Месть В. Калоева это нормально? Ваше мнение??

Mandatory Occurrence Reporting - SKYbrary Aviation Safety

If you wish to contribute or participate in the discussions about articles you are invited to join SKYbrary as a registered user To facilitate collection and exchange of information on actual or potential safety hazards and deficiencies and contribute to the prevention of aircraft accidents. The provisions in Chapter 8 of ICAO Annex 13 require the States to establish mandatory occurrence (incident) reporting (MOR) systems to facilitate the collection of information on actual or potential safety deficiencies. //  Дальше — www.skybrary.aero

 

Protection of Reporting Personnel

The objective of mandatory occurrence reporting is to prevent safety occurrences, such as accidents and incidents, not to attribute blame or liability if they happen. The person filing a safety report needs to have the strong assurance from the regulatory authority and the employer that prosecution or punitive actions such as suspension of licence will not be sought unless the unsafe act is deliberately committed or gross negligence is demonstrated.

 

Boeing directors reach $225m settlement with investors over 737 Max

Shareholders had accused Boeing board members and several executives as well as current CEO David Calhoun of failing to ensure control instruments on the plane were functioning effectively. //  www.dailymail.co.uk

 

Boeing investors have reached a $225million agreement with current and former company officials to settle a lawsuit over the safety negligence of the 737 MAX.
...
The 737 MAX was involved in two crashes - one operated by Lion Air in October 2018 and the other by Ethiopian Airlines in March 2019 - that killed a total of 346 people.
...
In an amended complaint unsealed in February, New York State Comptroller Thomas DiNapoli, who heads the state pension fund, and other investors argued that Boeing's board had breached its fiduciary duties and acted with gross negligence by failing 'to monitor the safety of Boeing's 737 MAX airplanes.'

 

Table 1: Categorisation of intention/ motivation of pilots of unauthorised drones

Negligence
- Clueless individuals, who do not know or understand the applicable regulations and restrictions. As a result, they fly their drones in sensitive or prohibited areas. Their attitude can be described as “clueless” and they have no intent to disrupt civil aviation.
- Careless individuals, who know the applicable regulations and restrictions, but breach them through either fault or negligence. As a result, they fly their drones in sensitive or prohibited areas. These individuals have no intent to disrupt civil aviation.

Gross negligence
- Reckless individuals, who do know the applicable regulations and restrictions, but deliberately do not follow the rules in order to pursue personal or professional gain (e.g. aggressive spotters).Their behaviour can be characterised as “reckless”, because they disrupt civil aviation by totally disregarding the consequences of their actions.
- Activists/ protesters are individuals who, regardless of whether they know the applicable regulations and restrictions, actively seek to use drones to disrupt aerodromes and flight operations. To maximise impact, these individuals might even act as a group. While their acts can have unintended consequences for aviation safety, they have no intent to endanger human lives.

Criminal/ terrorist motivation
- Criminals and terrorists are individuals who, regardless of whether they know the applicable regulations and restrictions, actively seek to use drones to interfere with the safety and security of civil aviation. Because their acts are deliberate and show no regard for human lives and property, these individuals are to be regarded as being criminally motivated or even as terrorists

 

Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929 - Warsaw Convention 1929

Lex Mercatoria Lex Mercatoria: International Commercial Law & E-Commerce Infrastructure Monitor (1993 -> 2009 :) ----> Lex Mercatoria: International Commercial Law & E-Commerce Infrastructure Monitor (1993 -> 2009 :) ----> Convention for the Unification of Certain Rules Relating to International Carriage by Air, Signed at Warsaw on 12 October 1929 - Warsaw Convention 1929 1. This Convention applies to all international carriage of persons, luggage or goods performed by aircraft for reward. It applies equally to gratuitous carriage by aircraft performed by an air transport undertaking. 2. For the purposes of this Convention the expression "international carriage" means any carriage in which, according to the contract made by the parties, the place of departure and the place of destination, whether or not there be a break in the carriage or a transhipment, are situated either within the territories of two High Contracting Parties, or within the territory of a single High Contracting Party, if there is an agreed stopping place within a territory subject to the sovereignty, suzerainty, mandate or authority of another Power, even though that Power is not a party to this… //  Дальше — www.jus.uio.no

 

Article 17
The carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the death or wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by a passenger, if the accident which caused the damage so sustained took place on board the aircraft or in the course of any of the operations of embarking or disembarking.

Article 20
2. In the carriage of goods and luggage the carrier is not liable if he proves that the damage was occasioned by negligent pilotage or negligence in the handling of the aircraft or in navigation and that, in all other respects, he and his agents have taken all necessary measures to avoid the damage.

Article 25

1. The carrier shall not be entitled to avail himself of the provisions of this Convention which exclude or limit his liability, if the damage is caused by his wilful misconduct or by such default on his part as, in accordance with the law of the Court seised of the case, is considered to be equivalent to wilful misconduct.