To come back on the lawsuit in Germany, it is all about money. Germany was chosen because its legislation is most likely to help the victims in this case. Further, their mention that Ukraine earns a billion US$ on the routes seems way off for me. Remember that Poetin threatened to close down the siberian air routes for western airlines, and newspapers estimated at that time that this would cost Russia about 200 M Euro/yr.
On the other hand, wonder what would be needed to close down an airspace if it is lucrative foreign income for a country? Especially in a country like Ukraine that is technically bankrupt. What solid evidence did they have before MH17? If you take a look at the Antonov crash 3 days before, there is no indication that this is hit by high altitude system. people ejected safely, pilots were captured by rebels (no after action report), movies show an intact plane going down with an engine on fire. All together proves nothing, could have been an engine failure. It would have been different if it had splattered apart in the sky.
Further take into account that a high altitude SAM system in hands of a bunch of rebels is unheard of. Before july 17th, portable sam missiles were the threat to deal with concerning rebels.
I can imagine the Ukraine government wanted more evidence before closing down the airspace. They got it, but not in the way expected.
And before condemning Ukraine, we flew for years over troubles in Yugoslavia, Afghanistan, the Gulf, and other regions with rebels below. So Ukraine is no exception.
For me it is clear that the system fault is in countries deciding over the safety of their own airspace. It is the butcher that checks his own meat. There is always danger in this, and aviation history has several comparable examples. Solutions are not easy. Multinational organisations could work, but in general the troubled spots are not connected to these organisations. And where would they get their info.
Even if the rebels shot down MH17 (which is the most likely scenario), Ukraine will be helt responsible for monetary damages, because the rebels do not represent a country but are in fact Ukraine citizens. Only when regular Russian soldiers on Ukraine soil under Russian command have carried this horrible act, Russia can be helt responsible. That is no politics but law.
Certainly, many countries will re-evaluate their policies in keeping airspace open or not, or advising their airlines to avoid certain areas. No doubt MH17 will have impact here.
2nd January 2015 addition: I checked the facts around the downing of the An-26 on July 14th and I have to reconsider part of above:
The An-26 wreckage footage was available on 14th July. The tail clearly shows it has been hit by fragmentation warhead. One of the crew members was able to contact Ukraine authorities to confirm that they were hit by a missile.
http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/ukraine...ssia-1.2706039
So clearly no accident.
However: at that moment it was considered that this was either a Russian Pantsir or even an air to air missile. The Ukraine@war used to claim that it was a BUK missile from Russian territory. But missile trail is to small to fit a BUK. So it is still debated who or what shot it down.
http://ukraineatwar.********.nl/2014...-buk-that.html
http://ukraineatwar.********.nl/2014...-confirms.html