Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[drron]

Photos from a Dutch photographer who has been covering the troubles in the Ukraine for some time.details the damage done to the plane very well-
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/page1/

 

[whatmeworry]

Photos from a Dutch photographer who has been covering the troubles in the Ukraine for some time.details the damage done to the plane very well-
https://secure.flickr.com/photos/jeroenakkermans/page1/

I was reading somewhere that some of the insurgents were cutting up parts of the plane with a chainsaw.

 

[juddles]

I was reading somewhere that some of the insurgents were cutting up parts of the plane with a chainsaw.

What´s your point? Sorry, don´t understand.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

He said we'll never know. It was an empathetic expression of precisely what all the families were thinking. That is exactly what I wrote in my previous post. To restate my opinion it was an entirely appropriate expression for empathy for the families. What really happened is completely irrelevant. I reject your suggestion that any person was not moved by such an expression of human grief and uncertainty about this accident.

I see you continuing this rubbish about asking question. You can stop sprouting that at me. I completely disagree with your attempts to blame MH who are a victim of this attack.

My family, family friends, my personal friends, colleagues.. all were taken aback by the 'clasping of children to their hearts' and 'mouthing a silent good bye'. And not taken aback in a good way, but in the negative, that the statement was made.

What about people who were alone on the plane. Their relatives don't even have the comfort that they died mouthing goodbye to their loved one... they then have to think that they died this terrible death by themselves? On so many levels that statement was uncalled for.

in a car crash, or if a soldier member of your family is killed in war... do we want to be told it was quick? or that they suffered terribly, crying out for their family. There are certain convention with these things.

MH is the victim, but that is not enough when it comes to legal liability. Please don't try and do the relatives out of what may be rightfully theirs in terms of compensation.

 

[medhead]

What´s your point? Sorry, don´t understand.

Besides contamination of the scene. It will make it more difficult to piece together things. They seem to be pretty good at understand accidents by the physics of where pieces land and how the aircraft breaks apart. So cutting one massive piece into small pieces will confuse that information or take extra time to reconstruct the cut up pieces into the actual piece that hit the ground.

 

[SeatBackForward]

What´s your point? Sorry, don´t understand.

They're interfering with a crime scene.

 

[burmans]

They're interfering with a crime scene.

And hardly the actions of an innocent party, there seems to have been a deliberate attempt to "interfere" with the scene. Without ascribing guilt it seems to be a very strange way to behave and the only really reason to do this would seem to be compromise the investigation.

 

[mannej]

What about people who were alone on the plane. Their relatives don't even have the comfort that they died mouthing goodbye to their loved one... they then have to think that they died this terrible death by themselves? On so many levels that statement was uncalled for.

in a car crash, or if a soldier member of your family is killed in war... do we want to be told it was quick? or that they suffered terribly, crying out for their family. There are certain convention with these things.

I am having trouble with the second paragraph, as what is the convention you allude to? Has there not been many movies and re-enactments of this type of suffering in the past? How many documentaries have there been in relation to 9/11 and other disasters? Heck, I can remember the JL123 ACI episode, and they didn't censor the fact it was horrifying for those on board.
The level of information people want to know differs, but I do not believe that blanket censorship is suitable even in such events.

 

[UP4014]

They're interfering with a crime scene.

Having shot a plane down, I suspect they don't actually care about process and procedure.

Crime scene to us, war zone to them.

 

[medhead]

My family, family friends, my personal friends, colleagues.. all were taken aback by the 'clasping of children to their hearts' and 'mouthing a silent good bye'. And not taken aback in a good way, but in the negative, that the statement was made.

What about people who were alone on the plane. Their relatives don't even have the comfort that they died mouthing goodbye to their loved one... they then have to think that they died this terrible death by themselves? On so many levels that statement was uncalled for.

in a car crash, or if a soldier member of your family is killed in war... do we want to be told it was quick? or that they suffered terribly, crying out for their family. There are certain convention with these things.

MH is the victim, but that is not enough when it comes to legal liability. Please don't try and do the relatives out of what may be rightfully theirs in terms of compensation.

The guy DID NOT say they suffered horribly.

Your legal liability position does not even consider the question of negligence. As such it is simply pointless to keep banging on about it. They are a victim and as I said I am not interested in hearing attempts to blame the airline. Stop trying to prove my opinion wrong. If you feel the need to keep arguing, I'm sure there is a good lamp post somewhere.

 

[SeatBackForward]

Well there is someone else who supports the argument that MH are somewhat liable:

MH17 crash 'punishment' for Malaysia Airlines offering alcohol, flight attendants' dress: Islamic party
Kuala Lumpur: The youth leader of a Malaysian opposition party has claimed the MH17 tragedy was God punishing Malaysia Airlines for serving alcohol on its flights and its “indecent” dress code.

Ahmad Tarmizi Sulaiman, the youth information chief of the opposition Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS), said the serving of alcohol, which is prohibited under Islam, and the dress code of Malaysia Airlines flight attendants' “cross the boundaries of Islam.”

But as predominantly Malaysia mourns the loss of its second Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 in months, other politicians condemned the remarks as the country’s 222 MPs put aside their political differences while prime minister Najib Razak moved a condolence motion in an emergency session of Parliament.

Mr Tarmizi was quoted in Malaysia’s media as saying majority state-owned Malaysia Airlines was ignoring the tenets of Islam.

“If the government wishes to introspect and to garner the blessings of Allah, what is wrong in conducting a study on the percentage of passengers who would not fly MAS if alcohol is not served and its flight attendants observe Muslim dress code?,” he said.

PAS enjoys strong support in Malaysia’s northern and rural conservative states.

But former minister Wee Ka Siong described the remarks ridiculous and insensitive and a selfish attempt to use people’s anguish for political benefit.

MH17 crash 'punishment' for Malaysia Airlines offering alcohol, flight attendants' dress: Islamic party

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Your legal liability position does not even consider the question of negligence.

Legal liability is intrinsically linked to negligence. Under the Montreal Convention, MH must prove it was not negligent in order for victims to receive comensation over and above the first tier (113k SDRs).

Refusing to consider why the plane was there in the first place - what steps did MH take to consider the warnings, what processes did they have in place, how did they reach their decision to fly there - may all be relevant. That MH4 flew over another potential trouble spot a couple of days later may give some insight into decision making processes as well.

According to the Huffington Post (and another version I read) it appears the Foreign Minister was the one doing the thinking:Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans Gives Perfect Response To Horror Of MH17

"Since Thursday, I've been thinking, how horrible it must have been, the final moments of their lives, when they knew the plane was going down.
"Did they lock hands with their loved ones, did they hold their children close to their hearts? (trembles) Did they look each other in the eyes, one final time, in a wordless goodbye? We will never know.

He says he is wondering how horrible it must have been.

however I there appears to be another interpretation of his words from the nltimes: http://www.nltimes.nl/2014/07/22/timmermans-speech-leads-un-security-council-condemn-russia/

In a seeming attempt to pull this international tragedy back from the political strings that it has been attached to, Minister Timmermans emphasized further the human tragedy that this is. “How terrible it must have been, when they knew that the plane crashed. Did they hold their loved ones’ hands, did they press their children to their hearts, look each other in the eye a last time? We shall never know.”

so maybe this was an issue of translation.

 

[casanovawa]

And hardly the actions of an innocent party, there seems to have been a deliberate attempt to "interfere" with the scene. Without ascribing guilt it seems to be a very strange way to behave and the only really reason to do this would seem to be compromise the investigation.

I'm quite happy to assign guilt, you destroy any evidence then supposition and circumstantial evidence should be taken as fact... If innocent you only have yourself to blame, but I think we all realise they aren't innocent, stupid and uncaring, but not innocent...

 

[markis10]

Good to see the RAAF C17 on task to repatriate the bodies, yet again Australia and it's defence forces are once again lifting above their weight when it comes to the worlds problems.

 

[medhead]

Legal liability is intrinsically linked to negligence. Under the Montreal Convention, MH must prove it was not negligent in order for victims to receive comensation over and above the first tier (113k SDRs).

Refusing to consider why the plane was there in the first place - what steps did MH take to consider the warnings, what processes did they have in place, how did they reach their decision to fly there - may all be relevant. That MH4 flew over another potential trouble spot a couple of days later may give some insight into decision making processes as well.

According to the Huffington Post (and another version I read) it appears the Foreign Minister was the one doing the thinking:Dutch Foreign Minister Frans Timmermans Gives Perfect Response To Horror Of MH17



He says he is wondering how horrible it must have been.

however I there appears to be another interpretation of his words from the nltimes: http://www.nltimes.nl/2014/07/22/timmermans-speech-leads-un-security-council-condemn-russia/


so maybe this was an issue of translation.

As i said you do not consider negligence. You agar repeated stated they are automatically liable and you've done it again. Guilty until proven innocent. You also continuing fail to consider the circumstances in particular that it is pretty obvious MH were not negligent.

Otherwise, I wonder want a ? means. I wonder want the conclusion sentence means. I'm certainly not going to take the opening sentence out of context.

 

[drron]

The US have satellite imagery of the rocket launcher.There are the telephone and social media evidence.apparently the US has verified the phone intercepts.What does this mean?
The rocket launcher only arrived in the area a few hours before MH17 flew over.Previously the rockets launched from East Ukraine were man held-hence the notification to fly above 24000 feet with the 30% buffer to 32000 feet.
So tell me precisely how was MAS to know that the rebels would bring a system very capable of reaching 33000 feet after their flight had left AMS?
A little more evidence of the rockets in Torez-very close to the crash site-
http://www.buzzfeed.com/maxseddon/locals-say-rebels-moved-missile-launcher-shortly-before-mala

 

[dajop]

So tell me precisely how was MAS to know that the rebels would bring a system very capable of reaching 33000 feet after their flight had left AMS?

I guess an alternative question to ask is did or should MAS have known that a system was likely to have been brought into the area?

I sometimes wonder if countries down the intelligence pecking order - Malaysia being one of them, may not have access to the sort of intelligence that, for example UK and the US do. Airlines from France, UK and China were actively avoiding the area - airlines from Germany, Netherlands, Singapore, Malaysia, India, Thailand were not. Does that say something about risk acceptance/avoidance or access to appropriate intelligence, or a bit of both?

 

[drron]

China is a red herring-their flightpaths were to the north of Ukraine in the main not over this area.

 

[UP4014]

So tell me precisely how was MAS to know that the rebels would bring a system very capable of reaching 33000 feet after their flight had left AMS?

Not precisely, but it was foreseeable. The rebels are backed by a large Govt.

So there are Govt backed rebels fighting a real Govt. Does anyone disagree with this? If you don't disagree then keep moving the chess game ahead as things escalate and sooner or later the capability is there on both sides.

While I am not totally surprised MH routed themselves over this area to expedite flights, I am shocked that others did which should have more mature risk systems in place.

Matt

 

[UP4014]

I guess an alternative question to ask is did or should MAS have known that a system was likely to have been brought into the area?

I sometimes wonder if countries down the intelligence pecking order - Malaysia being one of them, may not have access to the sort of intelligence that, for example UK and the US do. Airlines from France, UK and China were actively avoiding the area - airlines from Germany, Netherlands, Singapore, Malaysia, India, Thailand were not. Does that say something about risk acceptance/avoidance or access to appropriate intelligence, or a bit of both?

I think it's about accepting risk at differing rates/cost, the less risk you want is directly proportional to how much you want to spend.

I would think the Germans and Singapore were asleep at the wheel when is came to assessing this.

Matt