Ukraine International Airlines has lost an appeal against a legal ruling that it failed to prove it was not negligent in allowing a Boeing 737-800 to depart Tehran before the aircraft was shot down.
The aircraft took off from Tehran Imam Khomeini airport about 4h after Iranian forces had launched missiles at two Iraqi bases on 8 January 2020. Eight other aircraft had also taken off, and 15 had arrived, prior to the 737’s departure.
Shortly after take-off the aircraft was attacked by two surface-to-air missiles, causing it to crash with no survivors among those on board.
If the carrier had been absolved of negligence, its damage liabilities would have been limited under the Montreal Convention to around $235,000 per passenger.
A trial judge previously ruled that Ukraine International had “failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that it was not negligent” in allowing the flight, PS752, to take off – meaning that its liability exposure was unlimited.
Ukraine International appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, during which consideration was paid to the question of whether the carrier breached the standard of care it owed to the passengers and crew.
The airline argued that the Tehran flight information region was not a conflict zone, as defined by ICAO, and that it had discretion as to whether to permit the 737’s departure irrespective of the outcome of a risk assessment.
It also maintained that the original trial judge erred by failing to give weight to the fact that other airlines were flying out of the same airport at around the same time.
While the carrier took the position that ICAO’s risk-assessment manual for conflict zones only applied to flights at altitude – rather than departures and arrivals – the appeal ruling says this “makes no sense”, and underscores that Tehran was a “textbook example” of a conflict zone.
The appeal ruling also supports the original trial conclusions that Ukraine International’s director of aviation security made questionable assumptions and failed to consult sufficient information sources when assessing the potential risk to PS752.
It states that there is “no error” in the original assessment that the performance of the risk assessment “fell below the standard of care”.
With regard to other flights taking off from Tehran at around the same time, Ukraine International provided no evidence as to whether these airlines had conducted security risk assessments – and whether their decisions to depart were supportable.
That other flights departed before PS752 does not establish that those airlines met the standard of care required while operating from conflict zone, says the appeal ruling, and “does not support” Ukraine International’s argument that it met this standard. The extent of damages will be established separately.
Ukraine International Airlines has lost an appeal against a legal ruling that it failed to prove it was not negligent in allowing a Boeing 737-800 to depart Tehran before the aircraft was shot down.
The aircraft took off from Tehran Imam Khomeini airport about 4h after Iranian forces had launched missiles at two Iraqi bases on 8 January 2020. Eight other aircraft had also taken off, and 15 had arrived, prior to the 737’s departure.
Shortly after take-off the aircraft was attacked by two surface-to-air missiles, causing it to crash with no survivors among those on board.
If the carrier had been absolved of negligence, its damage liabilities would have been limited under the Montreal Convention to around $235,000 per passenger.
A trial judge previously ruled that Ukraine International had “failed to prove, on a balance of probabilities, that it was not negligent” in allowing the flight, PS752, to take off – meaning that its liability exposure was unlimited.
Ukraine International appealed to the Court of Appeal for Ontario, during which consideration was paid to the question of whether the carrier breached the standard of care it owed to the passengers and crew.
The airline argued that the Tehran flight information region was not a conflict zone, as defined by ICAO, and that it had discretion as to whether to permit the 737’s departure irrespective of the outcome of a risk assessment.
It also maintained that the original trial judge erred by failing to give weight to the fact that other airlines were flying out of the same airport at around the same time.
While the carrier took the position that ICAO’s risk-assessment manual for conflict zones only applied to flights at altitude – rather than departures and arrivals – the appeal ruling says this “makes no sense”, and underscores that Tehran was a “textbook example” of a conflict zone.
The appeal ruling also supports the original trial conclusions that Ukraine International’s director of aviation security made questionable assumptions and failed to consult sufficient information sources when assessing the potential risk to PS752.
It states that there is “no error” in the original assessment that the performance of the risk assessment “fell below the standard of care”.
With regard to other flights taking off from Tehran at around the same time, Ukraine International provided no evidence as to whether these airlines had conducted security risk assessments – and whether their decisions to depart were supportable.
That other flights departed before PS752 does not establish that those airlines met the standard of care required while operating from conflict zone, says the appeal ruling, and “does not support” Ukraine International’s argument that it met this standard. The extent of damages will be established separately.
Source link
Share This:
admin
Plan the perfect NYC Memorial Day weekend
Pack only what you need and avoid overpacking to streamline the check-in and security screening…
LA’s worst traffic areas and how to avoid them
Consider using alternative routes, such as Sepulveda Boulevard, which runs parallel to the 405 in…
Saab discussing extra production hub to support Ukrainian Gripen E purchase
Saab is already looking at ways of significantly increasing production of its Gripen E fighter…
Denmark, Germany and NATO among sales prospects for GlobalEye surveillance aircraft, Saab chief executive says
European interest in Saab’s GlobalEye surveillance aircraft is continuing to build, as the Swedish company…
Ukraine exploring purchase of Bell AH-1Z attack and UH-1Y utility helicopters
Ukraine has signed a letter of intent with rotorcraft manufacturer Bell exploring the purchase of…
Italy plans to restore lapsed maritime patrol capability with six-aircraft buy
Italy has outlined plans to acquire six new maritime patrol aircraft capable of performing anti-submarine…
Stockholm Arlanda takes advantage of ‘EoR’ concept to increase parallel approach efficiency
Stockholm Arlanda is claiming to be the first European airport to introduce a concept intended…
Norway presses ahead with defence helicopter acquisitions, as talks continue with UK on ASW assets
Norway continues to analyse the options for a future anti-submarine warfare (ASW) helicopter to equip…
Airbus Helicopters open to H225 Super Puma’s return for oil and gas operations
Airbus Helicopters is seeing renewed interest in its H225 Super Puma for offshore operations, almost…
Baykar’s Kizilelma UCAV soars through Aselsan AESA radar integration and weapons testing
Baykar Technologies’ Kizilelma unmanned combat air vehicle has been flown for the first time with…
First two Saab Gripen E fighters arrive for Swedish air force service at Satenas base
The Swedish air force has fielded its first Saab Gripen E fighters, with the new…
EASA foresees sufficient production capacity to meet EU’s 2030 sustainable fuel target
Sustainable aviation fuel in the European Union only accounted for 0.6% of the total uplift…