Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[burmans]

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.

And lets not forget you need some training to use it!

 

[medhead]

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.

Sorry but those question can only be answered by external bodies. Then the airline would be relying on a third party, which is against your 'rule'. That means all airlines must have an intelligence organisation if you follow your rule.

You seem to be extremely confused between gathering information and assessing it versus risk assessment. You are outright attacking MH for not wanting to be in the business of intelligence gathering and assessment.

 

[anat0l]

Sorry but those question can only be answered by external bodies. Then the airline would be relying on a third party, which is against your 'rule'. That means all airlines must have an intelligence organisation if you follow your rule.

You seem to be extremely confused between gathering information and assessing it versus risk assessment. You are outright attacking MH for not wanting to be in the business of intelligence gathering and assessment.

The way I'm reading it sounds like straw clutching to the degree it's slandering MH for the sake of not liking MH....

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Sorry but those question can only be answered by external bodies. Then the airline would be relying on a third party, which is against your 'rule'. That means all airlines must have an intelligence organisation if you follow your rule.

You seem to be extremely confused between gathering information and assessing it versus risk assessment. You are outright attacking MH for not wanting to be in the business of intelligence gathering and assessment.

Not really. My point is this... instead of any airline solely relying on what an external body says, there may be times when they do their own additional assessment and decide not to fly. A third party may not be reliable... so 'if in doubt, don't'. You don't need an intelligence organisation for that.

Any airline could have looked at BA/AF and thought 'despite ICAO telling us this is safe, there are at least two airlines avoiding this airspace, we might do the same'. They didn't need an intelligence organisation to point that out, they needed something as simple as flightradar.

am I attacking MH for their comments that they want to focus on cabin comfort rather than which air corridors they fly through? Abosultely!

airlines focus every day on the air corridors they fly through in order to achieve the best fuel burn. if they can do it for fuel burn purposes, they can also have a think about the potential dangers that might be below them.

an airline's number one priority should be safety, not 'on board product'.

 

[medhead]

Not really. My point is this... instead of any airline solely relying on what an external body says, there may be times when they do their own additional assessment and decide not to fly. A third party may not be reliable... so 'if in doubt, don't'. You don't need an intelligence organisation for that.

Any airline could have looked at BA/AF and thought 'despite ICAO telling us this is safe, there are at least two airlines avoiding this airspace, we might do the same'. They didn't need an intelligence organisation to point that out, they needed something as simple as flightradar.

am I attacking MH for their comments that they want to focus on cabin comfort rather than which air corridors they fly through? Abosultely!

airlines focus every day on the air corridors they fly through in order to achieve the best fuel burn. if they can do it for fuel burn purposes, they can also have a think about the potential dangers that might be below them.

an airline's number one priority should be safety, not 'on board product'.

Again. What is the core business of an airline? It sure ain't intelligence gathering and assessment. Your attacking mh for wanting to focus on their core business and not go into another whole industry. Good one!

And how good do you reckon this occasional intel assessment will turn out? Do they retain in house expertise for the occasion assessment, do they contract it (danger third party) or do they just get the mail room boy to do the assessment? How good is the occasional assessment going to be without the airline having intel experts on the payroll?

Given that this could have happened to any one of 3 aircraft in the general area at the time or (what) 87 other aircraft in the area at other times; the question remains how is there anything specific about MH that caused this accident?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Again. What is the core business of an airline? It sure ain't intelligence gathering and assessment. Your attacking mh for wanting to focus on their core business and not go into another whole industry. Good one!

Safety is the core element of the airline business. If you have any doubts, safety should be the main concern, and 'if in doubt, don't'.

EK is having doubts about flying over ISIS controlled territory and is supposedly making arrangements to avoid the airspace.

EK has doubts, but ICAO says 'it's fine'. As an airline boss, which position do you choose? Which position do you think passengers would choose given the circumstances have now changed?

 

[opusman]

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.

Given that they completely failed to anticipate 9/11 I'm not sure the CIA is an excellent example of an intelligence organisation...

 

[NM]

Safety is the core element of the airline business. If you have any doubts, safety should be the main concern, and 'if in doubt, don't'.

EK is having doubts about flying over ISIS controlled territory and is supposedly making arrangements to avoid the airspace.

EK has doubts, but ICAO says 'it's fine'. As an airline boss, which position do you choose? Which position do you think passengers would choose given the circumstances have now changed?

So using this same theory, the fact that Australian carriers departing airports such as HKG* implement a secondary LAG search on all boarding passengers at the gate, which we are told is performed for safety and security purposes. So does that mean that any other airline operating out of HKG that has decided the HKG airport screening is "good enough" is being negligent by not implementing their own screening at the gate? Or because this particular secondary screening is an Australian Federal Government requirement, would the governments of other countries that have not imposed such secondary screening be deemed negligent if a breach occurred on a flight to their country?

In my example, the Australian Government has doubts, but HKG airport, HKG government and many other countries to which aircraft fly from HKG say its fine. As an airline boss, which position do you choose? Which position do you think passengers would choose given the current circumstances? Are all the airlines that do not have secondary screening at HKG being negligent?

[*Note: HKG is just being used as an example]

 

[burmans]

The way I'm reading it sounds like straw clutching to the degree it's slandering MH for the sake of not liking MH....

Well despite the claim that attacking MH is not excluding other airlines this all seems to be directed squarely at MH. If he was truly concerned about the decision making process we would have heard compaints about SQ and Luftnasas given they came to the same conclusion that it was OK to fly that corridor. But we have heard diddly squat which does support the indication its purely anti MH. And BA is trumpeted as a good guy despite the fact they continued to fly to TLV despite increibly strong warnings not to!

Seems very selective targetting to me, perhaps he still wants to fly SQ and BA.

 

[medhead]

Safety is the core element of the airline business. If you have any doubts, safety should be the main concern, and 'if in doubt, don't'.

EK is having doubts about flying over ISIS controlled territory and is supposedly making arrangements to avoid the airspace.

EK has doubts, but ICAO says 'it's fine'. As an airline boss, which position do you choose? Which position do you think passengers would choose given the circumstances have now changed?

Yep, safety based on risk assessment not intelligence gathering and assessment. Safety is about risk minimisation, not 'do nothing'. But then IIRC you advocate the approach that implies 0 speed limit should be adopted for roads.

I notice you haven't answered the question. What is it about MH that caused the accident, specifically?

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Are all the airlines that do not have secondary screening at HKG being negligent?

[*Note: HKG is just being used as an example]

That's a good question. Am I personally worried about the LAG rules in HKG? No. But I am worried about the potential for my aircraft to overfly war zones now that the potential risks are more apparent. So I'm taking the latter more seriously.

What I want to see from airlines is a commitment that they will be taking everything they can into account when determining which routes they will fly. Not a statement that they want to rely solely on what 'someone else' tells them.

 

[SeatBackForward]

That's a good question. Am I personally worried about the LAG rules in HKG? No. But I am worried about the potential for my aircraft to overfly war zones now that the potential risks are more apparent. So I'm taking the latter more seriously.

What I want to see from airlines is a commitment that they will be taking everything they can into account when determining which routes they will fly. Not a statement that they want to rely solely on what 'someone else' tells them.

That'd be an airline that never leaves the gate.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I notice you haven't answered the question. What is it about MH that caused the accident, specifically?

They chose a flight path which put them in danger. Did others do the same? Yes. Would others be asked the same question if it had been their aircraft instead of MH? Of course. Had every airline flown over the area in question, would that have changed some of the questioning? Probably yes.

What I am trying to understand is the methodology behind that choice of route. Why did some choose differently?

Given MH4 flew over another potential hot-spot, and subsequent comments by the commercial director that they don't want to have to focus on which routes are safe to fly, I wonder what their level of caution is? Will they err on the side or caution in future or not? How prepared are they to ask safety issues rather than focus on their in-flight product?

 

[medhead]

That's a good question. Am I personally worried about the LAG rules in HKG? No. But I am worried about the potential for my aircraft to overfly war zones now that the potential risks are more apparent. So I'm taking the latter more seriously.

What I want to see from airlines is a commitment that they will be taking everything they can into account when determining which routes they will fly. Not a statement that they want to rely solely on what 'someone else' tells them.

So you would ignore the documented attacks on airlines using liquid explosives?

You also do realise that a risk assessment can consider all information? If that information isn't provided by a third party then it has to be done in house. To satisfy your requirement to not rely on third parties; you want the airline to do intelligence gathering and assessment. You don't see any problems with doing that without expertise?

It is perfectly acceptable for an airline to focus on core business and leave threat assessment to appropriate qualified third parties.

Again I asked what specifically about MH caused the accident, not what could've been asked about an airline.

 

[SeatBackForward]

What happened to MH17 was shocking and tragic, however to say its a failure in risk assessment is a long bow. Risk Management is about Identification, Assessment, Management and Control. No doubt being show down may appear on the Identification step, but the assessment would place it such small odds, that it only ever appears in the long tails of the stats. Shooting down a commercial airline is almost a black swan event in terms of airline safety statistics. I'm far more interested in knowing that an airline manages their mechanical and crew based incidents, that are statistically more likely to occur. For an airline to start managing and controlling such risks - adequately - would place such a burden on their operations, not to mention the pass on costs to passengers, that it would not be commercially viable.

You are talking about an airline being aware of the movements of any military body, against each and every route they are flying around the clock, around the world. I would guess even the most sophisticated military intelligence isn't at that standard, let alone an airline.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

So you would ignore the documented attacks on airlines using liquid explosives?

You also do realise that a risk assessment can consider all information? If that information isn't provided by a third party then it has to be done in house. To satisfy your requirement to not rely on third parties; you want the airline to do intelligence gathering and assessment. You don't see any problems with doing that without expertise?

You can gather information from third parties, but you can also exercise your own judgement over and above that.

The emphasis in my posts has been any airline that wants to solely rely on a third party to provide safety input.

 

[medhead]

You can gather information from third parties, but you can also exercise your own judgement over and above that.

The emphasis in my posts has been any airline that wants to solely rely on a third party to provide safety input.

That's an complete contradiction. The airline does the risk assessment on the basis of third party information. In this case the third party information was wrong or out of date. If the airline isn't going to rely on the third party information then they need to start their own intelligence agency, which has to be pretty damn good to track the movements of all military units, assess the intent of those units and assess their competence at undertaking their task.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

That's an complete contradiction. The airline does the risk assessment on the basis of third party information. In this case the third party information was wrong or out of date. If the airline isn't going to rely on the third party information then they need to start their own intelligence agency, which has to be pretty damn good to track the movements of all military units, assess the intent of those units and assess their competence at undertaking their task.

it doesn't have to have an intelligence agency capable of answering issues of whether it is safe, it simply needs to have someone able to identify the risks, and if there is any doubt, cease flying the route until you are absolutely sure it is safe.

What did we have? We had closed airspace below 32,000 feet, we had closed airspace to the south, and as far as I understand we had closed airspace in front of the airliner over parts of Russia, and we had a war zone below. Ukraine 'said' its airspace was safe, but do we trust the Ukraine was in control of its airspace? doubtful if it had two planes shot down previously. We also had some other airlines avoiding the space entirely.

I'm not an airspace safety expert, but those things above would give me some reason to ask 'should I also be flying there, or should I stay away?'

Looking at ISIS controlled territory. Some countries may know categorically the insurgents there don't have SAMs. But if I'm from an airline of a country that doesn't know for certain, what should I do? Avoid it, or continue to fly over it? EK may have noconcrete proof one way or the other, but they are expressing concern and supposedly making changes.

 

[eastwest101]

... however to say its a failure in risk assessment is a long bow. Risk Management is about Identification, Assessment, Management and Control. No doubt being show down may appear on the Identification step, but the assessment would place it such small odds, that it only ever appears in the long tails of the stats.....

Its just my opinion, but in hindsight and assuming that MH17 was shot down by Pro-Russian militants fighting the Ukraine Government, some could argue that this could be viewed as a failure of risk assessment because the risk did change when the BUK system left the hands of properly trained military personnel (either Russian or Ukrainian forces) and went into the hands of less experienced combatants. It will be interesting to know who knew what and when about the change of ownership and use of the BUK systems but given that they had been used previously to destroy Ukrainian Air Force aircraft then some would argue that this event, and also the decision by some carriers such as BA or AF to avoid that airspace could be described as a subtle but still detectable change that would prompt any reassessment of risk.

...You are talking about an airline being aware of the movements of any military body, against each and every route they are flying around the clock, around the world. I would guess even the most sophisticated military intelligence isn't at that standard, let alone an airline.

I know what you are saying, its a very big expectation to keep track of all of these weapons in very isolated and dangerous remote locations. But its obviously worth attempting, and keeping an open mind about how to improve the process so that intelligence agencies can be confident about protecting their sources of information while still providing useful and timely information about changes in the level of risk. Its a tough issue and with conflicts and proliferation of weapons in Syria, Iraq, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Libya, Algeria, Yemen and a lot of the other "Stans" really only leave 3 viable corridoors of Iran+Turkey or Saudia Arabia+Egypt or wholly within Russia as sensible air routes between Asia and Europe, and even some of those need a close look (e.g. Egypt) as things can change very quickly in this part of the world.

Hopefully this will promote improved co-operation and info sharing between airlines in the future.

 

[defurax]

..because the risk did change when the BUK system left the hands of properly trained military personnel (either Russian or Ukrainian forces)...

As an aside though, recent history tells us that most civilian aircrafts have been shot down by highly trained military personnel (Korean Air incident, USS Vincennes and Ukrainian army). So the risk seems to be "people operating missiles". A little bit like the NRA in the US "guns don't kill people"..."people kill people"