Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[burmans]

Aircraft fly over many areas that are effectively war zones. But, in the vast majority of cases (Afghanistan in particular), the locals were only ever armed with shoulder launcher weapons, and they simply don't have the ability to get up to the airliners. They are dangerous to aircraft at low level, as shown by the A300 that was hit at Kabul, but not to aircraft in the cruise. Note too, that levels below about FL300 were not available for use at all.

Ukraine is unusual in that we now have terrorists (or whatever you want to call them) in possession of high powered, long range SAMs. From what I can gather, they've only recently acquired them. The conspiracy theorists will go mad over this (as usual), but I see it as a thug with a big gun.

While Ukraine is unusual in that we seem to have cogent evidence they actually have these weapons there has been plenty of concern over the years that any number of people might be able to get hold of such weapons. There are indeed rumours from time to time that more powerful weapons might have gone missing and noone is quite sure who has got hold of them. So am not sure we can write this off as a risk, risk might be small but I dont think non-existent.

 

[juddles]

.....don't see anyone commenting about the dog ***** dumb dirt farmer at the other end of the missile, who thinks an aircraft at 32000 feet is flying spies into the area......

May have been at 32,000 feet, but in formation with two escorting Ukraine fighters?? Muddying the waters.....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sure but this all assumes that the information is "known". I.e. that MH knew about the missiles and/or Ukraine is under some obligation to have told MH about these. To me that is streching it, there is no communication channel between the Ukraine government and MH as far as I know.

And poor communication is the norm in conflict areas. Lest we forget, Australian and US went into Iraq based on flawed information. There was lot of chatter after 9/11 that "we should have known" the reality is the intelligence services knew "something" might happen but not what. There is also plenty of chatter about what weaponry various groups in various parts of the world "might" have, but rumour is not fact. There are many parts of the world where information is not "known" but only rumoured because communication is poor (or indeed there is deliberate missinformation/miscommunication being propogated). Russia/Ukrain is one such place but far from the only one.

I would be surprised the USA didn't know about the missile theft. The questions are then this: what did other intelligence agencies know? How did those intelligence agencies communicate with entities that might have been affected by the news? Did USA tell Malysian intelligence? Did Malaysian intelligence pass that on to MH? Same applies for all the other governments and airlines that were flying through the area - SQ and AI included.

This is a difference scenario because of the SAM.

 

[MH_fan]

I am speechless and incredibly saddened that such a terrible tragedy has befallen MH only just a little over 4 months from MH370. It is so senseless and so incredibly unlucky for MH17 and the passengers and crew on that flight. My thoughts and prayers go out to the family and friends of the passengers and crew of that flight.
I'm flying with them next month and I will make a concerted effort to be especially nice to the crew. They need all the support they can get.

 

[burmans]

I would be surprised the USA didn't know about the missile theft.

You mean the way they "knew" that Iraq had WMD? You seem to have a higher opinion of intelligence services than I do!

But yes, your point is taken. Having said that I said that I suspect that with all intelligence information there are a) varying levels of confidence in the information received, b) differing levels of assessment of the risk likelihood and impact and hence c) whether this needs to be passed on.

I dont think anyone thought there was any intent to use this against a civilian aircraft for a start, this appears to be a case of incompetence/lack of care than a deliberate attempt to target a civilian flight. Incompetence/lack of care acts are inherently harder to predict!

 

[samh004]

On CNN they discussed how the usual flight path was 200 miles South of what it took, but a thunderstorm made it track further North. They speculated this may have been why those with the SAM's mistook it for something else. As in the previous days to months, it was much further South.

 

[Alanslegal]

On CNN they discussed how the usual flight path was 200 miles South of what it took, but a thunderstorm made it track further North. They speculated this may have been why those with the SAM's mistook it for something else. As in the previous days to months, it was much further South.

Maybe I am looking at the wrong map but SQ333 and TG931 which departed CDG at similar times did route south of the storm vs north of the storm that MH took.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

On CNN they discussed how the usual flight path was 200 miles South of what it took, but a thunderstorm made it track further North. They speculated this may have been why those with the SAM's mistook it for something else. As in the previous days to months, it was much further South.

li just watched that. Richard Quest says he has been talking to many pilots who have told him they were uncomfortable flying over the area and that it was 'an accident waiting to happen'. of course, easy for him to say in hindsight. and the pilots haven't been named.

 

[Alanslegal]

Maybe I am looking at the wrong map but SQ333 and TG931 which departed CDG at similar times did route south of the storm vs north of the storm that MH took.

Interestingly, I have flown both SQ333 and TG931 within the last 12 months. Sombre thought.

 

[drron]

May have been at 32,000 feet, but in formation with two escorting Ukraine fighters?? Muddying the waters.....

This report was supposedly put out by KLM who do not have it on their website news.Basically discredited over at Pprune.

Plus why would the Ukrainian government be shooting at an aircraft.They have not been subjected to air raids and the rebels have no planes.
Again if the rebels really thought it was the Ukrainian government who shot down the plane why don't they as a matter of urgency get international investigators to the site as likely there will be some missile fragments embedded in bits of the plane so that the perpetrator could be identified.But instead they have closed off the area suggesting they are the ones with something to hide.

US military sources have said one of their satellites tracked the ascent of the missile.Almost certainly they know where it was fired from.

And another subject I am in complete agreement with medheads words.Really cant believe anyone holding the Malaysians to blame.The US exclusion area was over the Crimea-quite a distance from the area the plane went down.

 

[JohnK]

....what on earth is our world coming to?

....

OMG - what is our world coming to?

We live in an extremely sad place.

Evil outweighs good. This world is a creepy place ruled by terrorists, criminals and the corrupt with many of them elected.

Justice? Putting someone in jail is not justice.

 

[Jack_OC]

Some more interesting quotes on The Age website:

Brian Flynn, a spokesman for Eurocontrol, which directs air traffic across Europe, said Ukrainian aviation authorities had closed the airspace below 32,000 feet on Monday after having earlier restricted the airspace below 26,000 feet, on July 1.

Before the crash, 300 commercial aircraft a day were flying through eastern Ukrainian airspace, with most serving as long-haul flights between Europe and Southeast Asia. Mr Flynn said such flights typically cruise at between 33,000 and 37,000 feet.

Mr Flynn said airlines can elect to avoid an area even if it’s not closed, but that he did not believe any had chosen to do so in eastern Ukraine.
“I’m not aware of any airlines that were specifically avoiding that area,” he said.

 

[medhead]

Aircraft fly over many areas that are effectively war zones. But, in the vast majority of cases (Afghanistan in particular), the locals were only ever armed with shoulder launcher weapons, and they simply don't have the ability to get up to the airliners. They are dangerous to aircraft at low level, as shown by the A300 that was hit at Kabul, but not to aircraft in the cruise. Note too, that levels below about FL300 were not available for use at all.

Ukraine is unusual in that we now have terrorists (or whatever you want to call them) in possession of high powered, long range SAMs. From what I can gather, they've only recently acquired them. The conspiracy theorists will go mad over this (as usual), but I see it as a thug with a big gun.

Which is my point. I see a whole heap of posts banging on about flying over a war zone. That is, the war zone is their only point. As you say they only recently acquired the capability, a fact that was not widely and publicly known. Given the vague publicly known information I still reject the suggestion that MH was doing anything particularly unsafe in flying over a "war zone".

 

[burmans]

Which is my point. I see a whole heap of posts banging on about flying over a war zone. That is the war zone is their only point.

Instant experts always come out after such events! Hindsight is a wonderful thing for such people to pontificate about what they would have done differently.

On a side note cant believe drron is so in agreement with you, not always that way!

 

[missafternoondelight]

Pardon my ignorance, but what is the fuel capacity on these 777s? Does diverting around the Ukraine make a huge difference on fuel? Does the KUL - AMS route consume close to the aircraft's capacity?

If we are talking risk assesments, considering other risks (eg. how much contingency fuel the aircraft has on board if it is diverted or landing is delayed at AMS) would factor into the equation. John K raises a good point about Afganistan. Risk calculation = likelihood x consequence. Likelihood of aircraft being shot down over war zones (from past experience) may be rated as 1, x consequence (catastrophic) rated as 5, risk = 5. If likelihood of fuel shortage due to diversion / delay is higher, and the consequence is similar (crash) then... I can see how MH's decision making to continue flying there, albeit at high altitude might have been arrived at. Though if we are talking more fuel, we are also talking more money... which was sadly probably a factor.

Pilots / those in the know about these matters will be able to disprove this hypothesis.

RIP to all passengers and crew. At least it would have been quick.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Instant experts always come out after such events! Hindsight is a wonderful thing for such people to pontificate about what they would have done differently.

On a side note cant believe drron is so in agreement with you, not always that way!

I think there are serious questions which need to be asked, including the flow of information (what was known, how it was shared, and how quickly).

It has nothing to do with being 'expert' - it is common sense to ask those sorts of questions. There are plenty of questions that can be raised now... in advance, about all sorts of safety aspects. Unfortunately, it's often not until we have had an accident that some in authority want to consider the matter. (Look at something as simple as gate-to-gate IFE. Potential major safety issues, but until we have a crash where people don't hear 'brace' probably no one is going to do anything to stop it.)

 

[harvyk]

Instant experts always come out after such events! Hindsight is a wonderful thing for such people to pontificate about what they would have done differently.

The instant "experts" is half the reason why I don't tend to bother reading the "follow up analysis" on news websites, typically they contain anything from a misunderstanding / poor research of the available information to outright complete lies by people who want their 15 minutes, and the only reason why news sites publish said articles is that they are either too ignorent of the details and / or they do so anyway because it'll generate the all important clicks.

 

[medhead]

I would be surprised the USA didn't know about the missile theft. The questions are then this: what did other intelligence agencies know? How did those intelligence agencies communicate with entities that might have been affected by the news? Did USA tell Malysian intelligence? Did Malaysian intelligence pass that on to MH? Same applies for all the other governments and airlines that were flying through the area - SQ and AI included.

This is a difference scenario because of the SAM.

That's the thing about secret squirrels, they don't tell others what they know. The USA is flat out passing on some secrets to Australia and the UK and we have super special information sharing agreements with them. I think Malaysian have a snowballs chance in hell of being given such low level information by the US.

You mean the way they "knew" that Iraq had WMD? You seem to have a higher opinion of intelligence services than I do!

WMD is not a good example. They knew the answer that was desired in that case. In this case, they wouldn't have had the required answer.

 

[medhead]

On a side note cant believe drron is so in agreement with you, not always that way!

He's just in denial that I'm always right.

 

[drron]

He's just in denial that I'm always right.

I always believe in facts!