What were the circumstances of the incident? Was LHR the primary destination (probably)? What were the minimum required reserves for that particular flight? Did the pilot-in-command verify operation's calculations for the flight? Did the PIC verify fuel loads? Were air traffic, weather/winds, and/or random vectoring issues on that flight? Did the pilot consider an earlier alternate when fuel became an issue, or was (s)he aware that fuel was becoming an issue?

I have not read Malaysian aviation regulations, but I would be surprised if they differed significantly from the US FARs, which has de facto become the gold standard for the world's governments. Thus, I would assume that the pilot would be responsible for that which American pilots are held responsible. Namely, among a myriad of other things, ascertaining the correct amount of fuel is loaded prior to departure and, once aloft, deciding what actions must be taken to safely conduct the flight.

I find the implications in the article to be particularly irresponsible, and gratuitous, e.g.:

Invoking motherhood, without regard to the supposed topic of the article, is something I find problematic. How many of those accidents were related to engines running dry? My guess: none.