MH 17 "shot down" all dead

Forums › Travel (planes, train, cruise) › MH 17 "shot down" all dead

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 14

18689 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 7828

Lifetime subscriber

#1091354 18-Jul-2014 12:37

KiwiNZ:
gzt:
zaptor:
gzt: Prior to MH17:

1. Earlier this month a Ukrainian cargo plane was brought down
2. Several hours prior to MH17 a Ukrainian fighter jet was brought down

What did the risk assessment look like?

The big question: Why did commercial flights continue to fly through this exact same area?

Curious.

I'm guessing the Ukrainian government doesn't shoot down rebel/separatist (weird... when I use the word 'separatist' I think of Clone Wars, anyway...) planes, because they don't have any? (correct me if I'm wrong).

Which would imply the only ones shooting down any planes are separatists?

At this point I don't really care who did it or why. It is not important.

This is an active conflict zone between two nation states. Both states are armed with weapons capable of bringing down airships. Either one may choose to do so for tactical reasons. Mistakes are made in war as detailed earlier in thread it has happened numerous times. On top of that you have a local guerilla force who may or may not be state sponsored or state assisted in varying degrees in control of national level ground to air weapons obtained during the conflict.

What did the airline risk assessment for this situation look like?

All the airlines who continued to fly through this conflict zone in these circumstances have serious questions to answer.

I expect to see resignations, firings and reorganisation in all major airlines after this outrageously deficient risk assessment.

Following on that a huge percentage of the planet would be a no fly zone

It would be (and is) a very tiny percentage of areas of active conflict between states with this capability.

Edit: The one word previous reply was a bit rude. Please accept my genuine apologies for that.

solival

160 posts

Master Geek
+1 received by user: 20

#1091384 18-Jul-2014 13:19

This is what I found so far from different sources, including USA, UK, Ukraine:
On 17 of July Russia brought "BUK" missle system and crew to insurgents to help them shot down Ukrainian military flights.
There are lot's of evidences, because they honoured themselves that "Now Ukraine will not use air attacks against us", videos was widely populated on russian channels and youtube (photo from Snizhne (about 15 km from crash site: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bsw15KwIUAANdW4.jpg ).

The same day Russian insurgent and leader of rebels "strelkov" reported in Vkontakte social network (it's Russia's clone of facebook) that they shot down Ukrainian AN-26 military transport. Showing videos and photos of proof. This also was widely populated by lots of Cremlin bots over all social networks (for. ex. http://t.co/7HXX4uWiIK ). In half of hour it became obvious that they shoot down civilian airplane. Then they started histerically remove their videos and photos from social networks, but it's stupid idea (NSA keeps everything for years). Also many pages are cached by google. Then they changed their idea several times ending up telling that it was attempt to kill Putin. Sick.

In couple hours SBU (Ukrainian national security agency) published record of intercepted calls between "stelkov" and russian GRU officer where "Strelkov" reported about soot down plane. Now Russia tries to hide "BUK" and secretely move ti back to Russia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbyZYgSXdyw

President of Ukraine invited Netherlands, Malaysian and USA governments to help with this crash investigation. Russian air service said that Ukraine must allow Russia only make investigation. I think it's clear why Russia want's this and why Ukraine is ok with international investigation. BTW, reportedly black boxes was stolen and now on way to Moscow.

All this facts will be checked, but it's the situation when Russia couldn't hide neither their involvement and sponsorship of terrorist nor their guilt in shooting civilian plane.

P.S. Planes were allowed to fly over that zone, because terrorist didn't have such powerful weapons. And there were no Ukrainian air misles around that rebels could seize, so risk assessment made conclusion that it is "safe enough". As always profit vs danger wins profit. 80 children. RIP

Geek originally from Ukraine :)

MikeB4

MikeB4
18776 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 12768

ID Verified

Trusted

Subscriber

#1091386 18-Jul-2014 13:22

If you look at the regions encompassing a big chunk of North Africa and Southwest Asia and Middle East and Central Asia and South Asia to Thailand there are regional conflicts etc not just between neighbours but internal conflicts where combatants etc have the capability to shoot down aircraft.
That is a huge chunk of the global airspace that is at risk.

Here is a crazy notion, lets give peace a chance.

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1091401 18-Jul-2014 13:38

I find it intriguing that this is same airline that previously lost an aircraft in an unexplained way which is now the biggest aviation mystery, and only a few months after that, this has happened. What are the odds of that? The only difference appears that this one crashed on land, so the wreckage has been found. Also apparently there were no alerts from the plane to say it had problems, which was the same as with their lost plane. If it had been shot you would expect something, unless it struck in the nose of the plane. I think something odd is going on. If this has been shot down, I think the odds of the other being shot down can't be ruled out.

If it has been shot down, you do have to wonder why they allow them to fly over airspace where conflicts are occurring. You only need some Nutter to do something stupid.

tdgeek

30048 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9455

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1091407 18-Jul-2014 13:49

joker97: I hope this incriminates a mad putin. Well I'm only speculating, feel free to correct me

Putin contacted Obama to advise him, and Obama asked him to keep him up to date. Seems like a "I'll get in first to limit fallout before said fallout happens"
I could be wrong but looks that way, Russian missile. Hope this doesnt become a political excuse about getting stuck into Russia while keeping the tragedy second in the news, for the families sake

nigelj

856 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1091409 18-Jul-2014 13:55

mattwnz: I find it intriguing that this is same airline that previously lost an aircraft in an unexplained way which is now the biggest aviation mystery, and only a few months after that, this has happened. What are the odds of that? The only difference appears that this one crashed on land, so the wreckage has been found. Also apparently there were no alerts from the plane to say it had problems, which was the same as with their lost plane. If it had been shot you would expect something, unless it struck in the nose of the plane. I think something odd is going on. If this has been shot down, I think the odds of the other being shot down can't be ruled out.

If it has been shot down, you do have to wonder why they allow them to fly over airspace where conflicts are occurring. You only need some Nutter to do something stupid.

Look at flightradar24, the two main corridors that the airlines are using now for Asia:

1) Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - One word: ISIS

2) (to a much lesser extent especially at this hour - 2 hours ago it seemed busier) Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India - (A tiny bit of history with the Pakistan/India border, and of course... Afghanistan...)

I think if you talked to the operators, it's all a case of risk vs reward (extremely small chance of getting shot down, vs saving mega mega mega bucks in fuel, i.e. they save more in fuel than the increased insurance premiums).

New World

Shop on-line at New World now for your groceries (affiliate link).

Sideface

9651 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 15602

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1091410 18-Jul-2014 13:59

solival: ... In couple hours SBU (Ukrainian national security agency) published record of intercepted calls between "stelkov" and russian GRU officer where "Strelkov" reported about shot down plane. ...

This video, released by the Ukraine Secret Service but not independently verified, suggests Pro-Russia rebels are to blame for the downing of Malaysia Airlines MH17. The audio recording, which has added English subtitles, claims to have been the result of an intercept from the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU), who released the recording on their website.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10975218/Malaysia-Airlines-crash-Intercepted-call-suggests-rebels-to-blame.html

Sideface

sleemanj

1514 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 315

#1091414 18-Jul-2014 14:07

Simple fact is, if you want to get from point A to point C, you by necessity have to cross over point B. In this case, getting from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, you HAVE to cross that region, at least if you want to get there in a reasonable time and for a reasonable price and with reasonable options in the case of engine failure.

Here's a previous instance of that flight.

so you pick a better route, taking into account flight times, open ocean crossings, fuel burn (prevailing winds), decreased payload...

NB: the dotted line will be the Great Circle Distance (shortest distance between the two points)

---
James Sleeman
I sell lots of stuff for electronic enthusiasts...

chiefie

I iz your trusted friend
5877 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 151

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1091420 18-Jul-2014 14:15

At the time the flight was being planned, there was no known no-fly zone declared around the Ukraine air space. Many other airliners have different flight paths or avoid the conflict zones even without official declaration from FAA/CAA.

However, I'm sure after today's MH17 disaster, the Ukraine air space probably be marked for no-fly zone.

Internet is my backyard...

«Geekzone blog: Tech 'n Chips Takeaway» «Personal blog: And then...»

Please read the Geekzone's FUG

Batman

Mad Scientist
30014 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 6217

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1091428 18-Jul-2014 14:22

sleemanj: Simple fact is, if you want to get from point A to point C, you by necessity have to cross over point B. In this case, getting from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, you HAVE to cross that region, at least if you want to get there in a reasonable time and for a reasonable price and with reasonable options in the case of engine failure.

Here's a previous instance of that flight.

so you pick a better route, taking into account flight times, open ocean crossings, fuel burn (prevailing winds), decreased payload...

NB: the dotted line will be the Great Circle Distance (shortest distance between the two points)

MAS is fighTing bankruptcy. Every cent counts for them. But as they say, penny wise, pound foolish.

I am interested to see plane scatter before the event to see if MAS was just find everybody does or were they taking more risks

mattwnz

20520 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 4797

#1091430 18-Jul-2014 14:25

nigelj:
mattwnz: I find it intriguing that this is same airline that previously lost an aircraft in an unexplained way which is now the biggest aviation mystery, and only a few months after that, this has happened. What are the odds of that? The only difference appears that this one crashed on land, so the wreckage has been found. Also apparently there were no alerts from the plane to say it had problems, which was the same as with their lost plane. If it had been shot you would expect something, unless it struck in the nose of the plane. I think something odd is going on. If this has been shot down, I think the odds of the other being shot down can't be ruled out.

If it has been shot down, you do have to wonder why they allow them to fly over airspace where conflicts are occurring. You only need some Nutter to do something stupid.

Look at flightradar24, the two main corridors that the airlines are using now for Asia:

1) Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - One word: ISIS

2) (to a much lesser extent especially at this hour - 2 hours ago it seemed busier) Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India - (A tiny bit of history with the Pakistan/India border, and of course... Afghanistan...)

I think if you talked to the operators, it's all a case of risk vs reward (extremely small chance of getting shot down, vs saving mega mega mega bucks in fuel, i.e. they save more in fuel than the increased insurance premiums).

So it all comes down to money at the end of the day. Perhaps if airlines published their flight paths, and where the conflict zones are, then people can make a safe and informed choice on which path they wish to travel . I think I would prefer to pay more to minimise the risk. It is a bit like driving in NZ, you could chose to travel on a known high crash rate highway, or take a low risk local road which will take longer and use more fuel.

Mighty Ape

Shop now at Mighty Ape (affiliate link).

nigelj

856 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 125

#1091432 18-Jul-2014 14:30

mattwnz:
nigelj:
mattwnz: I find it intriguing that this is same airline that previously lost an aircraft in an unexplained way which is now the biggest aviation mystery, and only a few months after that, this has happened. What are the odds of that? The only difference appears that this one crashed on land, so the wreckage has been found. Also apparently there were no alerts from the plane to say it had problems, which was the same as with their lost plane. If it had been shot you would expect something, unless it struck in the nose of the plane. I think something odd is going on. If this has been shot down, I think the odds of the other being shot down can't be ruled out.

If it has been shot down, you do have to wonder why they allow them to fly over airspace where conflicts are occurring. You only need some Nutter to do something stupid.

Look at flightradar24, the two main corridors that the airlines are using now for Asia:

1) Turkey, Syria, Iraq, Kuwait, UAE, Oman - One word: ISIS

2) (to a much lesser extent especially at this hour - 2 hours ago it seemed busier) Turkmenistan, Afghanistan, Pakistan, India - (A tiny bit of history with the Pakistan/India border, and of course... Afghanistan...)

I think if you talked to the operators, it's all a case of risk vs reward (extremely small chance of getting shot down, vs saving mega mega mega bucks in fuel, i.e. they save more in fuel than the increased insurance premiums).

So it all comes down to money at the end of the day. Perhaps if airlines published their flight paths, and where the conflict zones are, then people can make a safe and informed choice on which path they wish to travel . I think I would prefer to pay more to minimise the risk. It is a bit like driving in NZ, you could chose to travel on a known high crash rate highway, or take a low risk local road which will take longer and use more fuel.

How well informed are people really? If you gave me options, the two I gave in my above post, and hugging the Ukraine/Russia border, I'd likely select the Ukraine/Russia border out of ignorance of just how bad things are getting there, yet we have a fair idea of just how bad things are getting with ISIS/etc. (Just sayin')

bfginger

1330 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 191

#1091459 18-Jul-2014 15:05

http://www.newrepublic.com/article/116852/merkel-was-right-putins-lost-his-mind-press-conference

As the recorded conversations released by the Ukrainians show it's unlikely the shooting down was an intentional act of terrorism on the part of the people who pulled the trigger but if the the militants were supplied with missile systems with safeties turned off as the US enacted sanctions it's not difficult to see what kind of message the suppliers were trying to send while maintaining plausible deniability.

Jaxson

8172 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1332

Trusted

#1091466 18-Jul-2014 15:11

chiefie: At the time the flight was being planned, there was no known no-fly zone declared around the Ukraine air space. Many other airliners have different flight paths or avoid the conflict zones even without official declaration from FAA/CAA.

However, I'm sure after today's MH17 disaster, the Ukraine air space probably be marked for no-fly zone.

I thought I read that it was ok past a certain altitude, but to what degree this was well known and accepted by the airlines will be a point of interest moving forward.

300 odd people though, that's simply horrible.

chiefie

I iz your trusted friend
5877 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 151

Retired Mod

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1091469 18-Jul-2014 15:16

Jaxson:
chiefie: At the time the flight was being planned, there was no known no-fly zone declared around the Ukraine air space. Many other airliners have different flight paths or avoid the conflict zones even without official declaration from FAA/CAA.

However, I'm sure after today's MH17 disaster, the Ukraine air space probably be marked for no-fly zone.

I thought I read that it was ok past a certain altitude, but to what degree this was well known and accepted by the airlines will be a point of interest moving forward.

300 odd people though, that's simply horrible.

I think there two restrictions: no-fly zone and the altitude. However the commercial airliners have transponder that cannot be "locked" on unless missiles are overridden to lock on any air object.

As Captain Hindsight, the common sense would be avoid any conflict zones if possible.

Internet is my backyard...

«Geekzone blog: Tech 'n Chips Takeaway» «Personal blog: And then...»

Please read the Geekzone's FUG

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | ... | 14