Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[anat0l]

Montreal Convention 1999... the airline is strictly liable up to a set amount (around 110k SDR). Over and above that, the airline is presumed to have liability unless it can show it was not negligent, or that the acts were caused solely by negligence of a third party.

Even though the route was approved, there were potentially warnings, or other indicators which may make it difficult for MH to show that it was in no way even party responsible (ie being where it was).

Those rules are designed to protect passengers to seek compensation.

Many are getting tied up with the emotion vs legal aspect. What happened here was a tragedy, but the legal aspect will come in at some stage. Relatives may have mortgages, bills, schooling. Compensation, while not bringing the loved one back, can make containing with life just a fraction easier. And, ultimately, serve to make the future of flying safer. The alternative some seem to be suggesting is that passengers are not compensated over and above the set liability threshold? they should should just drop it?

I don't deny that there will be legal proceedings against MH, as it is the "easiest" target. (Try exacting compensation from a government or - for that matter - a rebel faction; I know I'd rather be pushing a rock up a hill, myself).

From a legally, completely emotionally detached point of view, you have a point. That said, the airline is still going to argue its mitigating circumstances working in favour of defraying responsibility from itself. I'm not sure how that works in terms of how this will be judged in court, e.g. will it be a case of people sue MH successfully and MH must then seek redress from any other party it believes are primarily responsible, or should the litigation focus directly on finding those responsible and bringing an action against them (albeit MH will inevitably be a co-defendant anyway)?

From another viewpoint, however, a loose analogy - think of a woman who was wearing provocative clothing at the time she was raped. Most sensible, social convention would seem to dictate that it would be callous to attribute any appreciable blame upon the woman for her rape.

Wars have rules?! Not shooting at unarmed civilians?!
The truth is exactly the opposite! If there are two things clear about wars it is that the rules will ALWAYS be broken and unarmed civilians who can't defend themselves will ALWAYS be targeted.
This time it was a plane flying in the sky, other times it's a village full of innocent people. The only difference is that we pay more attention to the plane because it can also happen to us at some point.
I suggest you to get real!

Well, there are some "rules"... for example, the Geneva Conventions.

That said, the "rules" only exist for the purpose of retribution mostly, i.e. now that someone has shot civilians, if it is established that these happened during a 'war' or conflict, then one would bring an action in an international court of justice and quote a violation of the Geneva Conventions. As always, even in civilian justice, the difference between someone who commits a crime and one who doesn't is getting caught.

 

[boomy]

Well, there are some "rules"... for example, the Geneva Conventions.

Good luck showing the Geneva Conventions to guys like Putin.
Just make sure to print it on soft paper so he can at least do something useful with it...

 

[Sprucegoose]

Good luck showing the Geneva Conventions to guys like Putin.
Just make sure to print it on soft paper so he can at least do something useful with it...

Yes could be tricky......economic sanctions mostly work unless you are Cuba. Problem is Europe and China require their energy ....and so it goes on.

Personal boycott. Sure give up Vodka

 

[Deleted member 29185]

Good luck showing the Geneva Conventions to guys like Putin.
Just make sure to print it on soft paper so he can at least do something useful with it...

I thought Putin used 80 grit..............

 

[boomy]

Personal boycott. Sure give up Vodka

Boycott won't do any good and you don't have to give up Vodka, many say it was originated from Poland.
Back on topic, we really need the US to pressure Europe to pressure Russia to stop arming the rebels.

 

[blackcat20]

One of my friends has to tell her kids this morning that their school mates won't be coming back....

 

[Princess Fiona]

One of my friends has to tell her kids this morning that their school mates won't be coming back....

........

 

[Cool Cat Phil]

One of my friends has to tell her kids this morning that their school mates won't be coming back....

So, So , Sad.
That's horrific news to break, particularly to young ones.

 

[kpc]

One of my friends has to tell her kids this morning that their school mates won't be coming back....

terrible news...

 

[Sprucegoose]

Boycott won't do any good and you don't have to give up Vodka, many say it was originated from Poland.
Back on topic, we really need the US to pressure Europe to pressure Russia to stop arming the rebels.

It needs to be a world response. UNSC meeting shortly. US has already pressured the Russians re Ukraine secession to no avail. The conflict has historical context.

I couldn't possibly agree with you on the Vodka comment that's like saying Pavlova is Kiwi

 

[UP4014]

One of my friends has to tell her kids this morning that their school mates won't be coming back....

Not a nice task. When I read this post I instantly thought of a story from my father, he went to school one morning to find half the class not there, on the way home the street where their houses stood was now a smouldering crater. (London during the blitz, the stuff of nightmares)

I can't imagine what goes through peoples minds during the seconds before unconsciousness, extra traumatic if it's someone you know and that thought sticks with me.

They need to be told what happened as ugly as it will be.

Matt

 

[burmans]

so what if 37 other airlines flew though the area? it doesn't mean they accurately assessed the risk. we will need to wait and see if the investigation touches on that.

you can have 37 people doing somehing less than optimal. that doesn't automatically make them all right.

Clearly, in retrospect it wasn't right but that's hardly the point, you make risk assessments with the information you have at the time rather than as you seem to be suggesting some sort of foresight on what the future holds . The fact that 37 people does something doesn't make it "right" but does give credence to the argument that it was a reasonable assessment based on information to hand at the time.

As has been noted elsewhere even if you avoid Ukraine you are still going to fly over areas with civil issues where combatants may have access to SAM's, e.g. Syria & Iraq to the south and Russia itself to the north (lets not forget the incidents where military planes were shot down recently were actually launched from Russia itself from all reports).

A look at that map showing everyone avoiding Ukraine shows a considerable number of flights just over the border in Russia, that seems pretty stupid to me if indeed that is where the initial rockets came from (and the evidence seems pretty compelling that it was), I can also see planes over both Syria and Iran.

 

[samh004]

I'm told that apparently families are being told to cancel credit cards as the rebels are picking them up and using them... pretty sad state of affairs if true.

 

[medhead]

The missiles are not cheap. They are simply cheaper than the aircraft. The whole missile battery would run into many millions and you need a lot of them to be truly effective in a military sense. Re a/c costings the F-111 before it was retired was running at something over $100,000 per flying hour operating cost.

They're cheap enough that they don't put restrictions on the operators to be careful not to waste them, which was the point I was addressing. They also don't require the operators to have a PhD, either. The guy who fired the missile isn't getting in trouble now over the cost, if they are even getting in trouble at all.

 

[legroom]

Good luck showing the Geneva Conventions to guys like Putin.
Just make sure to print it on soft paper so he can at least do something useful with it...

Your comment admits there is such thing as 'rules' in war (which is the point of my post).

Prior to any war, Australia or other nation states always have rules of engagement specifically for that war and in addition to universal rules like the Geneva Convention.

http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/1958997/rules-of-engagement-ROE

It is a separate issue when the combatants ignore / breach the said rules.

By saying sarcastically that there are no rules in war, I'm afraid that is not correct.

Lt William Calley Jr was court-martialled after My Lai, for example.

 

[UP4014]

Your comment admits there is such thing as 'rules' in war (which is the point of my post).

Prior to any war, Australia or other nation states always have rules of engagement specifically for that war and in addition to universal rules like the Geneva Convention.

rules of engagement (ROE) (military directives) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

It is a separate issue when the combatants ignore / breach the said rules.

By saying sarcastically that there are no rules in war, I'm afraid that is not correct.

Lt William Calley Jr was court-martialled after My Lai, for example.

Hard to enforce any rules when the participants aren't soldiers in the true sense. Justice (in the western sense) never is done.

 

[juddles]

....This is a tragic case of what appeared to be unintended consequence of unprofessional buffoons muscling up as 'soldiers'......

...Wars have rules... .....Get real !

I agree with the ¨unintended consequence¨bit. I do not agree with the ¨buffoons¨bit - just what do you actually know about the people involved there and the conflict?

As for the ¨wars have rules¨, NO THEY DON´T!

Some countries invented some cute parameters within which people party to the agreement can wage warfare. But those ¨rules¨that you call them, are not some divine list of exact legalities. They are just cough that some cultures and nations invented. Jst because another country or countries invent something, doesn´t mean that other countries (or even people within those first countries) should embrace them.

War is a terrible thing. It is where mass murder is expected, desired. If someone feels some God-given right to make up ¨rules¨ for everyone else on this planet, surely the first one on warfare would be a total ban on war!!!

 

[whatmeworry]

Press release by the FFV.

[h=6]Football Federation Victoria
[/h]2 hrs · Edited ·

It is with an extremely heavy heart that we regret to inform the football community of the death of Melton Phoenix U15 player Piers van den Herde.
Piers and four members of his family were yesterday identified as the latest victims of the MH17 plane crash in the Ukraine.
FFV passes on its sincerest condolences to the Melton Phoenix Soccer Club and those who knew the van den Herde family during this difficult time.

 

[artemis]

They're cheap enough that they don't put restrictions on the operators to be careful not to waste them, which was the point I was addressing. They also don't require the operators to have a PhD, either. The guy who fired the missile isn't getting in trouble now over the cost, if they are even getting in trouble at all.

Well still expensive enough compared to the wages the rebels are making. But I wouldn't want to piss off my boss if he's crazy enough to order the downing of a civilian aircraft by shooting the wrong target! Whoever gave the order would be well aware of the cost of a missile and the lengthy logistic process to replace it. That's my point.

Your comment admits there is such thing as 'rules' in war (which is the point of my post).

Prior to any war, Australia or other nation states always have rules of engagement specifically for that war and in addition to universal rules like the Geneva Convention.

rules of engagement (ROE) (military directives) -- Encyclopedia Britannica

It is a separate issue when the combatants ignore / breach the said rules.

By saying sarcastically that there are no rules in war, I'm afraid that is not correct.

Lt William Calley Jr was court-martialled after My Lai, for example.

And whilst I agree there are rules and conventions that govern warfare, just remember that everyone breaks the rules at some point (some rules being more serious than others).

And generally it helps to be the winner when enforcing the rules...!

 

[legroom]

1) RULES of ENGAGEMENT

RoE is not "some cute parameters" or "just cough".

I am glad juddles is only a keyboard warrior and not the real type.

Bravo Two Zero and Red Wing are two examples that come to mind where RoEs were followed - at great costs to the professional combatants.

I am sure juddles here would have a quick & ready solution in those scenarios as they [the goat shepherds] are "just cough".

2) BUFFOONS

Anyone pulling the trigger not knowing the nature of the target deserves to be called a buffoon - regardless of ideology. It seems you are placing the ideology first and erroneous targeting second in rejecting the terms "buffoons".

Friendly fire "Blue on Blue" where mistaken orders, wrong co-ordinates, close quarters combat etc... are excepted.

The recordings of the alleged perpetrators showed they were expecting to see pilots, arms etc... from a combat / fighter plane.

I agree with the ¨unintended consequence¨bit. I do not agree with the ¨buffoons¨bit - just what do you actually know about the people involved there and the conflict?

As for the ¨wars have rules¨, NO THEY DON´T!

Some countries invented some cute parameters within which people party to the agreement can wage warfare. But those ¨rules¨that you call them, are not some divine list of exact legalities. They are just cough that some cultures and nations invented. Jst because another country or countries invent something, doesn´t mean that other countries (or even people within those first countries) should embrace them.

War is a terrible thing. It is where mass murder is expected, desired. If someone feels some God-given right to make up ¨rules¨ for everyone else on this planet, surely the first one on warfare would be a total ban on war!!!