Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Originally posted by Highkeas View Post
    I would not be at all surprised if the first piece of 370 debris is found washed up somewhere months or years from now.
    I hope they recover a plastic cup with the logo of malaysia airlines....
    At least would be the first evidence.
    A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

    Comment


    • Originally posted by vaztr View Post
      Phoneman,

      How about this as a 'legal' argument.

      After the 'spate' of 'recent' murdercides (thanx Brian), the manufacturers (BOEING, AIRBUS et al.) should have built in a failsafe to prevent deliberate CFIT

      My 2c from knowing lots of lousy lawyers

      VAZ
      That's funny! The Lawyers probably sue everybody, hoping for a settlement because the defendants want to avoid huge legal fees!

      Comment


      • Originally posted by phoneman View Post
        I see the Lawyers are already going after Boeing as well as Malaysian Airlines. Since the cause of the crash isn't known, how can you go after the manufacturer? If it turns out to be a deliberate act, you can still sue the manufacturer?
        (TeeVee, please don't hit me too hard)

        While somehow linked, civil liability is not the same than penal guilt.

        While penal guilt typically makes you liable of the damages caused by your offense, you can still be liable for damages without any guilt.

        The law is not the same in all places. In Argentina, for example, if you drive a car you accept the risk that you can cause and be liable for damages even if it's not your fault. The idea is that while drivers need to pass a medical, psychological, knowledge and practical test to get a licence, pedestrians don't. So while nobody can use ignorance of the law as an argument, pedestrians are more "out of control". For example. It's night and you hit a pedestrian on dark clothes that crosses the road not at a zebra crossing. How much liability goes to you depends on things that are completely out of control, as for example if the pedestrian meets criteria to gauge his acts against those of a reasonable person. An adult in good mental condition is expected to act reasonably. An old person with mild Alzheimer not so much. You can argue all night that you could do nothing to avoid the hitting him, that you were complying with all the laws and regulations and that his crossing was illegal and negligent, but someone must pay for the broken leg of the old man and if he can't be held liable himself because he cannot be charged with the duty of acting "reasonably", then it will be you because it's the risk you accepted the minute that you sat behind that steering wheel. You don't like it? Don't drive.

        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

        Comment


        • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
          I was thinking last night after getting off with Brian and having a good laugh.

          It is a damn shame that ITS is not around! I believe he is now a 777 Captain and he could give us some of the information that we are lacking on systems and so on.
          Shady wouldn't be caught dead in some crackerbox composite 777.

          Over 24 hours have passed since they pinpointed a field of debris with 23' objects and still they can't retrieve anything? Unless they are canoeing from Perth I seriously doubt that.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by BoeingBobby View Post
            ...3we that I believe are also not pilots but know how to Google stuff first before they post to present a valid point...
            You're losing it in your old age...especially "research before posting" and making valid points.
            Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

            Comment


            • Evan,

              The problem really is the weather. There are now ships in the general search area, although the weather is not playing the game and they are having significant difficulties. The area is huge, don't forget. Ships don't move all that quickly in the large seas that are down there, and its pretty hard to spot anything when you've got very poor visibility, even if you're nearly on top of it.

              They may well have pinpointed some debris, but if it takes a number of hours to get ships near it, and then they have to stay out of the area due to the weather anyway, it is not easy.

              There's no doubt they'll get some of this debris... my guess is today or tomorrow... but I wouldn't assume just because it is taking time that they are not telling us something.

              Comment


              • Not to mention that there were strong storms in the zone with very strong winds and very rough seas. The debris may be hundreds of miles away from where they were on 23th when they were detected by the satellite.

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  (TeeVee, please don't hit me too hard)

                  While somehow linked, civil liability is not the same than penal guilt.

                  While penal guilt typically makes you liable of the damages caused by your offense, you can still be liable for damages without any guilt.

                  The law is not the same in all places. In Argentina, for example, if you drive a car you accept the risk that you can cause and be liable for damages even if it's not your fault. The idea is that while drivers need to pass a medical, psychological, knowledge and practical test to get a licence, pedestrians don't. So while nobody can use ignorance of the law as an argument, pedestrians are more "out of control". For example. It's night and you hit a pedestrian on dark clothes that crosses the road not at a zebra crossing. How much liability goes to you depends on things that are completely out of control, as for example if the pedestrian meets criteria to gauge his acts against those of a reasonable person. An adult in good mental condition is expected to act reasonably. An old person with mild Alzheimer not so much. You can argue all night that you could do nothing to avoid the hitting him, that you were complying with all the laws and regulations and that his crossing was illegal and negligent, but someone must pay for the broken leg of the old man and if he can't be held liable himself because he cannot be charged with the duty of acting "reasonably", then it will be you because it's the risk you accepted the minute that you sat behind that steering wheel. You don't like it? Don't drive.
                  I can see how your argument would apply to the airline, but I don't see how it would apply to Boeing unless it is determined to be a mechanical fault

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                    Not to mention that there were strong storms in the zone with very strong winds and very rough seas. The debris may be hundreds of miles away from where they were on 23th when they were detected by the satellite.
                    Once spotted by satellite, I would expect that they could continuously track the debris. Is that a fair assumption?

                    Comment


                    • It'll be easy to tee off on lawyers. But I guess put yourselves in the shoes of those who lost family members. All the corporations and governments should get off scot free? Trouble I see is that it isn't this airline or even company resisting change, it seems to be global aviation. Which means your risks are the same no matter where. And the first thing all the defense lawyers will emphasize is how SMALL the risk of flying is. But I am seeing some issues here, 5 years after AF447 went down, that seem not to have advanced at all. Why? I believe the argument was that crashes were so infrequent, improvements wouldn't be cost-effective. Was that it? Meaning you have the odds on your side if you buy a ticket, but once you're on, you are accepting known risks.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                        Once spotted by satellite, I would expect that they could continuously track the debris. Is that a fair assumption?
                        I don't think so. I think that the amount of data is too much to analyze in cuasi-real time. I think that the debris were spotted by a human eye on a satellite photo many days after it was spotted by the satellite.

                        --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                        --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                          Shady wouldn't be caught dead in some French cheap composite crackerbox Airbus.
                          Fixed.

                          Your original post was extremely ill informed.

                          It's better if you do a little www.interent.com research before posting.

                          The group here can be harsh when posts are way off base.

                          Here are some good resources:





                          Edit: Here is the ultimate resource: http://forums.jetphotos.net/showthread.php?t=47535
                          Last edited by 3WE; 2014-03-27, 20:47. Reason: A thread on Cheap Airbus vs. quality Boeing composites.
                          Les règles de l'aviation de base découragent de longues périodes de dur tirer vers le haut.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by 3WE View Post
                            Fixed.

                            Your original post was extremely ill informed.

                            It's better if you do a little www.interent.com research before posting.

                            The group here can be harsh when posts are way off base.

                            Here are some good resources:



                            http://forums.jetphotos.net/member.php?u=294
                            As I suspected.

                            Comment


                            • Sorry if I missed this earlier in the thread. If a 777 were at cruise alt (say above 25k) on autopilot (no human intervention) and fuel exausted on one engine before the other...does the ap have enough authority to keep a tumble from happening? My question is about in air breakup vs imact breakup. thx

                              Comment


                              • Just got this from another thread on another site. I never heard of it and I have never seen any traces of it in either the 400 or the -8. Sounds like bull to me.




                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X