Fight-or-Flight, or Both? Article 17 "Accidents" and Flight Crew Misconduct
Bibliographic record
Abstract
This paper considers the circumstances in which actions and inactions by flight crew members and other airline employees will meet the bar for an accident under Article 17 of the Montreal Convention of 1999. The conduct examined is broken down into a number of categories: comportment misconduct; physical acts; confinement and search; failures or refusals to act (including failures to respond to medical emergencies and failures to divert); and the improper administration of medical treatment. In respect of a number of these categories, a similar trend can be discerned: the Article 17 threshold is being met with increasing ease, except where passengers in some way exacerbate or provoke the occurrence. With regard to the more complex category of failure/refusal cases, it is postulated that a three-part test is applicable to determinations of whether Montreal liability will attach. Courts, in scrutinizing all categories of misconduct cases, have generally attached a high degree of importance to industry standards and internal airline procedures.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".