Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[burmans]

Like I said earlier, both sides are blaming each other. Truth is the first casualty.

The fact that both sides are blaming each other is not unexpected but truth is only a casualty if you listen to them rather than seek the facts. Unlike the MH370 circumstance there is some fairly strong evidence here. In such a circumstance truth will only ever be a casualty if you are determined to ignore that evidence. I.e don't believe the bull****

 

[NFF]

Yes don't believe the bull**** from both sides.

 

[burmans]

Yes don't believe the bull**** from both sides.

Cynicism is not necessarily a bad thing but the fact is someone ( and only one group) did shot the plane down so one is in fact telling the truth.

 

[drron]

Yes don't believe the bull**** from both sides.

I suggest you do a search of the rebels videos of the crash scene.And I mean the ones on Russian sites.I have unfortunately found them and will not put up the links in case some friends and relatives are looking(and we already know that has happened).
But seeing every suitcase opened with clothes scattered around,the disrespect for the dead shown and the trashing of the evidence does not suggest these are innocent people.
Surely you watched at least one news report today of the Investigators being herded off the crash scene.Not the actions of innocents.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I have attached the list of flights (as published) for the previous 7 days.

As did 37 other airlines.

so what if 37 other airlines flew though the area? it doesn't mean they accurately assessed the risk. we will need to wait and see if the investigation touches on that.

you can have 37 people doing somehing less than optimal. that doesn't automatically make them all right.

 

[straitman]

The missile is designed to shoot at aircraft travelling at altitude such as B52s and also low altitude such as A10s and such, which cost much more than a missile. The alternative to using a missile to bring down those targets is other fighter aircraft. How much do they cost? vastly more than one missile or even the missile platform. As I said missiles are cheap, that's the point. Those guys now have completely empty airspace, which is very important to have in war, for a fraction of the cost of an airforce.

The missiles are not cheap. They are simply cheaper than the aircraft. The whole missile battery would run into many millions and you need a lot of them to be truly effective in a military sense. Re a/c costings the F-111 before it was retired was running at something over $100,000 per flying hour operating cost.

so what if 37 other airlines flew though the area? it doesn't mean they accurately assessed the risk. you can have 37 people doing somehing less than optimal. that doesn't automatically make them right.

many commentators, aviation experts and pilots are asking the same question, asking why some airlines went above and beyond any NOTAM, and others didn't.

Less than optimal in your opinion but not so in the opinion of many/most others.

It is great that many ask the questions so long as they are listening to the answers. At the risk of sounding offensive it appears that you are not listening. The NOTAMs were published as a result of the risk assessment. Without looking the numbers up again I believe the safe altitude was deemed as above FL240 plus an extra safety margin so no flights below FL300.
Look at todays news. It is believed that the missile array was only in place approx 2hrs before the incident and has now been trucked off somewhere else. Using your logic should a/c now not fly over Russia as they have these missiles? .... and so does Britain, Israel the USA and a whole bunch of other places have equivalent types.

 

[basso]

you can have 37 people doing somehing less than optimal. that doesn't automatically make them all right.

So, where were all these commentators before the event occurred, asking why these airlines were flying over the region? Pull your head in, and stop trying to blame the airline for an atrocity committed by people on the ground.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The missiles are not cheap. They are simply cheaper than the aircraft. The whole missile battery would run into many millions and you need a lot of them to be truly effective in a military sense. Re a/c costings the F-111 before it was retired was running at something over $100,000 per flying hour operating cost.

It is great that many ask the questions so long as they are listening to the answers. At the risk of sounding offensive it appears that you are not listening. The NOTAMs were published as a result of the risk assessment. Without looking the numbers up again I believe the safe altitude was deemed as above FL240 plus an extra safety margin so no flights below FL300.
Look at todays news. It is believed that the missile array was only in place approx 2hrs before the incident and has now been trucked off somewhere else. Using your logic should a/c now not fly over Russia as they have these missiles? .... and so does Britain, Israel the USA and a whole bunch of other places have equivalent types.

Airlines can choose to do their own assessment. They can choose to go above and beyond any NOTAM. or are you suggesting the 37 airlines were forced to fly that route? they had no other choice but to fly there?

Britain and the USA are not war zones with uncontrolled rebel forces in control of large areas.

The questions will be the subject of legal argument in action against MH.

 

[straitman]

Airlines can choose to do their own assessment. They can choose to go above and beyond any NOTAM. or are you suggesting the 37 airlines were forced to fly that route? they had no other choice but to fly there?

Britain and the USA are not war zones with uncontrolled rebel forces in control of large areas.

I covered your first point many posts ago so please go back and read and listen. MH17 was diverted to the area because weather so would not have normally been there. That has also been said previously. Had they not diverted and had subsequently crashed you would be saying they were unsafe for not diverting. (several different levels of analysis there)

OK disregard US and Britain. Should a/c not fly over Russia, Iraq, Syria Israel, Gaza etc? If the answer is yes then on what basis?

I have no issue with you having you opinion but accept the facts that are presented and do not try and say that those in the know don't actually know and that you know better, which is what you are in effect doing.

 

[Pushka]

What do you want, world peace? Never was and never will be, get real!
It looks like MH17 was a case of mistaken identity. Nevertheless, I hope that the responsible criminals will be brought to justice and targeting civilian planes will not become a regular practice in future conflicts between nations.

I have an app on my IPhone which tells me which planes are where.

 

[Mattg]

The questions will be the subject of legal argument in action against MH.

Genuine question, will MH be the subject of legal action if, after a full investigation, they are found not to be at fault in any way? Otherwise, who would be liable?

 

[Sprucegoose]

The route flown was approved is my understanding. Companies all choose their own operating minimum standards. Working on allowable or legislative minima doesn't always produce the safest outcomes. Those decisions are always made by standard operating procedures which ought to reflect the agreed business strategy and competence of the board.

What MH did was legal and approved. Was it applying the most prudent risk management techniques? No. Was it required to? No. Will its business suffer as a result of this? Yes. Will management now alter it's procedures after this incident and indeed those of other airlines? Yes they ought to in the interests of their shareholders.

MH will suffer a commercial loss as a result of this but this will not be prosecuted for the decision to take that flight path.

Who or what body makes those decisions should be reviewed would be my take on this. The company in this case is akin to the pilot of an airplane in the sense they hold the ultimate authority over its safety however and no authority should supplant this. More analogous would be the airport is rarely closed and it is the solely pilots decision to land there.

The route was available and the company made the decision to utilise it legally with all the attendant commercial and political consequences.

 

[legroom]

So, where were all these commentators before the event occurred, asking why these airlines were flying over the region? Pull your head in, and stop trying to blame the airline for an atrocity committed by people on the ground.

Using MEL_Traveler's logic of 'above and beyond' duty of care, no one should be traveling to the States where handguns, semi automatics ... are easily obtainable and even a Congresswoman could be shot in daylight.

This is a tragic case of what appeared to be unintended consequence of unprofessional buffoons muscling up as 'soldiers'.

Blaming the airlines ..... for following publicized rules which 37 other airlines were also doing at the same time is cheap and unwarranted verbal abuse.

Wars have rules... not shooting at unarmed civilians is one ..... I have yet seen MEL_Traveler expending energies heaping blame on the one breaking the rules in the first place.

Get real !

 

[mannej]

Genuine question, will MH be the subject of legal action if, after a full investigation, they are found not to be at fault in any way? Otherwise, who would be liable?

There are probably vultures waiting in the US who would be pushing to have the litigation occur in the US. From what I can gather from previous cases, accident investigations aren't always sub-missable as evidence (thinking back to Adam Air which the litigation accident found a totally different reason for the crash compared to the incident report).

 

[drron]

There are probably vultures waiting in the US who would be pushing to have the litigation occur in the US. From what I can gather from previous cases, accident investigations aren't always sub-missable as evidence (thinking back to Adam Air which the litigation accident found a totally different reason for the crash compared to the incident report).

Only 1 US citizen on board.
However in the US the law can be the proverbial cough.Boeing is being sued over the SFO crash.

 

[mannej]

Only 1 US citizen on board.
However in the US the law can be the proverbial cough.Boeing is being sued over the SFO crash.

Crazy isn't it?

 

[Jack_OC]

I notice that initial reports of multiple US citizens on board seem to be totally false. It now looks like there was just one US dual citizen, who was travelling on a Dutch passport.

This is curious, as the initial reports seemed to emanate from the Ukrainian govt. Eg from the UK Independent: "The passengers on the flight included 154 Dutch, 27 Australians, 38 Malaysians - including 15 crew, 11 people from Indonesia, four Germans, four Belgians, three from the Philippines and one Canadian. The Ukrainian Interior Ministry said 23 US citizens were travelling on the aircraft and nationalities of the remaining passengers were still being confirmed".

All of the info at that time was reasonably accurate (if incomplete), except the part about the US citizens. Now it turns out that apparently no pax were travelling on US passports. Was this just an attempt by the Ukrainians to fire up the Americans against the Russians/separatists?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Genuine question, will MH be the subject of legal action if, after a full investigation, they are found not to be at fault in any way? Otherwise, who would be liable?

Montreal Convention 1999... the airline is strictly liable up to a set amount (around 110k SDR). Over and above that, the airline is presumed to have liability unless it can show it was not negligent, or that the acts were caused solely by negligence of a third party.

Even though the route was approved, there were potentially warnings, or other indicators which may make it difficult for MH to show that it was in no way even party responsible (ie being where it was).

Those rules are designed to protect passengers to seek compensation.

Many are getting tied up with the emotion vs legal aspect. What happened here was a tragedy, but the legal aspect will come in at some stage. Relatives may have mortgages, bills, schooling. Compensation, while not bringing the loved one back, can make containing with life just a fraction easier. And, ultimately, serve to make the future of flying safer. The alternative some seem to be suggesting is that passengers are not compensated over and above the set liability threshold? they should should just drop it?

 

[boomy]

Wars have rules... not shooting at unarmed civilians is one ..... I have yet seen MEL_Traveler expending energies heaping blame on the one breaking the rules in the first place.

Get real !

Wars have rules?! Not shooting at unarmed civilians?!
The truth is exactly the opposite! If there are two things clear about wars it is that the rules will ALWAYS be broken and unarmed civilians who can't defend themselves will ALWAYS be targeted.
This time it was a plane flying in the sky, other times it's a village full of innocent people. The only difference is that we pay more attention to the plane because it can also happen to us at some point.
I suggest you to get real!

 

[boomy]

So, where were all these commentators before the event occurred, asking why these airlines were flying over the region? Pull your head in, and stop trying to blame the airline for an atrocity committed by people on the ground.

I agree the airline should not be blamed. They did nothing wrong according to experts who said flying over that area is not dangerous.
I'm just wondering if all the experts in the field agreed on that. Just because some people know more about a certain issue doesn't mean they are always right. Take the GFC for example, 99% of the "experts" couldn't predict it will happen and the very few who tried to give a warning were quickly silenced because it didn't serve the interests of the financial community.
I hope that in the case of MH17 there were no warning signs that were ignored in the favour of airlines saving time and fuel.