Geekzone: technology news, blogs, forums
Guest
Welcome Guest.
You haven't logged in yet. If you don't have an account you can register now.
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic
1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 | 14
12285 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2142

Trusted

  Reply # 1092378 20-Jul-2014 10:47
Send private message

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

12285 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2142

Trusted

  Reply # 1092398 20-Jul-2014 11:15
Send private message

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



Mad Scientist
18447 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2338

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1092402 20-Jul-2014 11:18
Send private message

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

12285 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2142

Trusted

  Reply # 1092405 20-Jul-2014 11:25
Send private message

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

9828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1471


  Reply # 1092408 20-Jul-2014 11:31
Send private message

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.

.



Mad Scientist
18447 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2338

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1092409 20-Jul-2014 11:32
Send private message

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.



Mad Scientist
18447 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2338

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1092411 20-Jul-2014 11:33
Send private message

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.

2274 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 363

Trusted
Subscriber

  Reply # 1092414 20-Jul-2014 11:38
Send private message

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

9828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1471


  Reply # 1092415 20-Jul-2014 11:40
Send private message

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.

12285 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2142

Trusted

  Reply # 1092454 20-Jul-2014 13:10
Send private message

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

2382 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 694

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1092476 20-Jul-2014 14:03
Send private message

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 




"4 wheels move the body.  2 wheels move the soul."

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

gzt

9828 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1471


  Reply # 1092477 20-Jul-2014 14:04
Send private message

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.

2382 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 694

Trusted
Lifetime subscriber

  Reply # 1092480 20-Jul-2014 14:11
Send private message

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.




"4 wheels move the body.  2 wheels move the soul."

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

12285 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 2142

Trusted

  Reply # 1092503 20-Jul-2014 14:50
Send private message

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.

13984 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1763


  Reply # 1092504 20-Jul-2014 14:52
Send private message

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 | 13 | 14
View this topic in a long page with up to 500 replies per page Create new topic

Twitter »

Follow us to receive Twitter updates when new discussions are posted in our forums:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when news items and blogs are posted in our frontpage:



Follow us to receive Twitter updates when tech item prices are listed in our price comparison site:





News »

N4L helping TAKA Trust bridge the digital divide for Lower Hutt students
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:08


Winners Announced for 2018 CIO Awards
Posted 18-Jun-2018 13:03


Logitech Rally sets new standard for USB-connected video conference cameras
Posted 18-Jun-2018 09:27


Russell Stanners steps down as Vodafone NZ CEO
Posted 12-Jun-2018 09:13


Intergen recognised as 2018 Microsoft Country Partner of the Year for New Zealand
Posted 12-Jun-2018 08:00


Finalists Announced For Microsoft NZ Partner Awards
Posted 6-Jun-2018 15:12


Vocus Group and Vodafone announce joint venture to accelerate fibre innovation
Posted 5-Jun-2018 10:52


Kogan.com to launch Kogan Mobile in New Zealand
Posted 4-Jun-2018 14:34


Enable doubles fibre broadband speeds for its most popular wholesale service in Christchurch
Posted 2-Jun-2018 20:07


All or Nothing: New Zealand All Blacks arrives on Amazon Prime Video
Posted 2-Jun-2018 16:21


Innovation Grant, High Tech Awards and new USA office for Kiwi tech company SwipedOn
Posted 1-Jun-2018 20:54


Commerce Commission warns Apple for misleading consumers about their rights
Posted 30-May-2018 13:15


IBM leads Call for Code to use cloud, data, AI, blockchain for natural disaster relief
Posted 25-May-2018 14:12


New FUJIFILM X-T100 aims to do better job than smartphones
Posted 24-May-2018 20:17


Stuff takes 100% ownership of Stuff Fibre
Posted 24-May-2018 19:41



Geekzone Live »

Try automatic live updates from Geekzone directly in your browser, without refreshing the page, with Geekzone Live now.



Are you subscribed to our RSS feed? You can download the latest headlines and summaries from our stories directly to your computer or smartphone by using a feed reader.

Alternatively, you can receive a daily email with Geekzone updates.