial review application is being expedited and to the nature of the issues raised in the appeal.
[9] I would therefore order that the appeal be conducted on an expedited basis if Dr. Lukács files his Notice of Appeal within thirty days of the date of this Order. I would also order that if this matter is expedited, this appeal be heard immediately following the judicial review application in File A-39-16 if that application proceeds to hearing. The other issues raised by the parties regarding production of materials should be dealt with in a separate procedural Order issued concurrently with this Order.
[10] While Dr. Lukács seeks his costs in respect of this motion for leave, it is more appropriate that they be in the cause.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
J.A.
“I agree
Johanne Gauthier J.A."
“I agree
Wyman W. Webb J.A."
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
16-A-17
STYLE OF CAUSE:
GÁBOR LUKÁCS v. CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AND NEWLEAF TRAVEL COMPANY INC.
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY:
GLEASON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
GAUTHIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Dr. Gábor Lukács
FOR THE APPELLANT
(ON HIS OWN BEHALF)
Allan Matte
FOR THE RESPONDENT
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
Brian J. Meronek
Ian S. McIvor
FOR THE RESPONDENT
NEWLEAF TRAVEL COMPANY INC.
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Legal Services Branch
Canadian Transportation Agency
Gatineau, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
D’Arcy & Deacon LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Winnipeg, Manitoba
FOR THE RESPONDENT
NEWLEAF TRAVEL COMPANY INC.
Date: 20160609
Docket: 16-A-17
Citation: 2016 FCA 174
CORAM:
GAUTHIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
GÁBOR LUKÁCS
Appellant
and
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AND NEWLEAF TRAVEL COMPANY INC.
Respondents
Dealt with in writing without appearance of parties.
Order delivered at Ottawa, Ontario, on June 9, 2016.
REASONS FOR ORDER BY:
GLEASON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
GAUTHIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
Date: 20160609
Docket: 16-A-17
Citation: 2016 FCA 174
CORAM:
GAUTHIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
GLEASON J.A.
BETWEEN:
GÁBOR LUKÁCS
Appellant
and
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AND NEWLEAF TRAVEL COMPANY INC.
Respondents
REASONS FOR ORDER
GLEASON J.A.
[1] The appellant, Dr. Gábor Lukács, is seeking leave to appeal Decision 100-A-2016 of the Canadian Transportation Agency, issued on March 29, 2016 [the Decision]. In the Decision, the Agency made two determinations. First, it decided that resellers of domestic air service are no longer required to hold licences under the Canada Transportation Act, S.C. 1996, c. 10 [the CTA], so long as they do not hold themselves out as an air carrier operating an air service. Second, in application of the foregoing, the Agency held that the respondent, Newleaf Travel Company Inc., was such a reseller and therefore not required to hold a licence. In so deciding, the Agency modified its previous interpretation of subsection 55(1) and paragraph 57(a) of the CTA that it had applied to several other domestic resellers of air services.
[2] Dr. Lukács submits the Agency made an error of law as its changed interpretation of subsection 55(1) and paragraph 57(a) of the CTA is unreasonable. He also alleges that the Agency lacked jurisdiction to undertake the inquiry which led to the new interpretation of the licencing requirements applicable to resellers of domestic air services. The issues in the proposed appeal therefore raise questions that fall within the scope of section 41 of the CTA.
[3] Newleaf does not contest this but rather says that Dr. Lukács lacks standing to commence this appeal as he was not a party to the proceeding before the Agency. It also asserts that Dr. Lukács has failed to raise an arguable case in respect of the issues that he has raised.
[4] Contrary to what Newleaf asserts, the materials filed do raise an arguable case and Dr. Lukács does have standing to commence this appeal, either as a private or public interest applicant.
[5] Dr. Lukács participated in the consultation before the Agency undertaken with respect to the change in the interpretation of the licencing requirements applicable to domestic resellers of air service, which is sufficient to afford him standing to launch this appeal.
[6] Even if this were not the case, he would possess standing as a public interest litigant. The test for public interest standing involves consideration of three inter-related factors: first, whether there is a justiciable issue, second, whether the individual seeking standing has a genuine interest in the issue, and, third, whether the proposed proceeding is a reasonable and effective way to bring the matter before the courts: Canada (Attorney General) v. Downtown Eastside Sex Workers United Against Violence Society, 2012 SCC 45, [2012] 2 S.C.R. 524 at paras. 36-37. As leave is being granted, this appeal raises a justiciable issue. It is undisputed that Dr. Lukács is an air passenger rights advocate, who has frequently brought applications to this Court in respect of Agency decisions, and therefore does have a genuine interest in the issues raised in this appeal. Finally, an appeal by someone like Dr. Lukács is an effective way for the issues raised in this appeal to be brought before the Court as Newleaf would not challenge the Decision rendered in its favour.
[7] Thus, leave should be granted to Dr. Lukács to commence this appeal.
[8] Dr. Lukács requests that this appeal be expedited and joined for hearing with an earlier judicial review application he commenced, challenging the jurisdiction of the Agency to embark upon the inquiry that led to the Decision (Federal Court of Appeal File A-39-16). The judicial review application in File A-39-16 is being conducted on an expedited basis. If the judicial review application is not rendered moot by this appeal, it makes sense that this appeal and the judicial review application be heard one immediately after the other by the same panel of this Court as there is considerable overlap between the files. It also is appropriate to expedite this appeal due both to the fact that the judicial review application is being expedited and to the nature of the issues raised in the appeal.
[9] I would therefore order that the appeal be conducted on an expedited basis if Dr. Lukács files his Notice of Appeal within thirty days of the date of this Order. I would also order that if this matter is expedited, this appeal be heard immediately following the judicial review application in File A-39-16 if that application proceeds to hearing. The other issues raised by the parties regarding production of materials should be dealt with in a separate procedural Order issued concurrently with this Order.
[10] While Dr. Lukács seeks his costs in respect of this motion for leave, it is more appropriate that they be in the cause.
"Mary J.L. Gleason"
J.A.
“I agree
Johanne Gauthier J.A."
“I agree
Wyman W. Webb J.A."
FEDERAL COURT OF APPEAL
NAMES OF COUNSEL AND SOLICITORS OF RECORD
DOCKET:
16-A-17
STYLE OF CAUSE:
GÁBOR LUKÁCS v. CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY AND NEWLEAF TRAVEL COMPANY INC.
MOTION DEALT WITH IN WRITING WITHOUT APPEARANCE OF PARTIES
REASONS FOR ORDER BY:
GLEASON J.A.
CONCURRED IN BY:
GAUTHIER J.A.
WEBB J.A.
WRITTEN REPRESENTATIONS BY:
Dr. Gábor Lukács
FOR THE APPELLANT
(ON HIS OWN BEHALF)
Allan Matte
FOR THE RESPONDENT
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
Brian J. Meronek
Ian S. McIvor
FOR THE RESPONDENT
NEWLEAF TRAVEL COMPANY INC.
SOLICITORS OF RECORD:
Legal Services Branch
Canadian Transportation Agency
Gatineau, Quebec
FOR THE RESPONDENT
CANADIAN TRANSPORTATION AGENCY
D’Arcy & Deacon LLP
Barristers and Solicitors
Winnipeg, Manitoba
FOR THE RESPONDENT
NEWLEAF TRAVEL COMPANY INC.
Monday, June 27, 2016
NewLeaf Legality
source and Lukács v. Canadian Transportation Agency, 2016 FCA 174 (CanLII)Date: 2016-06-09Docket: 16-A-17Citation: Lukács v. Canadian Transportation Agency, 2016 FCA 174 (CanLII), <http://canlii.ca/t/gs5q4>, retrieved on 2016-06-27
Legality of NewLeaf’s business is up in the air
In order to lawfully run an air service in Canada, one must get a licence from the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). NewLeaf does not hold any licence, but the CTA decided that NewLeaf can operate without one anyway.
On June 9, 2016, three judges of the Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously against NewLeaf and agreed to review whether NewLeaf needs a licence:
Legality of NewLeaf’s business is up in the air
In order to lawfully run an air service in Canada, one must get a licence from the Canadian Transportation Agency (CTA). NewLeaf does not hold any licence, but the CTA decided that NewLeaf can operate without one anyway.
On June 9, 2016, three judges of the Federal Court of Appeal ruled unanimously against NewLeaf and agreed to review whether NewLeaf needs a licence:
Friday, June 3, 2016
The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin receives honorary doctorate from McGill Published on 2 Jun 2016
The Right Honourable Beverley McLachlin receives honorary doctorate from McGill
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eu7-cPDxTNI
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)