News: AVH was sued

Last year on Nov 6th 2025 I received notification from the Court in Salzburg, that Go2Sky, an airline in Slovakia, had filed a lawsuit against The Aviation Herald and myself for defamation and untrue statements. Reason for this claim was this coverage:

Incident: Go2Sky B738 at Zakynthos on Jun 29th 2025, stab trim trouble

Based on a passenger report as well as another (verified, several times proven and thus then rated trustworthy) source I had initially written on Jul 4th 2025 that the aircraft had suffered an engine problem, also supported by the fact that the passenger (quoted in my report) had told about a loud bang and the feeling the aircraft was unable to climb. The message was mirrored by a number of feeds on Twitter and Telegram, just mentioning the headline and a link to the original article on AVH.

In the morning of Jul 5th 2025 I received information from yet another source telling me, that there had been no engine problem but rather a stab trim problem. Based on that information and evidence I changed my report on Jul 5th 2025 to the current version "stab trim trouble" and as such revoked the statement about the "engine problem". The updated message was mirrored again by the Twitter and Bluesky feeds as a new separate message (as this is how Twitter and Bluesky work), but was not mirrored on Telegram.

I always stated, that I am not immune to errors despite all care that I apply to any of our coverages, see the interview I gave in 2012:

This effort pays off, although despite all these measures I am not immune to errors. As in aviation itself the human factor named "Simon Hradecky" plays a decisive role in my work. In addition, The Aviation Herald can only be as good as the sources I trust in and only be as good as the information that become available to us, my sources and myself.

Therefore I apologize for having that incorrect headline online for 24 hours.

While I was in England for a longer period of time in September 2025, obviously a registered postal letter from their lawyer arrived at my office and returned to the sender undelivered as I wasn't present.

On Nov 6th 2025 I received the notice by the court in Salzburg that my company and I personally had been sued (for the first time ever in the existance of AVH since its start in 2008) by Go2Sky, they claimed damage of 15.000 Euros due to defamation and loss of reputation and actual expenses and also wanted a preliminary injunction forbidding me to continue reporting this aircraft had an engine problem on that flight because of the danger, I would repeat such statements. The airline argued - without any proof -, that I was also in control of a Channel on (US based) Twitter/X named @avherald, which however was maintained and controlled by a third party. Later the airline expanded that claim to also include a channel on (Russia based) Telegram also named @avherald. It was only then that I became aware of that channel for the first time.

On November 6th 2025 I wanted to immediately tell my readers that my work would be hampered by this legal proceedings by taking a lot of my attention away from my editorial work, however, my lawyer strongly opposed this and stated, that this could have adverse consequences for the legal proceedings.

In December 2025 the court held a first hearing regarding the preliminary injunction (I had to fly in from England), in which the commercial director of the airline stated, they had not suffered any damage as result of the coverage and confirmed, also submitting the techlog of the aircraft, that it had been a stab trim problem already before takeoff, which had been worked upon and was signed off as cleared, then occurred again in flight, namely the failure of electrical stab trim, the stabilizer being out of trim and only manual trim available causing the diversion and ultimately resulting in the replacement of 2 stab trim motors.

I argued in a nutshell, that I had released the first report based on two entirely independent sources and under use of more than necessary care by a journalist, I argued I already corrected my coverage on my own on Jul 5th 2025 within 24 hours after the initial coverage without any input from the airline. As such I had already corrected the head line on Jul 5th 2026, so any repeat correction would not serve any purpose. The updated coverage of Jul 5th 2025 was entirely correct as shown by the tech log presented by the airline in the trial, so there was no danger of a repeat of reporting an engine problem ever since Jul 5th 2025. I argued, that there was no danger of any damage to the airline's reputation pointing e.g. out, that around 7% of our coverages, over 2300 coverages out of over 30.000 coverages, concerned engine shut downs, a worse scenario than just an engine problem, which could have been anything minor like an engine oil indication sensor fault, and as such is almost a daily routine affecting all operators of aircraft, and does not suggest any wrongdoing by the airline, none of these reports had caused any damage to the reputation of the airlines. I argued, that the stab trim problem being a very rare event, together with the bang and climb problems described by the passenger, would be much, much worse in public perceiption. I argued, that the Twitter feed was not mine, but is owned by a third party, and I had no control over it.

Yet, the court granted the preliminary injunction reasoning, that there was a danger of a repeat. I appealed that decision again pointing out, that that Twitter feed was not under my control, I had already corrected the initial statement within 24 hours, so there was no danger of a repeat, however, the appeals court upheld the first decision.

In the meantime I had been able to identify who was running the Twitter feed named @avherald and asked the channel owner to take down the tweet of Jul 4th 2025, which the channel owner did. Attempts to remove the Telegram entry proved fruitless, there is no possibility to contact the channel owner, there is only a possibility to post a complaint to Telegram, which was filed however no action became visible.

My legal advisors told me, that the main proceedings would not result in any different outcome, it would just run cost up for the legal proceedings, and strongly recommended to acknowledge the complaint and seek a settlement.

Therefore I told my lawyer to go ahead and seek that settlement.

On Apr 13th 2026 Go2Sky proposed this court issued conditional settlement without any demands regarding Twitter, Bluesky and Telegram but now in point 4. demanding the removal of a coverage of 2016. The settlement proposal in German reads:

1. Die beklagten Parteien sind ab sofort bei sonstiger Exekution schuldig, es zu unterlassen, die Behauptung, das Flugzeug Boeing 737-800 der klagenden Partei mit der Registrierung OM-GTK während des Flugs OR-1238 von Zakynthos nach Amsterdam am 29.06.2025 hatte eine Triebwerksstörung (engine trouble), oder sinngleiche unwahre Tatsachenbehauptungen über die Flugzeuge der klagenden Partei, zu verbreiten und/oder zu veröffentlichen.

2. Die beklagten Parteien sind binnen 14 Tagen bei sonstiger Exekution schuldig, die unwahre Tatsachenbehauptung, wonach das Flugzeug Boeing 737-800 der klagenden Partei mit der Registrierung OM-GTK während des Flugs OR-1238 von Zakynthos nach Amsterdam am 29.06.2025 eine Triebwerksstörung (engine trouble) hatte, als unwahr zu widerrufen, indem sie auf der Startseite der Website www.avherald.com, die bei Abruf der Website www.avherald.com ohne Scrollen sichtbar ist, sowie direkt in dem am 05.07.2025 modifizierten Artikel mit dem Titel: „Incident: Go2Sky B738 at Zakynthos on Jun 29th 2025, stab trim trouble“ für die ununterbrochene Dauer von 14 Tagen in derselben oder einer gleichwertigen Schriftgröße wie die ursprüngliche Behauptung den folgenden Widerruf in
englischer Sprache in Fettdruck veröffentlichen und abrufbar halten:

REVOCATION: The statement published by us on 04.07.2025: “Incident: Go2Sky B738 at Zakynthos on Jun 29th 2025, engine trouble” is untrue and there had been no engine trouble of whatsover nature. In consideration of the court proceedings held before Landesgericht Salzburg (Republic of Austria), file number: 5 Cg 1 33/25t, and the facts presented by Go2Sky, spol, s r.o., we, NOMIS SOFT Datenverarbeitung Gesellschaft m.b.H, as media owner and Simon Hradecky as the author of the article published on 04.07.2025, hereby revoke this statement.

3. Die beklagten Parteien sind zur ungeteilten Hand schuldig, der klagenden Partei den Betrag von EUR 950,00 binnen 14 Tagen ab Rechtswirksamkeit bei sonstiger Exekution zu bezahlen.

4. Die beklagten Parteien sind binnen 14 Tagen bei sonstiger Exekution schuldig, den auf der Website www.avherald.com unter dem Link: veröffentlichten Artikel vom 05.12.2016, zuletzt geändert am 12.03.2017, mit dem Titel:

"Incident: Go2Sky B738 at Kristiansand on Nov 4th 2016, racing start“ samt der gesamten unter dem Artikel veröffentlichten Diskussion (Kommentaren) unwiderruflich zur Gänze zu entfernen und zu löschen. Dieser Punkt wird von den Parteien mit EUR 500,00 bewertet.

5. Die beklagten Partei verpflichten sich zur ungeteilten Hand binnen 14 Tagen ab Rechtswirksamkeit die mit EUR 9.236,17 verglichenen Prozesskosten an die Klagevertreterin zu zahlen.

6. Der Vergleich wird rechtswirksam, wenn er nicht bis 24. April 2026 schriftlich von einer der Streitparteien widerrufen wird.

The coverage of 2016, that was demanded to be removed in its entirety including the reader comments by point 4 of the proposed settlement, Incident: Go2Sky B738 at Kristiansand on Nov 4th 2016, "racing start", had been fully confirmed by a letter of the Accident Investigation Board Norway (AIBN) dated Feb 20th 2017.

The airline had never attempted to contest this our coverage in the almost 10 years since, and this coverage had not been mentioned in the current lawsuit until that settlement was proposed.

My thoughts?

A fully proven coverage, verified and confirmed by the Norwegian Accident Investigation Board, MUST NOT be deleted. While I accept responsibility for my mistake present in my coverage of 2025 between Jul 4th 2025 and Jul 5th 2025, I have to decline that settlement because of that demand in point 4. even though this could mean the continuation of this lawsuit, more distraction from my editorial work and much higher legal cost in the end.

After careful consideration of all options and arguments in favour and contra that settlement I decided to reject that settlement in time. I feel, the freedom of media as well as their role to scrutinize statements by authorities and companies would be under attack, if a minor mistake (that without any doubt will happen to any media around the world who have to trust their [verified] sources) could be used to attack another unrelated potentially unwanted/damaging but true and verified coverage and to have it removed.

I asked my legal advisors, whether this would reveal the true motive of filing this lawsuit and whether this would constitute abuse of law according to §1295 paragraph 2 of Austrian ABGB. The reply was simple: the burden of proof of such an abuse would be entirely with me, and the available evidence was insufficient to prove such a claim. My legal advisors were also grossly puzzled about that point 4) of the settlement proposal presented on Apr 13th 2026, which had not been part of the trial at all, but again recommended to seek a new settlement.

Hence I made clear, that the removal of that coverage of 2016 was entirely out of question and was unacceptable, however, another attempt to seek a settlement should be done. A new acceptable settlement was successfully negotiated so that Go2Sky made this new proposal reading:

Die beklagten Parteien sind jeweils ab sofort bei sonstiger Exekution schuldig, es zu unterlassen, die Behauptung, das Flugzeug Boeing 737-800 der klagenden Partei mit der Registrierung OM-GTK während des Flugs OR-1238 von Zakynthos nach Amsterdam am 29.06.2025 hatte eine Triebwerksstörung Çengine trouble), oder sinngleiche unwahre Tatsachenbehauptungen über die Flugzeuge der klagenden Partei, zu verbreiten und/oder zu veröffentlichen.

2. Die beklagten Parteien sind jeweils binnen 14 Tagen bei sonstiger Exekution schuldig, die unwahre Tatsachenbehauptung, wonach das Flugzeug Boeing 737-800 der klagenden Partei mit der Registrierung OM-GTK während des Flugs OR-1238 von Zakynthos nach Amsterdam am 29.06.2025 eine Triebwerksstörung Çengine trouble) hatte, als unwahr zu widerrufen, indem sie auf der Startseite (Homepage) der Website www.avherald.com, und zwar zwischen der Menü-Zeile (Next, List by:, Filter:) und dem Anfang der Liste der täglichen Berichte, wobei der Widerrufstext bei Abruf der Startseite der Website www.avherald.com ohne Scrollen sowohl am PC, Laptop, Tablet sowie Smartphone und ohne Einschränkung durch allfällige Werbungen immer sichtbar sein muss, sowie direkt in dem am 05.07.2025 modifizierten Artikel mit dem Titel: „Incident: Go2Sky B738 at Zakynthos on Jun 29th 2025, stab trim trouble“, für die ununterbrochene Dauer von 14 Tagen in derselben oder einer gleichwertigen Schriftgröße wie die ursprüngliche Behauptung, den folgenden Widerrufstext in englischer Sprache in Fettdruck veröffentlichen und abrufbar halten:

REVOCATION:
The Statement published by us on 04.07.2025: “Incident: Go2Sky B738 at Zakynthos on Jun 29th 2025, engine trouble” is untrue and there had been no engine trouble of whatsoever nature. In consideration of the court proceedings held before Landesgericht Salzburg (Republic of Austria), file number: 5 Cg 133/25t, and the facts presented by Go2Sky, spol, s r.o., we, NOMIS SOFT Datenverarbeitung Gesellschaft m.b.H, as the media owner and Simon Hradecky as the author of the article published on 04.07.2025, hereby revoke this statement.

3. Die beklagten Parteien sind jeweils binnen 14 Tagen bei sonstiger Exekution schuldig, die unwahre Tatsachenbehauptung, wonach das Flugzeug Boeing 737-800 der klagenden Partei mit der Registrierung OM-GTK während des Flugs OR-1238 von Zakynthos nach Amsterdam am 29.06.2025 eine Triebwerksstörung (engine trouble) hatte, als unwahr zu widerrufen, indem sie auf der Social-Media-Plattform X über den Account mit dem Benutzernamen Aviation Herald (@avherald) folgenden Text in englischer Sprache als neuen, eigenständigen Beitrag für die Dauer von 14 Tagen veröffentlichen und abrufbar halten sowie an oberster Stelle des Accounts anheften:

REVOCATION: The post published by us on 04.07.2025: “Incident: Go2Sky B738 at Zakynthos on Jun 29th 2025, engine trouble #B738 #OMGTK#OR1238 avherald.com/h?article=529d...” is untrue. We hereby revoke this statement.

4. Die beklagten Parteien sind jeweils binnen 14 Tagen bei sonstiger Exekution schuldig, die unwahre Tatsachenbehauptung, wonach das Flugzeug Boeing 737-800 der klagenden Partei mit der Registrierung OM-GTK während des Flugs OR-1238 von Zakynthos nach Amsterdam am 29.06.2025 eine Triebwerksstörung (engine trouble) hatte, als unwahr zu widerrufen, indem sie auf der Social-Media-Plattform Bluesky über den Account mit dem Benutzernamen The Aviation Herald (@avherald.com) folgenden Text in englischer Sprache als neuen, eigenständigen Beitrag für die Dauer von 14 Tagen veröffentlichen und abrufbar halten sowie an oberster Stelle des Accounts anheften:

REVOCATION: The post published by us on 04.07.2025: “Incident: Go2Sky B738 at Zakynthos on Jun 29th 2025, engine trouble #B738 #OM-GTK #OR-1238 avherald.com/h?article=52...” is untrue. We hereby revoke this statement. Dieser Punkt wird von den Streitparteien mit EUR 500,00 bewertet.

5. Die beklagten Parteien sind zur ungeteilten Hand schuldig, der klagenden Partei den Betrag von EUR 8.532,00 binnen 14 Tagen bei sonstiger Exekution zu zahlen.

6. Mit dem Abschluss dieses Vergleichs sind sämtliche wechselseitige Ansprüche zwischen den Streitparteien im Zusammenhang mit der von den beklagten Parteien (i) auf der Website www.avherald.com, (¡i) auf dem Account mit dem Benutzernamen Aviation Herald (@avherald) auf der Social-Media-Plattform X sowie (¡¡¡) auf dem Account mit dem Benutzernamen The Aviation Herald (@avherald.com) auf der Social-Media-Plattform Bluesky, jeweils öffentlich verbreiteten unwahren Tatsachenbehauptung, wonach das Flugzeug Boeing 737-800 der klagenden Partei mit der Registrierung OM-GTK während des Flugs OR-1238 von Zakynthos nach Amsterdam am 29.06.2025 eine Triebwerksstörung (engine trouble) hatte, hiermit endgültig verglichen und bereinigt.

7. Die beklagten Parteien verpflichten sich zur ungeteilten Hand die mit EUR 12.074,23 verglichenen Prozesskosten der klagenden Partei zu Händen der Klagevertreterin binnen 14 Tagen bei sonstiger Exekution zu ersetzen.

In another hearing of the court on Jul 23rd 2026 that settlement was finally signed by both parties leading to the resulting announcements on AVH.