Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[drron]

I have posted this up thread - a credit card being cancelled does not stop someone trying to use it, or its number. There would be records of such attempts.

But would the bank release this information?Unlikely I believe.So how to people know?

 

[drron]

Sounds like it was actually the registration. I'll have a look. ta

EDIT: prune was a look down the rabbit hole that I had to quickly terminate.

Sorry it was on FT and stemmed from a CNN report.Finally found the answer-
FlyerTalk Forums - View Single Post - Malaysia Airlines MH 17 crash in Ukraine (17 July 2014 - PLEASE READ WIKI, FAQ)

Couldn't find the original post with the speculation though-could have been moved or deleted though.

 

[serfty]

But would the bank release this information?Unlikely I believe.So how to people know?

I don't believe that to be unlikely at all. In circumstances such as these, I feel basic yea or nay information would be provided.

Anyhoo, it's a very small part of a greater issue.

 

[drron]

Initial black box release-massive explosive decompression
European air safety official: Unreleased data from MH17 black box shows 'massive explosive decompression' - @CBSNews @ErinELyall - breakingnews.com

 

[james1]

Initial black box release-massive explosive decompression
European air safety official: Unreleased data from MH17 black box shows 'massive explosive decompression' - @CBSNews @ErinELyall - breakingnews.com

And as terrible as this is, I hope this suggests it was without suffering.

 

[drron]

According to other reports it means virtually instantaneous loss of consciousness.

 

[fjc]

I was thinking more conspiracy rather than that other stuff done by disgusting people.

All passports are brand new. A truck full if brand new passports was found in Ukraine.
Aircraft serial numbers are wrong for that particular aircraft. This information was 'gathered' when only the rebels had access to the site.

I've seen one image of the "brand new passports", which included an Australian passport (Coat of Arms showing). The image could be have been Photoshopped - it's so easy to combine readily available images to produce a new one.

 

[medhead]

The conspiracy that gets me is mh370 and mh17 being the same aircraft type. Forgive my sarcasm but; Oh! What are the chances of an airline buying more that one of a particular aircraft model?

 

[Himeno]

The conspiracy that gets me is mh370 and mh17 being the same aircraft type. Forgive my sarcasm but; Oh! What are the chances of an airline buying more that one of a particular aircraft model?

There were also people claiming that 9M-MRO (the MH370 aircraft) and 9M-MRI (returned to leaser and stored at TLV) were the same aircraft.

 

[whatmeworry]

Here is link, if you want to send the Russian President a letter regarding any subjet.
Send a Letter to the President

 

[drron]

Here is link, if you want to send the Russian President a letter regarding any subjet.
Send a Letter to the President

Is that a Freudian slip?

 

[Foreigner]

What are possible names Malaysia Airlines could consider?

I can think of them going back to MAS

 

[MEL_Traveller]

What are possible names Malaysia Airlines could consider?

I can think of them going back to MAS

Personally speaking, rebranding isn't going to make any difference to me when the key issue - that of safety in the air (routing) - is not being addressed by the airline.

Recent comments by the MH commercial director are disturbing, including a comment that MH should be left to focus on the quality of its product in the air, not worrying about which areas are safe to fly over. As Crikey points out: it should be safety first, not how you're going to present your satay.

The Commercial Director also acknowledged that ICAO got it wrong, but MH now wants another body to be set up to determine where it is safe to fly. Again - they want to follow the flock of 'others said it's ok, so we'll do what they say'.

For me, that's a total ban on MH.

Full report here: Malaysia Airlines plans new name after fallout from MH17

Also concerns regarding airlines overflying ISIS controlled Iraq. It appears EK might be looking to avoid that airspace beginning soon. QF at this stage is not looking to change flight paths.

Qantas to keep flying over Iraq despite Emirates route changes

 

[lovetravellingoz]

The Commercial Director also acknowledged that ICAO got it wrong, but MH now wants another body to be set up to determine where it is safe to fly. Again - they want to follow the flock of 'others said it's ok, so we'll do what they say'.

Ok I'll bite as you keep raising this as an issue.

For MH to "know all" about all safety risks from terrorists, military and para-military, they will have to set up a military intelligence division of massive proportions. And even then they will not really know (Weapons of Mass destruction may ring a few bells ). I mean you want them to be able to know when Russia, or China or another country equips a para-military group with unforseen missile capability by their own capability as they cannot "out-source" any level of safety by seeking advice of other parties outside of their own airline.

By the same logic I also assume MH must start manufacturing their own jet aircraft to avoid out-sourcing "safety" to non-MH staffers. I mean why rely on Boeing in the USA or Airbus in Europe when one knows that you cannot trust "foreigners", and that an airline must decide on everything for themselves and cannot place trust in orgainsations outside of their own.

And what about air traffic control? Must be risky placing trust in other bodies at all those other airports around the world. Perhaps MH should only fly with Malaysia then?

And as for airports, MH better start buy up airports too, for otherwise in operating out of an airport you will be placing trust in another body and you cannot do that.

Personally I think it is impossible to run an international airline without placing trust in other bodies outside of your own, and to seek advice, expertise, intelligences, services , equipment etc from other bodies and organisations.

You take a risk when you get out bed in the morning. And for that matter you take a risk if you stay in bed, as the house may catch fire, a drunk may drive into a it, or a tree may fall onto it.

The question is not whether there is risk or not, but is that risk unreasonable?

Up until this flight no one had anticipated that a country like Russia may equip a poorly trained para-military outfit with such a missile weapon.

Was flying two aircraft into the Twin Towers a likely risk?

Sometimes unpredictable bad things occur.

Right here and now I certainly do not believe that MH took undue risk.

I also tend to believe that the para military unit that fired the missile, while to blame are not the most culpable in this.

The individual, or group, that I am most aggrieved with is whomever, made the decision to equip the par-military with such a sophisticated weapon. This person, or persons, are the sole party in all of this who had the ability to understand the main risks in handing over such a weapon to an ill-trained, and gung-ho, group. They will have known that such ill-trained operators would not be able to distinguish between military and civilian aircraft, and to know that civilian aircraft were flying in the region. They knew their actions would kill people, and would have known that civilian casualties could occur as well.

It is they that are the villains, and not MH.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

sorry... 'airlines such as ours should be left to focus on the quality of our product in the air, not on the air corridors we fly in'

of course airlines should act with outside sources, but they shouldn't necessarily rely solely on them. Sometimes they may need to make their own investigations and their own risk assessment.

ATC, it's entirely foreseeable ATC can make mistakes, that's one of the reasons why planes have TCAS. An airline that switched off TCAS and acted solely on ATC instructions would be negligent.

Taking more control for your security and not trusting airports? That's why EL AL has it's own agents at many airport around the world.

Sure airlines should act together, and rely on others, but not exclusively, and not in such a way that allows them to excuse themselves from any responsibility. (t be clear I'm talking about going forward, not what happened last week. MH, or any other airline, should be starting to do more rigorous environmental scans of their own accord).

 

[whatmeworry]

Just reading an article about how airlines will have to lift airfares as they can't go through southern Ukraine.

Mmm so does that mean various airlines were risking planes and passengers for their bottom line?

 

[medhead]

sorry... 'airlines such as ours should be left to focus on the quality of our product in the air, not on the air corridors we fly in'

of course airlines should act with outside sources, but they shouldn't necessarily rely solely on them. Sometimes they may need to make their own investigations and their own risk assessment.

Sorry it is entirely unreasonable to suggest that all airlines have to set up military intelligence organisations to match or exceed the capabilities of the CIA. You've banned MH which other airlines have you banned? Which airlines do you consider safe?

It is also wrong to continue to pretend that MH did not do a risk assessment.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sorry it is entirely unreasonable to suggest that all airlines have to set up military intelligence organisations to match or exceed the capabilities of the CIA. You've banned MH which other airlines have you banned? Which airlines do you consider safe?

It is also wrong to continue to pretend that MH did not do a risk assessment.

I'm not suggesting an airline needs to have intelligence to match the CIA.

But for an airline, these types of risk assessment are made so much easier because if in doubt, the answer always be 'no'.

Just thinking off the top of my head these are some of the questions I would be asking for each country i want to fly over:

• how stable is the country?
• is there a civil war or other fighting?
• what are the capabilities of the country if there is fighting in it?
• could it be that a terrorist organisation or rebel force get hold of equipment that could down an airliner?
• if they could get hold of such equipment, how likely is it that the government of that country would be able to/want to disseminate that information to others?

While the spotlight is currently on Russia for providing these missiles, there was some initial report suggesting the rebels might have stolen them from a Ukranian military base. Even if that is now discounted, we now know there is a possibility of that happening (rebels/terrorists stealing from a military base). So that needs to be factored in.

If I accept MH did a valid risk assessment in regards to MH17, the comments by the commercial director appear to indicate that going forward, they only want to rely on a single body to tell them where they can fly. They don't want to have to do any of that assessment themselves. They want to focus on the on-board product!

The problem with that single body? They have already acknowledged ICAO (single body) - got it wrong previously.

Which airlines do I consider 'safe'? That's becoming an interesting question. But for me, the starting point is an acknowledgment and proactive consideration that risk can go above what we previously accepted.

EK has come out and said they need to review ISIS controlled areas. QF's comment is that they believe ISIS controlled areas are safe over a certain altitude.

Two days later, MH flew over ISIS Syria, again with the explanation 'we were told it was safe'. Yet they acknowledge ICAO got it wrong previously.

When a major airline is coming out to say they have concerns, my environmental scanning is starting to think there could be an issue, and i want other airlines to address that issue before I'm willing to book passage on them.

 

[legroom]

Ok I'll bit as you keep raising this as an issue.

For MH to "know all" about all safety risks from terrorists, military and para-military, they will have to set up a military intelligence division of massive proportions. And even then they will not really know (Weapons of Mass destruction may ring a few bells ). I mean you want them to be able to know when Russia, or China or another country equips a para-military group with unforseen missile capability by their own capability as they cannot "out-source" any level of safety by seeking advice of other parties outside of their own airline.

By the same logic I also assume MH must start manufacturing their own jet aircraft to avoid out-sourcing "safety" to non-MH staffers. I mean why rely on Boeing in the USA or Airbus in Europe when one knows that you cannot trust "foreigners", and that an airline must decide on everything for themselves and cannot place trust in orgainsations outside of their own.

And what about air traffic control? Must be risky placing trust in other bodies at all those other airports around the world. Perhaps MH should only fly with Malaysia then?

And as for airports, MH better start buy up airports too, for otherwise in operating out of an airport you will be placing trust in another body and you cannot do that.

Personally I think it is impossible to run an international airline without placing trust in other bodies outside of your own, and to seek advice, expertise, intelligences, services , equipment etc from other bodies and organisations.

You take a risk when you get out bed in the morning. And for that matter you take a risk if you stay in bed, as the house may catch fire, a drunk may drive into a it, or a tree may fall onto it.

The question is not whether there is risk or not, but is that risk unreasonable?

Up until this flight no one had anticipated that a country like Russia may equip a poorly trained para-military outfit with such a missile weapon.

Was flying two aircraft into the Twin Towers a likely risk?

Sometimes unpredictable bad things occur.

Right here and now I certainly do not believe that MH took undue risk.

I also tend to believe that the para military unit that fired the missile, while to blame are not the most culpable in this.

The individual, or group, that I am most aggrieved with is whomever, made the decision to equip the par-military with such a sophisticated weapon. This person, or persons, are the sole party in all of this who had the ability to understand the main risks in handing over such a weapon to an ill-trained, and gung-ho, group. They will have known that such ill-trained operators would not be able to distinguish between military and civilian aircraft, and to know that civilian aircraft were flying in the region. They knew their actions would kill people, and would have known that civilian casualties could occur as well.

It is they that are the villains, and not MH.

Agree with every sentence !

The supplier is more culpable than the actual shooter in my view - in this particular case.

If stolen, that remark does not apply.

 

[drron]

But even if it were stolen the Ukrainian Government has said it disabled the system.
So the people who returned it to operating condition would be culpable.
Methinks it is the same people in either scenario.