Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[blackcat20]

I learnt this morning that a family of five from Eynesbury were amongst those killed. It is only a small town and I know of at least two workmates who live there. Too close.

coughs.

I think they're the ones my friend knows. My aunt also lives in the same town as another couple killed...

 

[JohnK]

In summary, I think finger pointing at MH should stop, unless/until someone actually has evidence to suggest they were at fault.

I think some people have an agenda to take the focus away from who actually caused this incident.

And they are also saying that it could take up to a year to find out the truth.

What a wonderful world we live in where human life means nothing.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

If MH is in no way found to be negligent, relatives will lose their right to additional compensation (over the standard amount) under the Montreal Convention. If Russia/Ukraine/rebels are not going to be forthcoming for that compensation - to ease the burden on those left behind to try and continue their lives under these tragic circumstances - what do people suggest?

Should relative not try and pursue MH at least initially if they might have a case?

 

[UP4014]

So, where were all these commentators before the event occurred, asking why these airlines were flying over the region? Pull your head in, and stop trying to blame the airline for an atrocity committed by people on the ground.

I agree with MEL-Traveller, I think a lot of people didn't give it a second thought if airlines were flying over.

Matt

 

[burmans]

I think some people have an agenda to take the focus away from who actually caused this incident.

Don't find myself often agreeing with JohnK but 100% agree with this! While there are always complicating factors, sometimes the truth is fairly clear but there are always people who are ready and prepared to confuse. And then to drag out the process for ages when the families just want answers.

 

[artemis]

If MH is in no way found to be negligent, relatives will lose their right to additional compensation (over the standard amount) under the Montreal Convention. If Russia/Ukraine/rebels are not going to be forthcoming for that compensation - to ease the burden on those left behind to try and continue their lives under these tragic circumstances - what do people suggest?

Should relative not try and pursue MH at least initially if they might have a case?

Won't compensation be eventually won from the party who is responsible? Like Libya paying $2.2billion compensation for the Lockerbie disaster?

 

[drron]

If MH is in no way found to be negligent, relatives will lose their right to additional compensation (over the standard amount) under the Montreal Convention. If Russia/Ukraine/rebels are not going to be forthcoming for that compensation - to ease the burden on those left behind to try and continue their lives under these tragic circumstances - what do people suggest?

Should relative not try and pursue MH at least initially if they might have a case?

And what do you suggest if that action causes the bankruptcy of MH and up to 20000 employees lose their job and probably at least that number of dependents likely to suffer real hardship?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Won't compensation be eventually won from the party who is responsible? Like Libya paying $2.2billion compensation for the Lockerbie disaster?

Well yes - but IIRC Lockerbie was under a different set of laws at the time. The Montreal Convention changes that. The liability is now on the airline to show it was not negligent, or that a third party's negligence was solely responsible. (note the word solely)

Will the 'rebels' have money to pay compensation of that nature? Would Russia entertain the notion of paying?

I don't know the answers to those questions. I don't know how successful the argument will be against MH. That is what a court will need to determine if it gets to that stage.

 

[burmans]

If MH is in no way found to be negligent, relatives will lose their right to additional compensation (over the standard amount) under the Montreal Convention. If Russia/Ukraine/rebels are not going to be forthcoming for that compensation - to ease the burden on those left behind to try and continue their lives under these tragic circumstances - what do people suggest?

Should relative not try and pursue MH at least initially if they might have a case?

I think it's a sad reflection we are already talking compensation and suing the "easiest" party to get it. There is no compensation for loss of a loved one, if it were me (and it may only be me) I'd be wanting answers it were my relatives and for the right people to be brought to justice. Not compensation.

 

[UP4014]

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.

I do risk assessments nearly every day on equipment, dangerous goods and human factors, while you use the facts at hand you do look into the unknown ahead of you and make decisions. You do it like a chess game and look as many moves and counter moves ahead as you can.

In this case MH got it wrong, as have other airlines.

But of course, the root cause is a rebel launched missile, Russia is a contributing cause and the MH route is a contributing factor.

While we're all airline enthusiasts here supporting the industry, that doesn't mean when airlines do something en mass it's the correct action. It seems they always wait for the Govt to tell them and be reactive rather than be proactive. It's the corporate way often.

Matt

 

[UP4014]

And what do you suggest if that action causes the bankruptcy of MH and up to 20000 employees lose their job and probably at least that number of dependents likely to suffer real hardship?

So be it unfortunately, welcome to the reality of being a global business that fails.

Matt

 

[boomy]

I think it's a sad entitlement we are already talking compensation and suing the "easiest" party to get it. There is no compensation for loss of a loved one, if it were me (and it may only be me) I'd be wanting answers it were my relatives and for the right people to be brought to justice. Not compensation.

When MH370 disappeared, it didn't take long for some of the relatives to demand compensations from MAS.
Different people react in different ways to loss of lives, there is no right or wrong here, it's a legitimate issue that should be discussed.

 

[scaredeycat]

I have a sneaking suspicion that at least one of the participants in this discussion has expertise in the distasteful field of ambulance chasing...

 

[The Rok]

When MH370 disappeared, it didn't take long for some of the relatives to demand compensations from MAS.
Different people react in different ways to loss of lives, there is no right or wrong here, it's a legitimate issue that should be discussed.

Certain "Cultures" deem financial settlement an acceptable recourse for a life....

 

[SeatBackForward]

I simply cannot believe there are posts on this thread trying to lay blame on MH for this.

 

[medhead]

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.

They thought they shot down a ukraine military aircraft, based on some accounts. So there is almost no reason to think someone knowingly ordered shooting down a commercial airliner. They wouldn't give a second thought to the cost.

 

[medhead]

I do risk assessments nearly every day on equipment, dangerous goods and human factors, while you use the facts at hand you do look into the unknown ahead of you and make decisions. You do it like a chess game and look as many moves and counter moves ahead as you can.

In this case MH got it wrong, as have other airlines.

But of course, the root cause is a rebel launched missile, Russia is a contributing cause and the MH route is a contributing factor.

While we're all airline enthusiasts here supporting the industry, that doesn't mean when airlines do something en mass it's the correct action. It seems they always wait for the Govt to tell them and be reactive rather than be proactive. It's the corporate way often.

Matt

and what are the corrective actions that would have prevented this from occurring?

 

[legroom]

I do risk assessments nearly every day on equipment, dangerous goods and human factors, while you use the facts at hand you do look into the unknown ahead of you and make decisions. You do it like a chess game and look as many moves and counter moves ahead as you can.

In this case MH got it wrong, as have other airlines.

But of course, the root cause is a rebel launched missile, Russia is a contributing cause and the MH route is a contributing factor.

While we're all airline enthusiasts here supporting the industry, that doesn't mean when airlines do something en mass it's the correct action. It seems they always wait for the Govt to tell them and be reactive rather than be proactive. It's the corporate way often.

Matt

Where were the 'experts' before last Friday ?

Retro-spectroscope is a wonderful thing ... after Friday morning, of course.

 

[burmans]

and what are the corrective actions that would have prevented this from occurring?

I think what BAM1748 is referring to in looking at the unknowns is what are referred to the "known" unknowns. In this context they probably did look at the prospect of someone shooting the plane down and in fact had changed the level that could be flown as a mitigant to 32000. While it was unknown that someone would try to take down a passenger jet they did take action by changing the level planes could fly at to take into account the "known" threat.

I'm not sure if the fact that the rebels had SAM's was "known", I suspect not (given previous attacks seem to have occurred from Russia itself). What would definitely appear to be an "unknown unknown" though was the fact that they probably did an assessment of the rebels deliberately targeting a civilian aircraft. No-one probably considered they might shoot down a plane accidentally.

There are 4 accepted means to mitigate risk of which MAS actually took at least two. Risk Acceptance, Risk Avoidance, Risk Limitation and Risk Transference. They used Transference to a degree by outsourcing the decisions on where to fly to external parties who are experts in this field, limitation was employed by MAS and other when the minimum ceiling was raised, they may have also had some insurance in place (transference). They may even have accepted some risk (too much some are suggesting). What they did not do was risk avoidance (flying around the area). But all of these are regarded as valid risk mitigation activities, not just risk avoidance (speaking general, not making any comment on this particular situation).

 

[legroom]

And as I said. I think enforcement of the rules IS on topic.

Edit: actually I think you'll find it was boomy and legroom discussing ROE, I'm more interested in the general principle of not shooting down a civilian jet liner and how to bring these people to justice.

Why did MH17 crash ? - missile shot

Where did the missile come from ? - East Ukraine combatants, currently suspected to be separatists rather than Kiev personnel.

Are they at war ? - A few Kiev military planes had been shot down lately by separatists.

Should a civilian airliner be 'fair game' in 2014 wars ? - Obviously, no.

So, RoE is not relevant ?

Is compensation a better topic for discussion then ?

Is retrospective 'expert' risk analysis a better choice ?