Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[burmans]

Have been looking closely at flight paths.BA LHR-SIN-LHR had a flight path in 2013 which most of the time went over southern Crimea which early this year was declared a no fly zone so had to be changed.They could have gone north or south.Really doesn't look like that much difference in distance.They chose the southerly route.
AF CDG-SIN flightpath was similar to BA.But the further east you go in Europe the flight path trends more northerly over Ukraine so favouring missing Crimea.
QF DXB-LHR has always been south of Crimea and CX LHR-HKG has always been north of the Ukraine.
On some of the more out there conspiracy theories it is pointed out that SU flying Odessa to Moscow makes a big diversion around Ukraine.but again that is also because it needs to do that to avoid Crimean airspace as much as possible.Also well known that Kiev had several BUK batteries on the border with Crimea.
Also some suggesting that SU flying from Athens used to cross Ukraine but deviated south on the 17th.But of course it left after the MH17 shoot down.

Also remember that the 32000 restriction was introduced on 14/7 way after BA and AF changed their flightpaths.

Well according to the Der Spiegel article SU was the biggest user of the Ukraine route in the period immediately before the crash, so doesnt look to me like there was much avoidance by them.

 

[medhead]

It would have been interesting is QF5/6 were still going to FRA. Last time I did sin-FRA the flight flew close to the top of the Caspian Sea to central Poland and then to FRA. Guess what is roughly in the middle.

 

[UP4014]

I'll disagree that it is foreseeable, on the cost argument alone. While I'll argue the missiles are cheap, they are not cheap for rebels. Who can predict that any government would put such a system in the hands of dumb dirt farmers with minimal training?

The risk manager should have foreseen the possibility of escalating conflict on one of their routes coming at some stage. The chief operating officer would have to weigh up the position and make a decision on risk versus cost, both in dollars and resources and customer inconvenience.

I personally have been dealing with risk assessments in the rail world for 20 years and neighbours along the route are a potential risk all be it low. But flying over combat zones should snap risk people out of their routine and into action.

I'd guess they knew there was a risk but assessed it low and they probably reviewed it weekly or daily, the airlines weren't keeping up situation, but I stand by the fact it was foreseeable and I make that comment as a transport risk professional of 20 years.

I'm disappointed in airlines generally when it comes to flying over conflict areas. They can assess the risk of engine fire and tyre failure extremely well down to the number hours or landings, but when it comes to forces outside their control they are generally hopeless.

Matt

 

[whatmeworry]

Web Citizen spies take to web to uncover MH17 intel.
Citizen spies take to web to uncover MH17 intel

 

[SeatBackForward]

Web Citizen spies take to web to uncover MH17 intel.
Citizen spies take to web to uncover MH17 intel

PPRune is posting up some good links here, such as this one: MH17 down near Donetsk - Page 43 - PPRuNe Forums

 

[amaroo]

Looting happens in all situations where opportunity arises - road accidents, civil breakdown, bushfires, cyclones etc. It is a human failing. Being common does not make it any more palatable but it is the reality.

Amplified a Billion fold in a war zone. All nationalities are capable of heinous behaviour.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Really inconsistent in your argument here, so its not OK to take advice from one party but OK to take advice from BA and AF? Why should they call BA and AF and not SQ/LM or Aeroflot? Why would they call any of them in preference to the relevant authorities for whom this is actually their job?

The point is that if every single airline was flying over the region, maybe MH would have a valid excuse. But the fact that one or two others decided not to, MH should perhaps have turned their attention to those and asked the question 'why?'. Why are these airlines taking a different route to everyone else? Do they know something we don't?

Who knows, MH may have done just that. BA or AF might have said 'just because we are being cautious', or maybe they gave no valid reason. This may need to be answered by MH if they are to prove they were not negligent.

That 37 other airlines were flying there may mean all 37 airlines were negligent, not that all 37 were in the right. It is just MH that needs to answer because they are the ones faced with the liability because they were shot down.

The Montreal Convention is clear. MH must prove it was not negligent. Otherwise it is strictly liable. SQ, AI, LH all would be in the same position if it had been one of their aircraft.

Again, I say this... everyone so convinced that MH is NOT liable, you rob the families of an avenue of compensation.

The authorities also said the Syria flight path was safe that MH4 took two days after the accident. This time however MH appears to be the only intercontinental flight using that route. So that might shed some insight onto MH's risk assessment. It somewhat looks like they have none over and above what they want to accept.

Authorities authorise all sorts of things. There can be a 100km/H speed limit, but if it is pouring rain, even though they have authorised 100, individual drivers will make their own assessment and go slower if necessary. People are allowed to ride motorcycles without full leathers. But some rider go further and choose to enhance their safety.

There is nothing restricting MH (or any other airline) from erring on the side of caution and increasing safety margins.

 

[medhead]

I'm considering whether they're negligent. Liability doesn't come into it. Talk about putting the horse before the cart by assuming negligence.

 

[jlien]

MH17 compensation could hit $1 billion in latest disaster for Malaysia Airlines | News.com.au

The sharks are circling, disgusting :evil:

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I'm considering whether they're negligent. Liability doesn't come into it. Talk about putting the horse before the cart by assuming negligence.

It is the wording of the Montreal Convention. Australia, Netherlands, Malaysia and others are all signatories to that convention.

claims for compensation in excess of 113k SDRs are permitted unless the airline can prove no negligence.

that is contrary to how a lot of people think the law operates, but this is an international convention, and operates as the law in Australia and other countries that have ratified the agreement.

Edited... the article posted above explains, perhaps better than I have over the last few days, exactly how the law operates. There is nothing wrong with lawyers fighting to get fair and adequate compensation. Life -bills, mortgages, medical, schooling - must go on. And have to be paid for.

 

[burmans]

It is the wording of the Montreal Convention. Australia, Netherlands, Malaysia and others are all signatories to that convention.

claims for compensation in excess of 113k SDRs are permitted unless the airline can prove no negligence.

that is contrary to how a lot of people think the law operates, but this is an international convention, and operates as the law in Australia and other countries that have ratified the agreement.

Edited... the article posted above explains, perhaps better than I have over the last few days, exactly how the law operates. There is nothing wrong with lawyers fighting to get fair and adequate compensation. Life -bills, mortgages, medical, schooling - must go on. And have to be paid for.

Yes, we know the law and justice are mutually exclusive, doesnt mean we like it.

Noone here wants to stop the victims getting justice but in our version of justice the "right" people are held to account rather than the "easiest".

 

[Alanslegal]

MH17 compensation could hit $1*billion in latest disaster for Malaysia Airlines | News.com.au

The sharks are circling, disgusting :evil:

Why is it disgusting? If you were a victim, wouldn't you want the wrong-doer put you back not only to the original position if it wasn't for their wrong-doing, but also further punished by way of exemplary damages if their wrong-doing was caused by their gross or deliberate negligence.

Some of the MH17 victims who left surviving (dependent) family, with debts/mortgages/loans that need to be serviced, will now face financial hardship and financial ruin. Who will pay for that? That's why compensation, well damages really, need to take into account that and ensure that the victim's survivors are put into the positions that are similar positions if it wasn't for the incident.

 

[boomy]

Yes, we know the law and justice are mutually exclusive, doesnt mean we like it.

Noone here wants to stop the victims getting justice but in our version of justice the "right" people are held to account rather than the "easiest".

The most important thing is to make sure the relatives get their deserved compensations as quickly as possible. If the "right" people can be forced to pay within a reasonable time frame then it's ideal for all sides. If this is not the case then someone must be forced to pay the bill according to international laws.

 

[medhead]

Get a clue. I AM SAYING MH IS NOT NEGLIGENT!!! Your compensation is therefore irrelevant. Why keep banging on with irrelevance. My opinion will NEVER change. Stop trying to prove me wrong. You've written this a thousand times, I really do not care. Like I said go argue with a lamp post.

It is the wording of the Montreal Convention. Australia, Netherlands, Malaysia and others are all signatories to that convention.

claims for compensation in excess of 113k SDRs are permitted unless the airline can prove no negligence.

that is contrary to how a lot of people think the law operates, but this is an international convention, and operates as the law in Australia and other countries that have ratified the agreement.

Edited... the article posted above explains, perhaps better than I have over the last few days, exactly how the law operates. There is nothing wrong with lawyers fighting to get fair and adequate compensation. Life -bills, mortgages, medical, schooling - must go on. And have to be paid for.

 

[medhead]

Why is it disgusting? If you were a victim, wouldn't you want the wrong-doer put you back not only to the original position if it wasn't for their wrong-doing, but also further punished by way of exemplary damages if their wrong-doing was caused by their gross or deliberate negligence.

Some of the MH17 victims who left surviving (dependent) family, with debts/mortgages/loans that need to be serviced, will now face financial hardship and financial ruin. Who will pay for that? That's why compensation, well damages really, need to take into account that and ensure that the victim's survivors are put into the positions that are similar positions if it wasn't for the incident.

MH is a victim in this case. Gross and deliberate negligence? - Pull the other one it plays jingle bells.

 

[straitman]

[mod hat] Time for a few people here to take a chill pill and calm down.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion and as such it is quite possible to have quite a few opinions.

There is however no reason for name calling to support opinions.

If anyone feels that any post from any person crosses the line then report it rather than attack the other person. All reports are reviewed by all the mods and admin independently and in unison if needed. The outcome of the report however may not be obvious to anyone else. [/mod hat]

 

[Alanslegal]

MH is a victim in this case. Gross and deliberate negligence? - Pull the other one it plays jingle bells.

Those are your opinions. MH might be the victim, yet can also be negligent at the same time.

I'll give you an analogy ..... let's assume a person jogs through the most dangerous street in the most dangerous suburb of Australia at midnight, that's pretty negligent or even careless. Now a bad person is hiding in the bushes with a pellet gun. The bad person shoots a couple of pellets and hits the jogger, the jogger falls over and hurts themselves. Is the jogger both the victim and negligent, you can work it out

 

[SeatBackForward]

Those are your opinions. MH might be the victim, yet can also be negligent at the same time.

I'll give you an analogy ..... let's assume a person jogs through the most dangerous street in the most dangerous suburb of Australia at midnight, that's pretty negligent or even careless. Now a bad person is hiding in the bushes with a pellet gun. The bad person shoots a couple of pellets and hits the jogger, the jogger falls over and hurts themselves. Is the jogger both the victim and negligent, you can work it out

Not quite, try an approved jogging area, at a recommended jogging time, in an area not known for having bushes behind which attackers hide.

ETA: oh and some other joggers, may have gone off on a different track because they had seen some seedlings being planted previously.

 

[medhead]

Those are your opinions. MH might be the victim, yet can also be negligent at the same time.

I'll give you an analogy ..... let's assume a person jogs through the most dangerous street in the most dangerous suburb of Australia at midnight, that's pretty negligent or even careless. Now a bad person is hiding in the bushes with a pellet gun. The bad person shoots a couple of pellets and hits the jogger, the jogger falls over and hurts themselves. Is the jogger both the victim and negligent, you can work it out

You wrote gross and Deliberate negligence. Yes it is my opinion and I will express my opinion. Please feel free to address the gross and deliberate element, if you wish for me to reconsider my opinion.

 

[dajop]

I'll give you an analogy ..... let's assume a person jogs through the most dangerous street in the most dangerous suburb of Australia at midnight, that's pretty negligent or even careless. Now a bad person is hiding in the bushes with a pellet gun. The bad person shoots a couple of pellets and hits the jogger, the jogger falls over and hurts themselves. Is the jogger both the victim and negligent, you can work it out

Not quite the same.

The jogger is jogging down a street nearby to the most dangerous street, but local authorities have suggested that street is OK, because any pellets that a bad person shoots won't reach them. Unbeknownst to the jogger though, the bad person has acquired a new high powered pellet gun, which now can reach the jogger, and indeed do. But the authorities didn't tell the jogger that either. The jogger also notices several other regulars going down the same street he/she is, so thinks it's OK. If only he/she stopped to ask why John and Jane from over the road were no longer jogging down the street when they used to. And of course after the incident, the local newspaper is full of stories of people who apparently knew better, and said the jogger needs to make its own call and not rely on the advice of the local authorities.