Beje, lemputes pagal ETT sprendima (C-549/07) negaletu but ypatingos 
aplinkybes, nes jame rasoma:


Technical problems which come to light during maintenance of aircraft or on 
account of failure to carry out such maintenance do not constitute, in 
themselves, 'extraordinary circumstances'.

However, it is not ruled out that technical problems are covered by 
'exceptional circumstances' to the extent that they stem from events which 
are not inherent in the normal exercise of the activity of the air carrier 
concerned and are beyond its actual control. That would be the case, for 
example, in the situation where it was revealed by the manufacturer of the 
aircraft comprising the fleet of the air carrier concerned, or by a 
competent authority, that those aircraft, although already in service, are 
affected by a hidden manufacturing defect which impinges on flight safety. 
The same would hold for damage to aircraft caused by acts of sabotage or 
terrorism.


Turbut reikes nieko nekeist ir toliau irodinet, kad cia vezejo problemos, 
jei skilo stiklas del kazko.


"Laurynas"  wrote in message news:jjvjlp$1lg$1@trimpas.omnitel.net...

tai tada bet kokia aplinkybė, susijusi su gedimu, laikytina ypatinga ir
vežėjas niekad nekompensuos - va, padanga prakiurko, turbūt žiurkės, va
žiūrėkit, lemputė nedega, paseno turbūt, ir pan.

"ManXP" <man@giliai.px> wrote in message
news:jjvjfn$1e2$1@trimpas.omnitel.net...
> Taip, bet musu argumentas buvo toks, kad kompensacija moket privalo, nes 
> ypatingu aplinkybiu nebuvo. O jie teismui pateike CAA rasta, kuriame 
> rasoma, kad butent sis ivykis buvo ypatinga aplinkybe, atleidzianti nuo 
> pareigos sumoket ir aiskina, kad tipo CAA specialistai zino geriau nei mes 
> (nors ju isvada priestarauja tavo rastam ETT sprendimui) ir del to nieko 
> moket nereikia.
>
> O del stiklo itrukimo, tai IMHO gali but sunku irodyt, kad jis skilo del 
> orlaivio neprieziuros. Nes pvz jei skrendant trenkiasi koks paukstis ir ji 
> suskaldo, tai kaip ir ne oro vezejo atsakomybe, ar nusisneku?