Boeing 777 shot down
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
For those still interested in this story, the first lawsuit against Ukraine by a victims family is now under way:
http://rt.com/news/210095-germany-mother-ukraine-sue/
She is suing Ukraine for it's part in her daughters death, claiming negligent homicide. The basis of her case is that Ukrainian authorities chose to route her daughters flight over an active war zone where they knew the was a risk it may be shot down (a no fly zone had been declared by the controlling faction and they were known to be capable of enforcing it), this negligence directly attributed to her daughters death.
Personally I wish her good luck, I remember raising this point straight after the accident, hopefully the Ukrainian authorities will end up having to pay for their greed.
http://rt.com/news/210095-germany-mother-ukraine-sue/
She is suing Ukraine for it's part in her daughters death, claiming negligent homicide. The basis of her case is that Ukrainian authorities chose to route her daughters flight over an active war zone where they knew the was a risk it may be shot down (a no fly zone had been declared by the controlling faction and they were known to be capable of enforcing it), this negligence directly attributed to her daughters death.
Personally I wish her good luck, I remember raising this point straight after the accident, hopefully the Ukrainian authorities will end up having to pay for their greed.
Soldato
- Joined
- 14 Nov 2002
- Posts
- 7,709
- Location
- Under the Hill
I think you'd view it a little differently of you were left with a family to bring up and had lost a spouse and the financial security their income provided.
I think it's less concerning the money and perhaps more about the principle too. I mean I'd probably want to do the same, and if it was concluded we were benefited £1 then great, it would also mean someone is held responsible for the death of innocent life, which would help recovery no doubt. If this was a blameless accident then that would be different. Instead this is an incident with a guilty party.
Excellently put. I think I would want the issue acknowledged to implement change to prevent such things happening again.
I think you're slightly wrong here. The atc are not responsible, they were complacent. The scum that fired a missile at a passenger plane are responsible. They're not being held to justice.
They are both responsible, they both took actions that resulted in the loss of the aircraft and those on board, the ATC via negligence/incompetence, and the scum via deliberate/accidental action. Both should be held accountable, however at this time only the identity of one is known so they are being held to account for their part in the tragedy.
Ukraine shouldn't have been accepting civilian aircraft over a warzone let alone asking them to lower their altitude over a bunch of rebels they've been routinely bombing, not that it's been proven it was the rebels but even it was it looks an awful lot like Ukraine dangled the mouse in front of the cat.
Being complacent MAKES them responsible, not entirely responsible by no means but partially responsible nonetheless.
Complacency in situations that result in death is usually the backbone of negligent homicide.
Agreed. ATC, by its very description alone, is partly responsible in this incident.
Its not like anyone except a few russian / eastern european airlines are flying over it anymore.
Oh, I'm disappointed now as that basically ruins every WW2 film ever madeI didn't realise you had to be in punching distance of a larger slower moving target to actually hit it, it's a pity the aggressors couldn't alter their own heading or something to improve their chances of scoring a hit
Just to add a point, as that source is almost as biased as RT lol, as a aircraft enthusiast I can tell you it's very common to see people fighting over specifications on Wiki, the fact somebody was trying to change the service ceiling back* to 33,000ft on that day was because the SU25 page pretty much exploded on that day (more edits than in the previous few months).
Just to note that most of the editing was done by anti-Russian posters who removed a lot of valid points, such as SU25's routinely surpassing their service ceiling for long periods, the absolute ceiling being over 10,000 meters, etc.
*The specifications were only changed to 7KM a year or two ago when the specifications were changed from those of the SU-25TM to those of the original 1970's SU-25.
Indeed even the Russians say it didn't get closer than 3KM
(Just in case it looks like I am arguing both sides here, I am not trying to say nor do I believe that an SU25 did it either with cannon or missile, I am just saying an SU25 could have done it with cannon or missile, that's all).
Ok so we are basing the possibility of this happening on WWII films. Interesting. Tell me, which films specifically are you referring to.
Me, i base everything i know about space exploration on those Star Wars documentaries.
This all occurred before the MH17 incident.
You missed the sarcasm.
Every one that shows slow moving large bombers get strafed by faster more agile fighters, you know, pretty much ever WW2 film with planes in it lol.
Last edited: