The Aviation Herald under legal threat

[sn26567]

The Aviation Herald, a website which has revealed so many stories about aviation safety, has received a threat from an airline that considers some comments posted by readers as defamatory.

As a precautionary measure, The Aviation Herald has removed these comments in expectation of a legal advice.

Never before in 4 years of operation did The Aviation Herald receive a legal threat before. Although the name of the airline has not been divulged, some comments seem to clearly infer the name of the airline at the origin of the threat.

Luchtzak.be stands behind 'avherald' publisher Simon Hradecky in this issue.

More information here: http://www.avherald.com/h?article=45a1cb11

[AvroRider]

Wich airline did this legal action ? Etihad ? Like they did with PPRuNe ?

[andorra-airport]

Shame on you , "world's favourite airline" (ahum), see you in court! Good luck, and keep up the good work Simon!

http://www.austrianwings.info/2012/12/r ... hritte-an/

[Squelsh]

My god, now they start playing the game like this... Censorship...

Time for one of the kiddies 'round here to contact theis same law firm and point to some forum posts here... Freedom to speak one's mind is essential to the vitality of a community..

[tolipanebas]

Instead of threaten to sue, they'd better uplift sufficient fuel and always respect minimum safety altitudes...

[jan_olieslagers]

What was the content (or at least the purport) of the offending messages? AIUI the Herald is not under attack for its own output, but rather for posting some reader's comments? That should be covered by their small print.

[airazurxtror]

Defamation by libel or slander are forbidden - also on websites.
That's what moderators are for : to remove such message.
The author of that message may be prosecuted, as well as the webmaster.
A bon entendeur ...

[sean1982]

Whether you're the webmaster of a site with a moderated blog, forum or discussion lists, or you're involved in keeping the unmoderated equivalent on track, your responsibilities can require time and care to fulfill. Since moderated venues quarantine users and posts until they're approved for publication, you may be called on to review people and prose or to implement approvals and rejections from those who do the scrutiny. While unmoderated venues don't involve the one-at-a-time review requirements of their moderated equivalents, the consequences can spawn confrontations that must be resolved, posts that violate your site's rules and must be removed, even the influx of spammers trying to use your site to boost their page views illicitly.


Read more: Responsibilities of the Webmaster | eHow.com http://www.ehow.com/info_8777263_respon ... z2EIjVCWr7

[cathay belgium]

Hi,

FR must be prosecuted for don't respecting our highest value in our demoCRAZY !
FREEDOM and FREEDOM OF SPEECH !

Be aware that you can do this in OUR world ! Be happy with this !

Regret this FR behaviour ! Or are they just searching bad media support their PR again ?? like every second !

Since I have flown Wizzair last month for the first time I know LCC can be cheap without the bulls*** also..
Hoping that Norwegian will also land @CRL/EIN in 2013 pffff..

CX-B

[sean1982]

Cathay, I hear you an you are absolutely right.

But imagine I would go on the national news tomorrow and point you out as a pedophile or a murderer. Would that still be freedom of speech? Speaking your mind? absolutely! Spreading unfactual or unfounded or untrue information, that's illegal

[tolipanebas]

Freedom of speech indeed does not allow you to say everything you want.

BUT, let's not be distracted here: this is predominantly an issue of contradicting statements from within the airline which started off a chain reaction which included some unfriendly comments and appreciations on their subsequent handling of the incident and the way they tried to downplay its severeness: http://avherald.com/h?article=459fa8f6&opt=0

Sometimes to re-write history, you need to first erase part of it.

[cathay belgium]

Hi sean,

I follow your mind and I say yes , ... you,national news,pedophile YES
I follow your mind and I say yes , ... you,natioanal news,murder Maybe,let the court decide..
I follow your mind and I say hmmm , ... a guy/person,a website read by only aviation people,some untrue facts?? and a big company which is seeking attention and PR in any kind of bad taste anywhere,anytime..
euh... MAYBE ...
When I see it in it's perspective,.. euh.. NO , or maybe NOT YET
Guess in this case ..the facts..freedom of speech overrules ...

But we have a nice court,so let's see whats and who's really important these days ...

Hoping the court take everything happend in the past under attention for both

CX-B

[sean1982]

When you look at the text below, it seems like he initiated the go around before receiving the 'Caution terrain' and 'pull up' calls: disconnect A/P at 37s, 3 seconds later ('Caution terrain') the rate of descent is only 500ft/min, 2 seconds later ('Terrain pull up') already climbing 600ft/min.


"SINK RATE" at 16:39:20
Autopilot deactivated at 16:39:37
"CAUTION TERRAIN" at 16:39:40 at 480ft AGL and sink rate 500ft/min, banking left 35 degrees
lowest altitude at 16:39:41 with 450ft AGL
"TERRAIN TERRAIN PULL UP" at 16:39:42 at 460ft/AGL, climb rate 600ft/min, banking left 7 degrees.

This really what it's all about, was the go-around started before or after the gpws warning. Evidence seems to point to before the warning, which makes it then a go around following an unstable approach, which happens commonly with airlines throughout the world and in my opinion there is no reason for the current witch hunt

[jan_olieslagers]

Given the amount of expertise available here, I really think we ought to publicly support Simon and his website. Seeing that, the mean little vermin with his plastic airline would soon realise he doesn't really stand a chance at the bar. We really are the experts, and the world had better accept the fact.


















</mode=farcical>

[tolipanebas]

This really what it's all about, was the go-around started before or after the gpws warning. Evidence seems to point to before the warning, which makes it then a go around following an unstable approach, which happens commonly with airlines throughout the world and in my opinion there is no reason for the current witch hunt

That approach was unstable way before the decision to discontinue it was taken, or how would you call a plane that descends at more 3,300fpm, while being less than 1,000ft high above terrain and isn't even aligned with the RWY yet?

BTW, according to the BFU report, the go-around was initiated only AFTER a SINK RATE call was triggered, which unambiguously signals an unstable approach and is thus reason for a mandatory go-around on its own, even without possible subsequent terrain cautions which may or may not have been anticipated by the crew...

"SINK RATE" at 16:39:20
Autopilot deactivated at 16:39:37
"CAUTION TERRAIN" at 16:39:40 at 480ft AGL and sink rate 500ft/min, banking left 35 degrees
lowest altitude at 16:39:41 with 450ft AGL
"TERRAIN TERRAIN PULL UP" at 16:39:42 at 460ft/AGL, climb rate 600ft/min, banking left 7 degrees.

[cnc]

freedom of speech... there is no such thing in the aviation world.
employees getting fired because of a picture or a post on a forum or social network is more common then a mclaren in a F1 race.

[tolipanebas]

freedom of speech... there is no such thing in the aviation world.

One can definitely conclude that despite all the official blabla from MOL, there clearly can be something as bad publicity after all, even to FR.

[sn26567]

My god, now they start playing the game like this... Censorship...

Time for one of the kiddies 'round here to contact their same law firm and point to some forum posts here... Freedom to speak one's mind is essential to the vitality of a community..

Mind you! This has happened to us as well (from another airline). But we kept the issue quiet in order not to stir up feelings. But believe me, I was in a very uncomfortable situation.

[sn26567]

Simon Hradecky made a new update (#3) in which he publishes the full text of the e-mails received from Ryanair (he does not hide the name of the airline any longer):

http://avherald.com/h?article=45a1cb11&opt=0

This will enable all readers to make up their own opinion.

[Squelsh]

Thank you for pointing that out and providing a link to the source.

Now we have some of the elements, and before we can start saying things like "The author of that message may be prosecuted, as well as the webmaster"(sic), or even try to find elements that point to authors portaying their posts as truth and making false criminal claims to a company/legal person, allow me to copy/paste them here. Is this still allowed, or is the tactic working and will they be censored? I hope not, because all I read in the quoted lines, are people expressing their opinions, making jokes, or ridiculising something. WAAAAy far from claiming somebody is a pedophile/commited criminal acts, or the holocaust never happened.


1. "What would they do at Ryanair without their Ground Proximity Warning System? Go to funerals every month I guess."


2. "...the daily near disasters and safety infractions at RyanAir!"


3. "Perhaps a testament to Boeing engineering that those [Ryanair] airplanes are not crashing everywhere like fire flies in September!"


4. "...abuse and violations of safety there [Ryanair]/"


5. "They [Ryanair] are a disaster waiting to happen..." implying that there must be some form of intervention "...before he [O'Leary] causes a major loss of lives with his silly ideas and tactics."

Speaking your mind? absolutely! Spreading unfactual or unfounded or untrue information, that's illegal

........................

employees getting fired because of a picture or a post on a forum or social network is more common then a mclaren in a F1 race.

That's between them and their employer, whom they have a contract with, usually with appendix stipulating how the employee should behave on social network sites.
This is totally different, well obviously.......

Mind you! This has happened to us as well (from another airline). But we kept the issue quiet in order not to stir up feelings. But believe me, I was in a very uncomfortable situation.

Shame that you did not throw this into the group, because the whole community can be affected by that sort of threat, the more if they become ground for future posts to be edited/deleted...

For one reason only; because it is unpopular speech.... Prosecuted? Hah, read those 5 comments again and think very very deeply what may happen to you if you speak your mind on internet about any company, whether it be telecom operator, public transport, a bank, whatever... And no I'm not talking about accusing their employees of being pedophile on the national news. Give me a break...