Malaysia Airlines 777 Shot Down over Ukraine

[Prof.]

Apparently the top 100 HIV/AIDS researchers were on MH17...

link

EDIT: amfAR confirms.

 

[DonJudgeMe]

Commercial planes have been flying above the worst parts of Afghanistan and Iraq for the past decade, and have flown over Ukraine without incident these past few months. 30,000 feet is out of range for all but the most advanced missile systems. Your every day terrorist with a rocket launcher on his shoulder can't reach commercial aircraft.

You quoted me and avoided my question, but I'll play along. So, because airlines got away with avoiding safe airspace in the past it remains acceptable to continue doing so to save a couple bucks in gas?

That is the equivalence of giving tours, at the zoo, through "mostly" harmless snake pits. Its highly unlikely to get bitten by one of the poisoness snakes because there are just a few.

 

[bradl]

Correct me if I'm wrong... But Kansas isn't in the middle of a war zone filled with Russian-armed paramilitary forces?

Where Kansas is at is irrelevant. How would the FAA or any other aviation authority know, based on the radar that they currently have, know if someone is shooting a SAM at an aircraft? Unless the SAM is equipped with transponder-type equipment, they couldn't, just as much as they would know when someone is pointing a laser at an aircraft. They'd have to wait until someone reports it.

I know the airspace was technically "open", which is why I think the airline should be at blame. At what point do you figure that it is safe to fly over a warzone?

That is civil aviation airspace there. If going by the FAA, unless restricted, SFC-FL600 is fair game. In this case, there was a TFR/no-fly zone in place, SFC-FL320 (32,000ft).

http://online.wsj.com/articles/height-of-ukraine-no-fly-zone-faces-scrutiny-1405639624
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...-over-a-conflict-zone-in-ukraine-9613412.html

MAS317 was at FL330; above the TFR.

As for warzones, you do realize that during both conflicts, Baghdad, Kandahar, and Kabul airports were open the entire time, right?

Further:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/18/6565081/why-airlines-didnt-avoid-risky.html

In April, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration cautioned airlines that Russia's claim to the airspace over Ukraine's Crimea could lead to conflicting air traffic control instructions. A few weeks later, the FAA issued a tougher warning, telling pilots not to fly over the area, and the U.N.'s International Civil Aviation Organization told governments to warn their airlines. Thursday's crash, however, occurred outside the warning areas.

Thomas Routh, an aviation attorney in Chicago, said it would be unusual for an airline to ignore such warnings, but he said it's up to airlines to decide whether a flight will be safe for crew and passengers.

"There are airlines flying through Afghanistan airspace every day," Routh said.

John Cox, a former airline pilot and accident investigator, said despite the cautions, the airspace was not closed. The Malaysia Airlines crew filed a flight plan and "Russia and the Ukraine both accepted the airplane into their airspace," he said.

Rerouting planes around war zones costs airlines money, as the planes burn more expensive jet fuel. Aviation expert Norman Shanks said many airlines continued to fly over Ukraine despite warnings because it offered a shorter route that saved money on fuel.

Greg Raiff, an aviation consultant in New Hampshire, said that if airlines must avoid flying over all the world's hot spots, flight times would be extended, requiring extra fuel and pilots. That might make some routes uneconomical, forcing airlines to abandon them.

There you go.

BL.

 

[DonJudgeMe]

Further:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/18/6565081/why-airlines-didnt-avoid-risky.html


There you go.

BL.[/QUOTE]

Thank you for proving my point. All to save money=unnecessary risk.

 

[Plutonius]

Further:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/18/6565081/why-airlines-didnt-avoid-risky.html


There you go.

BL.

Thank you for proving my point. All to save money=unnecessary risk.[/QUOTE]

Blame it on Putin for arming the rebels with the missiles.

 

[bradl]

Further:

http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/18/6565081/why-airlines-didnt-avoid-risky.html


There you go.

BL.

Thank you for proving my point. All to save money=unnecessary risk.

Spoken by someone who doesn't seem to know or understand how restricted airspace works.

BL.

 

[DonJudgeMe]

Spoken by someone who doesn't seem to know or understand how restricted airspace works.

BL.

It's not a difficult concept to grasp. There are dumbasses with big guns, supplied by Russia. Don't flyover them. You can supply all of the most broken down references in the world, explaining in detail, how restricted airspaces work. In the article YOU provided, it says they were warned: Dumbasses with big guns. Dont do it! The warning was ignored and now there are hundreds of innocents dead. Who's really to blame?

 

[bradl]

It's not a difficult concept to grasp. There are dumbasses with big guns, supplied by Russia. Don't flyover them. You can supply all of the most broken down references in the world, explaining in detail, how restricted airspaces work. In the article YOU provided, it says they were warned: Dumbasses with big guns. Dont do it! The warning was ignored and now there are hundreds of innocents dead. Who's really to blame?

Not ATC nor the airlines who had their airspace protected by the TFR. Or have you noticed the lack of flights under FL320 in the area?

The article I posted also stated:

John Cox, a former airline pilot and accident investigator, said despite the cautions, the airspace was not closed. The Malaysia Airlines crew filed a flight plan and "Russia and the Ukraine both accepted the airplane into their airspace," he said.

Read more here: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/18/6565081/why-airlines-didnt-avoid-risky.html#storylink=cpy

Both Russia and the Ukraine would have rejected the flight plan well before the clearance was given to MAS17 on the ground if there was going to be a problem.

Again, you don't seem to understand how restricted airspace and clearances work.

BL.

 

[tech4all]

For me this catastrophe has a name and a face: a former colleague with his wife and son were on board on their way home

Can't describe my feelings.


Rest in peace Paul

I know I'm just a random person here, but just wanted to say very sorry for your loss. It's one thing to hear about those who loss their lives, but to actually know someone who was on the plane is a completely different thing.

Hang in there.

 

[63dot]

I know it is a radar system. I was saying they should have tried to get a visual before firing. Even they thought it was a transport plane so it wasn't like they thought they were about to be bombed. And given the slow speed of a transport, they could have gotten visual and confirmed it was an AN-26 then fire.

They didn't need to blindly go off radar.....

It was a tragic mistake.

This medium sized missile system is pretty much the one you use long before a plane becomes visible. They said you have the smaller anti-aircraft weapons for the visual stuff if an enemy plane gets close. It's said that a highly trained radar operator will know the difference but with the rebels, it's been suggested that they are not all as highly trained and thus the blunder. I don't get that there was any intent to wait for a visual with this type of weapon due to it's medium range capability.

There are possibly some longer ranger anti-aircraft missiles that some believe Russia could have provided to the rebels which are newer and post-Soviet era gear, more akin to the Patriot missile system which can go further and higher with more accuracy and this would show a real negligence for the Russians to trust the rebels with those. With such a long range of anti-aircraft capability, if the Russians supplied the rebels with such sophisticated gear, didn't they consider the possibility of this happening or even a Russian military jet getting shot down? Either way, I think this puts Putin in the hot seat for now. No matter what rebel shot off the missile, assuming it was a rebel, Russia itself seems to be the major party to blame.

Another possibility is that highly trained Russian troops are in the Ukraine area including such an anti-aircraft battery and this brings up the issue why they are there and how this plays into US sanctions against Russia. Whether it's a rebel group or Russian troops, this all falls on Putin and Russia and the international community will treat it as such.

 

[DonJudgeMe]

Not ATC nor the airlines who had their airspace protected by the TFR. Or have you noticed the lack of flights under FL320 in the area?

The article I posted also stated:



Both Russia and the Ukraine would have rejected the flight plan well before the clearance was given to MAS17 on the ground if there was going to be a problem.

Again, you don't seem to understand how restricted airspace and clearances work.

BL.

Again. I'm not arguing the fact that everyone said its ok. You don't seem to understand that concept. There was and is a way to avoid the situation. You OBVIOUSLY don't understand that Ukraine doesn't take up the earth. Fly around and crisis is averted. Period.

 

[bradl]

Again. I'm not arguing the fact that everyone said its ok. You don't seem to understand that concept. There was and is a way to avoid the situation. You OBVIOUSLY don't understand that Ukraine doesn't take up the earth. Fly around and crisis is averted. Period.

At the cost of using extra fuel to where you may not reach your destination. Got it.



I'll try to explain it again. Up until now, this 'war zone' has been horizontal in nature, which is why the TFR was put up to restrict it from going vertical. It has worked, as there have not been a high number of flights going through the area, and especially at altitudes that would bust through the TFR. As this flight was above the TFR, nothing was to go through it VERTICALLY to hinder any civilian flights. Someone took it upon themselves to bust that. It wasn't ATC, nor was it the airline. You can't place blame on either of them as they were doing their jobs: pilots as PIC and ensuring the safety of their airplane, and ATC, protecting the usable airspace they had above the TFR to ensure proper separation of aircraft is maintained.

If you flew around every little bit of 'warzone' on the planet, that would leave very little planet to go through. They'd have to avoid Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Try avoiding all of that and getting to WMKK without stopping for fuel.

BL.

 

[yg17]

Again. I'm not arguing the fact that everyone said its ok. You don't seem to understand that concept. There was and is a way to avoid the situation. You OBVIOUSLY don't understand that Ukraine doesn't take up the earth. Fly around and crisis is averted. Period.

Oh come on, this is the aviation accident equivalent of blaming rape victims - "well, maybe if she wasn't at the party and drinking she wouldn't have been raped".

Yes, it wouldn't have been shot down if it avoided Ukraine. Duh. But all of the necessary flight plans were filed, clearances were obtained and it was deemed safe for commercial traffic. No one could have anticipated that a passenger jet would be shot down. Malaysia Airlines did everything right and shouldn't be taking the blame here.

 

[Plutonius]

If you flew around every little bit of 'warzone' on the planet, that would leave very little planet to go through. They'd have to avoid Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Try avoiding all of that and getting to WMKK without stopping for fuel.
BL.

They might as well ban flying internationally if they want to avoid all conflict / terrorism areas.

 

[DonJudgeMe]

At the cost of using extra fuel to where you may not reach your destination. Got it.



I'll try to explain it again. Up until now, this 'war zone' has been horizontal in nature, which is why the TFR was put up to restrict it from going vertical. It has worked, as there have not been a high number of flights going through the area, and especially at altitudes that would bust through the TFR. As this flight was above the TFR, nothing was to go through it VERTICALLY to hinder any civilian flights. Someone took it upon themselves to bust that. It wasn't ATC, nor was it the airline. You can't place blame on either of them as they were doing their jobs: pilots as PIC and ensuring the safety of their airplane, and ATC, protecting the usable airspace they had above the TFR to ensure proper separation of aircraft is maintained.

If you flew around every little bit of 'warzone' on the planet, that would leave very little planet to go through. They'd have to avoid Lebanon, Israel, Syria, Turkey, Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, and Pakistan. Try avoiding all of that and getting to WMKK without stopping for fuel.

BL.

I understand what you are saying. I agree with most of it. But Ukraine obviously knew that the Russian insurgents had access to some pretty awesome toys, or at least a pretty good idea, hence the warnings. Whoever is in control over deciding if the airspace is safe dropped the ball. If you are hearing this, as an airline, and you ignore the warnings because someone else tells you "its ok", you just ignore the warnings? I can tell you right now, if an airline in the US had been warned that an airplane "could" be shot down if you fly over Kansas, every airport in the country would be shut down, no hesitation. Would you not agree?

 

[DonJudgeMe]

Oh come on, this is the aviation accident equivalent of blaming rape victims - "well, maybe if she wasn't at the party and drinking she wouldn't have been raped".

Yes, it wouldn't have been shot down if it avoided Ukraine. Duh. But all of the necessary flight plans were filed, clearances were obtained and it was deemed safe for commercial traffic. No one could have anticipated that a passenger jet would be shot down. Malaysia Airlines did everything right and shouldn't be taking the blame here.

Did the airline die? Your metaphor makes no sense. Im not blaming the pilot, and certainly not the passengers. Yes the Russians are responsible, so is Putin. There was a warning , specifically toward airlines flying over Ukraine, so you cant sit there and tell me that fingers are to all be pointed at Russia. This wasnt a "people may be hurt" warning. When planes get blown out of the sky, lives are lost. These guys, quite literally, played Russian Roulette and people died because of this. So yeah, I expect your asses to spend more time on a plane and delay flights, or cancel them. Money being spent on fuel is a hell of a lot easier than replacing a plane. Further, it's impossible to replace the lives lost.

 

[gkarris]

Last night watching the US news, they were talking about how the crash would affect world markets and stocks, and how to buy/sell stocks to try to recover your losses. Hint: Don't buy Boeing...

The good old USA...

 

[PracticalMac]

For me this catastrophe has a name and a face: a former colleague with his wife and son were on board on their way home

Can't describe my feelings.


Rest in peace Paul

My sincere condolences, CJ.

One of the early commentators right after this tragedy was an NBC news military analyst, former anti-aircraft officer familiar with weapon and said the missile takes down aircraft up to 65,000 feet and is not fired by sight, but blip on radar. It is used during wars such as what is going on now. It's not a question of what angle operator looked at the plane from since this weapon is not about line of sight, but radar. It works off a series of trucks and operators.

This brings the more important question, with full knowledge of weapons like these used by both sides, of the rationale to fly in a war zone. It does not excuse the tragedy, but realize this is not a line of sight shoulder fired anti-aircraft weapon most people are thinking about but a large and expensive Soviet era anti aircraft weapon.

http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/world/europe/malaysia-airlines-crash-missile/

The Wiki for the Buk system quotes a Jane's repot that the launcher is capable of aiming and firing the missile alone (no need for a radar truck), HOWEVER I'd not able to ID what it was shooting at.

It is plausible the crew had some report of the aircraft and simply fired at it, with put trying to ID it.

There is now a video of a BUK launcher heading to Russia, but is missing 2 of its 4 missiles.

----------

Again. I'm not arguing the fact that everyone said its ok. You don't seem to understand that concept. There was and is a way to avoid the situation. You OBVIOUSLY don't understand that Ukraine doesn't take up the earth. Fly around and crisis is averted. Period.

Apparently there where 2 other commercial flights about 25km from MH17 (wiki)
And ABC news said another 72 (IIRC) flights passed over the area (can't recall time period).

Hindsight is 20/20.


The Russians gave the separatist something just short of a nuclear bomb. I hope the world lands on top of Pukin (sic) and the rest like a sack of manure.

 

[DonJudgeMe]

[/COLOR]

Apparently there where 2 other commercial flights about 25km from MH17 (wiki)
And ABC news said another 72 (IIRC) flights passed over the area (can't recall time period).

Hindsight is 20/20.


The Russians gave the separatist something just short of a nuclear bomb. I hope the world lands on top of Pukin (sic) and the rest like a sack of manure.[/QUOTE]

So, the fact that British Airways, among others, avoided that airspace does not give you a hint that the airlines knew about the warning. Media in this country has everyone fooled. "Blame Russia", coming out of the presidents mouth should provide a clue. They are picking sides. Take a closer look. Hook, Line, and Bait.

 

[bradl]

[/COLOR]

Apparently there where 2 other commercial flights about 25km from MH17 (wiki)
And ABC news said another 72 (IIRC) flights passed over the area (can't recall time period).

Hindsight is 20/20.


The Russians gave the separatist something just short of a nuclear bomb. I hope the world lands on top of Pukin (sic) and the rest like a sack of manure.

So, the fact that British Airways, among others, avoided that airspace does not give you a hint that the airlines knew about the warning. Media in this country has everyone fooled. "Blame Russia", coming out of the presidents mouth should provide a clue. They are picking sides. Take a closer look. Hook, Line, and Bait.[/QUOTE]

There is one airline out of SNA that uses a departure procedure that is company specific, that no other airline uses. Should that give other airlines a hint that what they are doing is wrong?

The answer to that, and your question, is NO. No airline is going to care about what another airline is doing. They will only care when the governing aviation authority issues a NOTAM about the airspace. That's what they did with the TFR, and the boundaries of the TFR.

BL.

 

[DonJudgeMe]

There is one airline out of SNA that uses a departure procedure that is company specific, that no other airline uses. Should that give other airlines a hint that what they are doing is wrong?

The answer to that, and your question, is NO. No airline is going to care about what another airline is doing. They will only care when the governing aviation authority issues a NOTAM about the airspace. That's what they did with the TFR, and the boundaries of the TFR.

BL.

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/airlines-avoid-ukraine-airspace-mh17

"It's blatantly obvious they shouldn't have been anywhere near it," Dell said. "Any sort of unrest breaks out, civil wars or such, you change your flight path so that you don't have to go anywhere near it. Of course it comes at a cost, because you have to fly further."

This guy seems to disagree with you, among others....

 

[DonJudgeMe]

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flightradar24

http://mobile.bloomberg.com/news/20...ok-flight-route-avoided-by-qantas-asiana.html

200 to 300 of the daily flights using the route had diverted elsewhere in recent months, leaving about 100 still operating, involving about 60 different carriers over a week, FlightRadar24 said

It seems as though it wasn't just ONE airline. 66.6% had abandoned the flight path. Ironically,most of the local airlines are the ones who still used the flight-path. Looks like youve dug yourself in a hole pal. Dont worry, politicians will cover this up, as many want to protect their respective economies.

Because these airlines genuinely care about the safety of passengers, first and foremost. It has nothing to do with the advertisement of shorter flights to better suit their abnormally large wallets, right?

 

[m4v3r1ck]

My condoleances for all victims of flight MH17! The Netherlands in great shock! What a waste of life!

 

[Happybunny]

After all the talk about missles, and flight routes, it’s the human cost that’s hard to take.

The air disaster over Ukraine just got a little nearer, two members of the biggest local football team were killed. Remco Trugg and Leon Wels played in the amateur B class that last season won the championship. Just last week Wednesday we watched the World Cup match in the team's canteen.

193 people from the Netherlands were killed on Thursday. The flags are flying halfstok, it’s like everybody knows somebody who died.

http://www.brabantsdagblad.nl/regio/...rash-1.4455301

 

[63dot]

After all the talk about missles, and flight routes, it’s the human cost that’s hard to take.

The air disaster over Ukraine just got a little nearer, two members of the biggest local football team were killed. Remco Trugg and Leon Wels played in the amateur B class that last season won the championship. Just last week Wednesday we watched the World Cup match in the team's canteen.

193 people from the Netherlands were killed on Thursday. The flags are flying halfstok, it’s like everybody knows somebody who died.

http://www.brabantsdagblad.nl/regio/...rash-1.4455301

I am so sorry. For starters, we lost one American citizen on the flight and it's all over the news. Had we lost 193 people in our nation of 300 million, it would be all the news. But 193 people from your nation of 16.8 million? It has to be the worst single day loss of life in your nation's history other than natural disaster.

I can't imagine those numbers (193) but had it been the USA in the same ratio, that would mean 3,600 lives would have been lost in a single day, more than 9/11. So 193 deaths among your small population of less than 17 million is huge. I can't even imagine the sadness and outrage in your country and this air tragedy is akin to our 9/11 attack.

It would seem like everybody in your country either knew somebody who died or knew somebody who lost a loved one. For 9/11 my cousin was in subway under World Trade Center but she and subway car survived but were shaken up. For Hurricane Katrina, I lost a fellow band mate and good friend. Many others in my small west coast town thousands of miles away from NYC or New Orleans had similar experiences with both massive events.

http://www.vox.com/2014/7/18/591519...-population-was-killed-than-the-us/in/5677250