MH 17 "shot down" all dead

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › MH 17 "shot down" all dead

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 14

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1092378 20-Jul-2014 10:47

gzt:
networkn: So if Russian is ultimately responsible now, who will "compensate" the families?

The airline and therefore the insurers. If the insurers manage to wiggle out due to an act of war clause (debatable) then financial responsibility will fall back on the airline, and therefore on the government of Malaysia.

As for Russia being found responsible (early days yet) and accepting responsibility, if that should occur in reality that would be a long drawn out diplomatic process which may or may not conclude. Imho it would be unlikely to occur while Putin is at the helm and will probably wait for at least one or two changes of government.

Airlines are due to compensate US$150,000 per passenger. If there was no airline fault, there is no further liability. Agree with Putin comment

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1092398 20-Jul-2014 11:15

Jaxson:
chiefie: At the time the flight was being planned, there was no known no-fly zone declared around the Ukraine air space. Many other airliners have different flight paths or avoid the conflict zones even without official declaration from FAA/CAA.

However, I'm sure after today's MH17 disaster, the Ukraine air space probably be marked for no-fly zone.

I thought I read that it was ok past a certain altitude, but to what degree this was well known and accepted by the airlines will be a point of interest moving forward.

300 odd people though, that's simply horrible.

I recall hearing the no fly zone was up to 26000 feet and then 32000 feet

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1092402 20-Jul-2014 11:18

Those altitudes would be fine for shoulder launched rockets. But the Russians gave the thugs a super high tech weapon. Oops

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1092405 20-Jul-2014 11:25

joker97: Those altitudes would be fine for shoulder launched rockets. But the Russians gave the thugs a super high tech weapon. Oops

Watching coverage of this point now on CNN

A number of airiness fly the route, a route that was advised as safe by the international regulators, such as FAA, ICAO. They likened it to a crime scene on the ground, where the Police divert traffic, so citizens who follow the Police guidelines for the traffic diversion would assume its safe. Fair Point.

I feel that if 33000 feet was deemed safe, then why not take a lead and fly at 40000?

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1092408 20-Jul-2014 11:31

I don't have any doubt that a civil court will find the airline both stupid and liable for flying over an active and air conflict zone. It does not matter they followed advice from the euro regulator or that other airlines were doing exactly the same thing. Still liable. It won't go to court tho it will be negotiated by lawyers at the top.

.

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1092409 20-Jul-2014 11:32

Airlines are not spy espionage agencies. They don't know what weapons are present in the ground. They don't know the specs of weapons. They rely on the air police.

Dell

Shop now for Dell laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1092411 20-Jul-2014 11:33

gzt: I don't have any doubt that a civil court will find the airline both stupid and liable for flying over an active and air conflict zone. It does not matter they followed advice from the euro regulator or that other airlines were doing exactly the same thing. Still liable. It won't go to court tho it will be negotiated by lawyers at the top.

.

We don't know that.

insane

3325 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1006

ID Verified

Trusted

2degrees

Subscriber

#1092414 20-Jul-2014 11:38

tdgeek:

I feel that if 33000 feet was deemed safe, then why not take a lead and fly at 40000?

I'm obviously no air traffic controller, but believe each flight gets its own patch/altitude to fly at. The following jets may well have been flying slightly higher.

They probably don't bother sending them all up that high to start with as they know if they're going to be targeted by a SAM the extra 10,000ft won't make much difference..

Maybe airliners need to have some sort of identify friend or foe system in place (if they don't already), but who knows whether a SAM system built in 1969 will be able to observe it.

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1092415 20-Jul-2014 11:40

Police traffic diversion? It's a bad argument. It's not comparable. At the end of the day the airline chose to fly this route and must accept responsibility for what occurred.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1092454 20-Jul-2014 13:10

gzt: Police traffic diversion? It's a bad argument. It's not comparable. At the end of the day the airline chose to fly this route and must accept responsibility for what occurred.

Regulators control this. They gave the ok, as would the police in CNN's analogy. If there is a case to answer then its the FAA, ICAO etc. And every other airline would also have to fall to the court in your example

Dynamic

4016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1853

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1092476 20-Jul-2014 14:03

joker97:
Dynamic: Haha public FAIL from one airline in particular who has just recently retracted their 'we have not recently flown over Ukraine' twitter statement.

Care to name some names? I have failed to discovery who they were. I am reading Qantas saying they didn't fly thru that area but not sure if they were caught out or if it's true.

It's on FlightRadar24's Twitter Feed. https://twitter.com/flightradar24

“Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.” Douglas Adams

HP

Shop now for HP laptops and other devices (affiliate link).

gzt

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7827

Lifetime subscriber

#1092477 20-Jul-2014 14:04

tdgeek:
gzt: Police traffic diversion? It's a bad argument. It's not comparable. At the end of the day the airline chose to fly this route and must accept responsibility for what occurred.

Regulators control this. They gave the ok, as would the police in CNN's analogy. If there is a case to answer then its the FAA, ICAO etc. And every other airline would also have to fall to the court in your example

Yes, any other airline making the same decision with the same consequences is legally responsible for the decision. This could have happened to any airline flying that route at that time. This does not change the consequences. They all made a decision to accept that risk.

Yes, court action by the airline or other parties against the Euro regulator may also occur. However compliance with regulation does not mean you can avoid responsibility for events which may occur. You are still liable for your own decisions.

I expect the way airlines transit conflict zones will change significantly after these events. The flying public will demand it.

Dynamic

4016 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1853

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1092480 20-Jul-2014 14:11

insane:Maybe airliners need to have some sort of identify friend or foe system in place (if they don't already), but who knows whether a SAM system built in 1969 will be able to observe it.

They seem to have this already, hence flightradar24 and other similar sites being able to identify aircraft in the air.

If some bright spark decided that a secret military aircraft should transmit a civilian-style signature to 'disguise' it, then all aircraft become targets again. I'm sure that the military dudes would not want a nice big electronic bullseye transmitter on their planes.

“Don't believe anything you read on the net. Except this. Well, including this, I suppose.” Douglas Adams

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1092503 20-Jul-2014 14:50

gzt:
tdgeek:
gzt: Police traffic diversion? It's a bad argument. It's not comparable. At the end of the day the airline chose to fly this route and must accept responsibility for what occurred.

Regulators control this. They gave the ok, as would the police in CNN's analogy. If there is a case to answer then its the FAA, ICAO etc. And every other airline would also have to fall to the court in your example

Yes, any other airline making the same decision with the same consequences is legally responsible for the decision. This could have happened to any airline flying that route at that time. This does not change the consequences. They all made a decision to accept that risk.

Yes, court action by the airline or other parties against the Euro regulator may also occur. However compliance with regulation does not mean you can avoid responsibility for events which may occur. You are still liable for your own decisions.

I expect the way airlines transit conflict zones will change significantly after these events. The flying public will demand it.

Watching more of this at cnn, the regulators, FAA, ICAO, EUROPE CONTROL, do not have enforceability over flight zones, meaning that there is no regulation of that point. That has to change, and it, based on this disaster,has to mean that every other conflict has to be red zoned also. Who has to define a conflict zone? Some enforceable regulator, of which there is none at the moment.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1092504 20-Jul-2014 14:52

tdgeek:
gzt:
networkn: So if Russian is ultimately responsible now, who will "compensate" the families?

The airline and therefore the insurers. If the insurers manage to wiggle out due to an act of war clause (debatable) then financial responsibility will fall back on the airline, and therefore on the government of Malaysia.

As for Russia being found responsible (early days yet) and accepting responsibility, if that should occur in reality that would be a long drawn out diplomatic process which may or may not conclude. Imho it would be unlikely to occur while Putin is at the helm and will probably wait for at least one or two changes of government.

Airlines are due to compensate US$150,000 per passenger. If there was no airline fault, there is no further liability. Agree with Putin comment

How do they come to that figure though? And if they are not liable, why are they paying anything at all, or is that the figure in their T&'C's

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | ... | 14