Malaysia Airlines 777 Shot Down over Ukraine

[quagmire]

Sorry this is still like blaming the rape victim for being in an area that wasn't safe/dressed provocatively.

100% of the blame does sit with who ever shot down the plane like it was 100% the fault of the rapist.

 

[DonJudgeMe]

That doesn't mean it wasn't declared a safe path.


In hindsight, it's like splitting hairs, because the plane was clearly shot down flying through this zone. However, in terms of protocol and listening to the authorities, I don't think Malaysian Airlines did anything wrong.

I never argued that they did anything illegally. All I'm trying to say is that the airlines were aware of the issues in Ukraine, there were warnings, and other airlines abandoned that particular route. Yes there were several others that did this, and it could have been 100 other planes. And I know that they should share responsibility, as should whoever declared it safe, along with the separatists, and even Russia.

This is not a "black and white" incident. Multiple parties are at fault, and subsequently, share some responsibility. Obviously, Putin giving untrained deputy dufusses those kind of weapons is where most blame should fall. But, that doesn't mean everyone elses hands are clean. Pointing fingers is something irresponsible cowards do.

----------

Sorry this is still like blaming the rape victim for being in an area that wasn't safe/dressed provocatively.

100% of the blame does sit with who ever shot down the plane like it was 100% the fault of the rapist.

Not even close. What is with you guys and rape? A rapist goes and commits the crime intentionally and knowing the victim is innocent. It is not even a comparable analogy.

Edit: Maybe if the victim knowingly jumped into bed with two people already engaged in a sexual act.

 

[Abstract]

Sorry this is still like blaming the rape victim for being in an area that wasn't safe/dressed provocatively.

100% of the blame does sit with who ever shot down the plane like it was 100% the fault of the rapist.

Exactly, except the area WASN'T deemed unsafe enough to avoid.


It's a logical fallacy to say that because some other airlines weren't flying over this area, which wasn't declared unsafe by aviation authorities, MA was putting their passenger's lives at risk.


Change the topic to something like......oh......asbestos and buildings. If a building safety authority declared a building to be free of asbestos, and yet the employees who worked in that building all ended up suffering mesothelioma (or some other asbestos-related effect) due to the presence of asbestos in that building, then do you blame the employees for not second-guessing the authorities? Probably not. You would (partly) blame the authorities for getting their info wrong.

Airlines aren't experts on this kind of safety. They may have an active part in managing the electro-mechanical safety of the aircraft, or their own internal procedures and training. War zones? That's for someone else to determine --- perhaps one trained to do so.

 

[bradl]

Ok, you keep saying it was declared a safe path. If this is true then how in the hell did a plane get shot down? Why did said airlines choose other paths? Was it coincidence? NO. THESE GUYS KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON.

PAA103 was on a safe path. Look what happened.
KAL007 was on a safe path. Look what happened.

It doesn't matter if it is a safe place or not. If someone tries to shoot an airplane down, they'll try to shoot an airplane down. Whether they succeed or not is another question. Routes don't matter. NOTAMS were issued. EuroControl and the airlines followed them.

BTW: Show us which airlines chose other paths? All of their data is completely available, just as I'm showing you.

For example:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SIA323/history/20140516/0915Z/EHAM/WSSS

SIA323 to Singapore. Nearly the same route.

As per your second quote, you are REALLY reaching. Do YOU know anything about directed flight-path's?

Apparently, you do not.

In all actuality, it is ultimately up to the pilot to decide what is safe. Now I realize that he probably wouldn't disagree with his designed route for fear of his job, or just plain ignorance, but you are really trying to push across that it is only the separatists(dumbasses with big guns) fault? I swear, its like talking to a wall in here. My 3 year old comprehends the word "responsibility" better than you.

If the airspace was separated and protected, as it was since this entire thing started, which would have been back as early as January or February (during the Olympics in Sochi), the pilot, as PIC should not have had anything to worry about. His responsibility is to his aircraft; ATC is responsible for the airspace his aircraft is in, and keeping aircraft separated in that airspace.

It is obvious you do not understand PIC means:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/P.HTM

PILOT IN COMMAND- The pilot responsible for the operation and safety of an aircraft during flight time.

Some idiot thought the plane was something else, possibly carrying someone else, and tried to shoot it down. Who and why, we don't know, but the 1000ft buffer was compromised, otherwise, the NOTAM was clearly in effect and observed. You keep going on about 'why couldn't they choose a better route' without knowing about routes that would be available, prevailing winds, airways, and equipment available. You are basically saying that an airline should fly from Los Angeles to Hong Kong via Hawaii, Midway, Taiwan, then in, catching all of the headwinds, causing their flight to take much longer and more fuel because ROK and DPRK are having a spat near the 38th parallel, instead of avoiding that altogether by flying over the Aleutians.

BL.

 

[DonJudgeMe]

PAA103 was on a safe path. Look what happened.
KAL007 was on a safe path. Look what happened.

It doesn't matter if it is a safe place or not. If someone tries to shoot an airplane down, they'll try to shoot an airplane down. Whether they succeed or not is another question. Routes don't matter. NOTAMS were issued. EuroControl and the airlines followed them.

BTW: Show us which airlines chose other paths? All of their data is completely available, just as I'm showing you.

For example:
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/SIA323/history/20140516/0915Z/EHAM/WSSS

SIA323 to Singapore. Nearly the same route.



Apparently, you do not.



If the airspace was separated and protected, as it was since this entire thing started, which would have been back as early as January or February (during the Olympics in Sochi), the pilot, as PIC should not have had anything to worry about. His responsibility is to his aircraft; ATC is responsible for the airspace his aircraft is in, and keeping aircraft separated in that airspace.

It is obvious you do not understand PIC means:

http://www.faa.gov/air_traffic/publications/atpubs/PCG/P.HTM



Some idiot thought the plane was something else, possibly carrying someone else, and tried to shoot it down. Who and why, we don't know, but the 1000ft buffer was compromised, otherwise, the NOTAM was clearly in effect and observed. You keep going on about 'why couldn't they choose a better route' without knowing about routes that would be available, prevailing winds, airways, and equipment available. You are basically saying that an airline should fly from Los Angeles to Hong Kong via Hawaii, Midway, Taiwan, then in, catching all of the headwinds, causing their flight to take much longer and more fuel because ROK and DPRK are having a spat near the 38th parallel, instead of avoiding that altogether by flying over the Aleutians.

BL.

You are so right. No one knew this was not safe. It was all coincidence. If you are too lazy toread the articles I have already posted, then that's on you. The PIC is the last line of defense that those people had. I was just letting you know. You are posting extremes now. You are just caught up in "right vs wrong". We all know its wrong to shoot at airplanes smart guy, but it takes bigger men to admit they shouldn't be swimming in shark infested waters. "The shark bit me!" No **** sherlock.

 

[DonJudgeMe]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tists-shot-missile-McCain-warns-Hell-pay.html

More...

 

[quagmire]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tists-shot-missile-McCain-warns-Hell-pay.html

More...

So everything there is Russian sourced. That has as much credibility as much as Obama and other US politicians, our US media trying to rile up old US vs USSR agenda, and the Ukrainian President blindly blaming Russia.

Currently BS is surrounding the truth in trying to push agenda's. I don't buy the mistaken for Putin's plane theory. Both planes have transponders that would report who exactly they are. The Ukrainians would have such equipment to pick up the transponders signals. The separatists wouldn't. I buy the theory they mistook the 777 for an AN-26 given they are untrained to determine size by the radar return. They saw a blip on the radar and fired. And they probably seized the BUK from the Ukrainian arsenal than Russia supplying it.

 

[bradl]

You are so right. No one knew this was not safe. It was all coincidence. If you are too lazy toread the articles I have already posted, then that's on you. The PIC is the last line of defense that those people had. I was just letting you know. You are posting extremes now. You are just caught up in "right vs wrong". We all know its wrong to shoot at airplanes smart guy, but it takes bigger men to admit they shouldn't be swimming in shark infested waters. "The shark bit me!" No **** sherlock.

I have read your articles. I am still waiting on the routes these 'other airlines' had to have taken to avoid this, even though the only one you have posted so far referenced the previous MAS17 flights, which all went through the same airspace provided from the actual flight data I posted. In fact, your very link uses the same data I posted.

So we're still waiting. I'll even throw you a bone: You won't find one that I haven't already posted, as there are only 2 carriers that fly EHAM-WMKK: MAS and KLM, both of which I posted. Their routes mimic each other. The closest equivalent is SIA's route to WSSS, as CPA's (Cathay Pacific) route to VHHH takes a more northerly route.

So, these other airlines, please.

BL.

 

[firestarter]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...tists-shot-missile-McCain-warns-Hell-pay.html

More...

Hmm. Daily Fail posting.

Some truth in some of these points, some misinformation.

On the subject of "Malaysia Airlines filed flight plan requesting 35,000 feet through airspace but was told to fly at 33,000" I saw a more detailed take-down of this in another forum.

Basically:
- 2000ft wouldn't have made any difference
- There was another airliner travelling the same corridor East to West at the same time. That flight had been allocated fl350 so MH17 was allocated fl330.
- fl320 downwards was out of bounds. This apparently is a common level over troubled areas - based on max handheld SAM reach of approx 20000ft + 50% safety margin.

 

[DonJudgeMe]

I have read your articles. I am still waiting on the routes these 'other airlines' had to have taken to avoid this, even though the only one you have posted so far referenced the previous MAS17 flights, which all went through the same airspace provided from the actual flight data I posted. In fact, your very link uses the same data I posted.

So we're still waiting. I'll even throw you a bone: You won't find one that I haven't already posted, as there are only 2 carriers that fly EHAM-WMKK: MAS and KLM, both of which I posted. Their routes mimic each other. The closest equivalent is SIA's route to WSSS, as CPA's (Cathay Pacific) route to VHHH takes a more northerly route.

So, these other airlines, please.

BL.

You are right. There are only going to be a couple that mimic the exact routes. I never said that any airline had the same exact path. I simply posted that multiple airlines have avoided that entire area. So, you can keep waiting. Of course, being that you read the articles I posted, you already know this. If you would like to dispute said articles, then prove me wrong. You are arguing against yourself buddy. You are under the impression that you are arguing against what I am saying, but you relentlessly post irrelevant articles about how people deem safe territories and precise flight paths, yet I never argued those points. The only thing that I have stated, was that the airline is partially to blame. Ignorance is no excuse. If you use that in any facet of your life, doing any job, you will catch blame. THEY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. THERE WERE WARNINGS. THEY FAILED TO YIELD TO THE WARNINGS. HUNDREDS ARE NOW DEAD. Now, stop trying to pass blame. There is no excuse. The area should have been avoided.

 

[bradl]

You are right. There are only going to be a couple that mimic the exact routes. I never said that any airline had the same exact path. I simply posted that multiple airlines have avoided that entire area.

And I am calling you out, asking for sources for that. You do know the rules for debate here. If you get asked for sources, provide them; otherwise risk being reported for it. I'm asking for it, based on your assertion:

So, the fact that British Airways, among others, avoided that airspace does not give you a hint that the airlines knew about the warning.

You made the assertion; back it up with fact. I showed you exactly who flew what from EHAM to WMKK, and am waiting for you to post how these 'other airlines' have avoided the airspace.

So, you can keep waiting. Of course, being that you read the articles I posted, you already know this. If you would like to dispute said articles, then prove me wrong. You are arguing against yourself buddy. You are under the impression that you are arguing against what I am saying, but you relentlessly post irrelevant articles about how people deem safe territories and precise flight paths, yet I never argued those points. The only thing that I have stated, was that the airline is partially to blame. Ignorance is no excuse. If you use that in any facet of your life, doing any job, you will catch blame. THEY KNEW WHAT WAS GOING ON. THERE WERE WARNINGS. THEY FAILED TO YIELD TO THE WARNINGS. HUNDREDS ARE NOW DEAD. Now, stop trying to pass blame. There is no excuse. The area should have been avoided.

Again, spoken by someone who doesn't know a bloody thing about airspace, routes, NOTAMS, TFRs, or otherwise, let alone costs for operating flights along the route between Europe and SE Asia/Oceania.

But I digress; cite these warnings. NOTAMs and TFRs had the airspace restricted from SFC-FL320. FL330 - FL600 was safe to fly. Again, you make the assertion; prove it.

BL.

 

[Gutwrench]

Good grief. Reduce your caffeine and calm down a little.

DonJudgeMe feels the commercial airlines flying that route is merely a contributing factor. It's a reasonable opinion shared by some actual experts I've watched interviewed on CNN and such.

You apparently don't feel there is any contributing factor. We get it. It's a difference of opinion. Is there anything new to add or is this turning into a last word thread?

 

[bradl]

Good grief. Reduce your caffeine and calm down a little.

DonJudgeMe feels the commercial airlines flying that route is merely a contributing factor. It's a reasonable opinion shared by some actual experts I've watched interviewed on CNN and such.

You apparently don't feel there is any contributing factor. We get it. It's a difference of opinion. Is there anything new to add or is this turning into a last word thread?

Actually, there is. I'll just leave this here.

http://www.flyingmag.com/news/malaysia-airlines-flight-17-why-was-777-flying-over-war-zone

Malaysia Airlines Flight 17: Why Was the 777 Flying over a War Zone?
By Stephen Pope / Published: Jul 22, 2014

Unlike the disappearance of Malaysia Airlines Flight 370 last spring little mystery remains about what happened to Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 in the skies over eastern Ukraine last week.

We knew very quickly that the Boeing 777-200 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile, and we soon learned that the culprits of the attack likely were Russian-backed separatists who acquired the missile launcher from Moscow.

A lingering question about the tragedy centers on why the passenger airliner was flying over a war zone in the first place.

The answer, to put it bluntly, is money.

The most efficient routes from northern Europe to eastern Asia go straight over Ukraine and Russia. Avoiding the area would require diverting far from the most direct routings, adding time to the flight and requiring more fuel.

A recent notam issued by the International Civil Aviation Organization closed the airspace over eastern Ukraine below 32,000 feet. An FAA notam also closed the airspace over the Crimea region far to the south. Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was flying at 33,000 feet, above the reach of shoulder-fired missiles, after diverting to avoid thunderstorms. In other words, the airline and its pilots did nothing wrong by choosing the route and altitude they did. The fact is, Flight 17 was flying on an ICAO-approved route, as were other airline flights in the days and weeks leading up to the shootdown.

We now know, of course, that the separatists appear to have gotten their hands on a much more potent weapon system than a shoulder-fired missile. The mobile radar-guided SAM they used is capable of delivering a missile at supersonic speeds to heights well above Flight 17's cruising altitude. The 777 was a sitting duck when it was blown out of the sky, evoking global shock and condemnation when word came that the airliner carried 298 passengers and crew.

The grim task of returning the victims' remains to their loved ones now begins as investigators work to piece together the flight's final moments. What blame is eventually assigned to Malaysia Airlines remains to be seen, but it appears from everything we know about the path of the airliner that the ultimate culpability for this tragedy lies with those who fired the missile in the first place and not the 777's crew or the airline.

From that, I still don't believe why someone will claim negligence by the airline. Unfortunately, it will be the same people who file lawsuits against the airline for flying where they did.

BL.

 

[DonJudgeMe]

Good grief. Reduce your caffeine and calm down a little.

DonJudgeMe feels the commercial airlines flying that route is merely a contributing factor. It's a reasonable opinion shared by some actual experts I've watched interviewed on CNN and such.

You apparently don't feel there is any contributing factor. We get it. It's a difference of opinion. Is there anything new to add or is this turning into a last word thread?

I should've stopped a while ago, once I knew who I was replying. Apparently, I'm not the only one who isn't allowed to disagree with him. Lol

Thanks for bringing me back.