Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia Airlines Loses Contact With 777 en Route to Beijing

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

  • Ping range

    According to information the range of the pingers is only so much, whether the signal is bent or not by the water's dimensions. This then should make finding the aircraft "relatively" quicker and/or easier. How come the feeling is promoted that this is not the case? The biggest mystery is why? no note, no cause, no ransom, no stealing passengers for technology, no reason for life insurance fraud. no political gain in the captian's belief. Were the pilots flunking a hijack attempt and really hero's instead of suspects? I doubt we will ever find a reason. But the search is not over yet. By all estimations they should be right on top of a find. hold thumbs.

    Comment


    • Here come the bottom feeding lawyers.

      **************

      (CNN) -- A month and a half ago -- 46 days -- Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 vanished over the southern Indian Ocean.

      The milestone is a somber one because it now allows attorneys to move in. There's a 45-day rule, enforced by the National Transportation Safety Board, that says American lawyers have to wait that long to reach out to a family that's lost a loved one in a plane crash.

      What it means is that families can now file suit in American courts against U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing Co.

      The only problem -- no wreckage has been found. It's kind of like a murder case without a body.

      Some relatives of those on board the missing plane said they hope legal avenues can bring new information to light.

      "We don't feel we have a whole lot of other choices because we're certainly not getting any answers without (legal action)," Sarah Bajc, partner of Flight 370 passenger Philip Wood, told CNN on Tuesday.

      The frustration among the families is that Malaysian officials give opinions, but no data, at their briefings.

      Legal pressure on the Malaysian government, Bajc said, might force it to release data it holds.

      Attorneys have approached families about compensation lawsuits, but Bajc said the feeling among the relatives is that they do not want to file lawsuits of that type to chase money.

      Searching but 'no contacts of interest'

      Search efforts for the jetliner came up empty again Tuesday.

      The underwater drone scanning the ocean floor started its 10th mission, but there have been "no contacts of interest" in the first nine, Australia's Joint Agency Coordination Centre said.

      The Bluefin-21 has scanned about two-thirds of the intended territory without finding any sign of the missing plane.

      "If we don't have the 'black box' with all the critical information on it, or we don't have any part of the wreckage, it would be very hard to maintain a claim against Boeing in any court in the United States," said aviation attorney Daniel Rose, a partner at the firm Kreindler & Kreindler.

      Some argue the federal law barring attorneys' contact with victims' families for 45 days after an air disaster does not apply to crashes outside the United States, where the NTSB does not have jurisdiction.

      In fact, at least one law firm has already taken the initial steps for a lawsuit. Aviation attorney Monica Kelly said she filed a request for documents and other information in an Illinois court last month in a case against Malaysia Airlines and Boeing. She said she represents Januari Siregar, whose son was aboard Flight 370.

      While it may be more difficult to make a case against Boeing, the same can't be said for Malaysia Airlines.

      The Montreal Convention governs such matters. Under international law, families can sue in the country where the passengers bought the ticket, where the airline is based or their final destination.

      http://www.cnn.com/2014/04/22/world/...ane/index.html

      Comment


      • Heh... it's like a murder case without a body... and without a weapon, motive, witnesses, suspect(s), or any evidence whatsoever.

        But the lawsuits will come anyway...
        Be alert! America needs more lerts.

        Eric Law

        Comment


        • Originally posted by elaw View Post
          Heh... it's like a murder case without a body... and without a weapon, motive, witnesses, suspect(s), or any evidence whatsoever.
          Not, unless you want to pursue a criminal case, like a murder case.

          But the lawsuits will come anyway...
          Yes, but it's a civil liability lawsuit. There is very little doubt that the airline had a duty to take the passengers safely from A to B, and that they failed at that. These persons are missing for good. Whether its a case of "missing in kidnapping" or murder, or if it was the result of a rogue country wanting a 777 for their arsenal or a pilot's murdercide, or a technical fault, and whether the passengers were kidnapped and kept captive in secret and forever, or they died in an accident, or died of hypoxia, is not very relevant to hold Malaysian liable (although the amount of the compensation can vary since it's not the same to sleep for ever without noticing it than suffering physical and psychological pain during hours knowing that they were going to die).

          --- 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


          • Was there ever a settlement regarding Egypt Air 991 families and Boeing? That was a 767 and the Egyptian "investigators" found cause in a potentially faulty flight control. Not that it was but it was tossed on the table.

            In this case there is no tell tale aircraft and boxes to point a finger so any lawsuit would be limited?
            Live, from a grassy knoll somewhere near you.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
              Not, unless you want to pursue a criminal case, like a murder case.


              Yes, but it's a civil liability lawsuit. There is very little doubt that the airline had a duty to take the passengers safely from A to B, and that they failed at that. These persons are missing for good. Whether its a case of "missing in kidnapping" or murder, or if it was the result of a rogue country wanting a 777 for their arsenal or a pilot's murdercide, or a technical fault, and whether the passengers were kidnapped and kept captive in secret and forever, or they died in an accident, or died of hypoxia, is not very relevant to hold Malaysian liable (although the amount of the compensation can vary since it's not the same to sleep for ever without noticing it than suffering physical and psychological pain during hours knowing that they were going to die).
              fixed

              Comment


              • Originally posted by TeeVee View Post
                fixed
                Yes, I have a fixation with Asiana!!! Thanks

                By the way, when I saw a lawyer replying to my post, I expected some corrections of my mistakes, just not this kind.

                --- 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


                • Be interesting to see what grounds the lawsuits bring. There's no question that Malaysia Airlines made some mistakes. And certainly juries and/or judges will find the claims credible. Could be it will be like AF447 in that the potential defendants will try to make pretrial settlements just to fend off anything really big.

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by B757300 View Post
                    The underwater drone scanning the ocean floor started its 10th mission, but there have been "no contacts of interest" in the first nine, Australia's Joint Agency Coordination Centre said.
                    It will probably pick up some bottom-feeding lawyers down there sometime soon.

                    Comment


                    • Talking of lawyers I love this one.....

                      An attorney, cross-examining the local coroner, queried, "Before you signed the death certificate had you taken the man's pulse?"

                      "No," the coroner replied.

                      "Well, then, did you listen for a heart beat?"

                      The coroner answered, "No."

                      "Did you check for respiration? Breathing?", asked the attorney.

                      Again the coroner replied, "No."

                      "Ah," the attorney said, "So when you signed the death certificate you had not taken any steps to make sure the man was dead, had you?"

                      The coroner rolled his eyes, and shot back "Counselor, at the time I signed the death certificate the man's brain was sitting in a jar on my desk. But I can see your point. For all I know he could be out there practicing law somewhere."
                      Sorry TeeVee, it had to be done. !
                      If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by brianw999 View Post
                        Talking of lawyers I love this one.....



                        Sorry TeeVee, it had to be done. !
                        no apology necessary. it's one of my favorites.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by B757300 View Post
                          (snip)
                          What it means is that families can now file suit in American courts against U.S. aircraft manufacturer Boeing Co.
                          (snip)
                          I think you folks may be missing my point. The main thrust of the article B757300 posted is that *Boeing* can now be sued.

                          IMHO if you stretch far enough you might be able to come up with a shred of a reason for suing the airline - improper monitoring/supervision or something like that. But based on the (total lack of) evidence at hand, what possible justification is there for suing the aircraft manufacturer?
                          Be alert! America needs more lerts.

                          Eric Law

                          Comment


                          • Prosecuting Council.... "So, tell me Mr Boeing, How many Boeing 777 flights have operated perfectly safely without disappearing totally and untraceably ?"

                            The defendant Mr Boeing..."5 million approximately"

                            Prosecuting Council.... "And how many Boeing 777 flights have disappeared without trace ?"

                            The defendant Mr Boeing..."One"

                            Defence council...."Defence rests your honour"
                            If it 'ain't broken........ Don't try to mend it !

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by elaw View Post
                              I think you folks may be missing my point. The main thrust of the article B757300 posted is that *Boeing* can now be sued.

                              IMHO if you stretch far enough you might be able to come up with a shred of a reason for suing the airline - improper monitoring/supervision or something like that. But based on the (total lack of) evidence at hand, what possible justification is there for suing the aircraft manufacturer?
                              That's why...
                              "If we don't have the 'black box' with all the critical information on it, or we don't have any part of the wreckage, it would be very hard to maintain a claim against Boeing in any court in the United States," said aviation attorney Daniel Rose, a partner at the firm Kreindler & Kreindler.
                              That now, after 45 days, you are legally permitted to sue Boeing, doesn't mean that any case will make it to the court room.

                              --- 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


                              • Not surprising given the lack of results and we've come full circle, theory back to plane landed somewhere!

                                http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/...w/34080286.cms

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X