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?
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.