Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[medhead]

I wonder would an active countermeasure system really work and could it be veritable that it would have averted MH17 if installed (even if the two pilots were ex-air force). You would certainly need to train pilots heavily in use of the system with the predisposition that at any time their aircraft may be a missile target. Also a civilian aircraft is not a fighter jet. I'm not sure how that works on LY aircraft or Air Force One.....

The system I've heard describe works independently of the pilots and hence shouldn't require specific training.

 

[anat0l]

They were not the prime target and it could have happened to any other civilian plane flying over that region. I'm not 100% sure those animals didn't want to shoot down a civilian plane but it doesn't matter that much. In my opinion this is a growing threat that should get more focus because it will happen again, it's just a matter of time.
Investing in extra security requires money and training, something most flag carriers can organise.

I applaud your positivity in that we should have these extra security measures in place...I also assume you're of the firm understanding that these do not come for free and require upkeep, hence the most practical (actually, probably just the easiest rather than most practical) model for instituting such modifications would be to pass on an extra cost to the passenger. (Should also add that with the exception of government owned airlines - and even then - apart from regulatory approval or compliance there would be no compunction on the part of governments to oversee the installation or funding of such measures).

I'm not saying the idea has no merit, but I know at least one person on this forum is not going to spend another dollar on air fares even in the name of security (no, I am not it). People - including the commercial sector - will start to find reasons to justify not installing such systems, particularly alluding to the risk assessment processes which will likely be more probablisitic than (pragmatically or not) risk adverse.

Let's also be clear now that this discussion is only more prevalent post facto MH17. This is not addressing or criticising a particular blatant/negligent failure of procedure previously (again, working on predominant current theory and information).

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I applaud your positivity in that we should have these extra security measures in place...I also assume you're of the firm understanding that these do not come for free and require upkeep, hence the most practical (actually, probably just the easiest rather than most practical) model for instituting such modifications would be to pass on an extra cost to the passenger. (Should also add that with the exception of government owned airlines - and even then - apart from regulatory approval or compliance there would be no compunction on the part of governments to oversee the installation or funding of such measures).

I'm not saying the idea has no merit, but I know at least one person on this forum is not going to spend another dollar on air fares even in the name of security (no, I am not it). People - including the commercial sector - will start to find reasons to justify not installing such systems, particularly alluding to the risk assessment processes which will likely be more probablisitic than (pragmatically or not) risk adverse.

Let's also be clear now that this discussion is only more prevalent post facto MH17. This is not addressing or criticising a particular blatant/negligent failure of procedure previously (again, working on predominant current theory and information).

several factors here maybe.

Commercial reasons may dictate the necessity for airlines to decide they want to compete on safety grounds. Airlines may either wish to fly around conflict zones, or install anti-missile systems. Those airlines that don't may find themselves going out of business (or they may not, depending on the public appetite).

Will air travel cost more? What's $100-200? Airfares regularly fluctuate by that much anyway. Would people notice? if security costs $200 per ticket, maybe people will stop flying QF/SQ/CX/BA to Europe, and fly CZ instead.

Maybe instead of taking one trip overseas every year, people will take one every two years.

Would you need to install missile defense systems for domestic Australian flights? I'd probably say 'no'... so people will still be able to get around within australia. Just flying overseas might be more expensive. I can appreciate there may be urgent circumstances when people might need to fly overseas (sick family member etc), but if their Disneyland holiday costs more and they don't want to spend that, they don't need to fly.

 

[drron]

Aren't there still a few rocket launchers missing from the Holdsworthy episode?

Any way it looks like the rebels were gearing up for a fight just before the shootdown.A report purporting to show Russian troops moving a lot of heavy weaponry up to the Ukrainian border mid july-
inforesist.org/rossijskie-soldaty-xvastayutsya-kakimi-ogromnymi-kolonnami-gradov-oni-edut-na-ukrainu/ - Translator

 

[boomy]

I applaud your positivity in that we should have these extra security measures in place...I also assume you're of the firm understanding that these do not come for free and require upkeep, hence the most practical (actually, probably just the easiest rather than most practical) model for instituting such modifications would be to pass on an extra cost to the passenger. (Should also add that with the exception of government owned airlines - and even then - apart from regulatory approval or compliance there would be no compunction on the part of governments to oversee the installation or funding of such measures).

I'm not saying the idea has no merit, but I know at least one person on this forum is not going to spend another dollar on air fares even in the name of security (no, I am not it). People - including the commercial sector - will start to find reasons to justify not installing such systems, particularly alluding to the risk assessment processes which will likely be more probablisitic than (pragmatically or not) risk adverse.

Airlines need to think about the heavy cost of one terrible incident compared to the cost of investing in technology that supposed to prevent it from happening.
The case of MH17 should serve as a warning sign to everyone in the aviation industry that something like that can happen to any airline at any time, no matter if they are directly involved in a conflict or not.
If the governments were willing to help their flagship carriers to finance those safety systems the cost of the ticket should not be much higher.
I'm a realistic person and I know it that probably nothing will change and we will end up talking about the same issue again in a few years when the next unfortunate incident will happen.

 

[burmans]

If you really want to know I was thinking about the latest decision by the experts at the FAA to recommend not flying to TLV, although local experts said it's safe and the national airline operated as usual. This decision was retracted soon after with absolutely no new information arriving in, making it a clearly wrong decision in the first place.

OR, it could have been a political decision by the Israeli's that they don't have a threat. The Israeli's have been known to deal in misinformation too, you know.

Personally I think it was probably an overreaction (perhaps caused by recent events!) but you cant really say there is NO risk, very low yes but not non-existant.

 

[boomy]

OR, it could have been a political decision by the Israeli's that they don't have a threat. The Israeli's have been known to deal in misinformation too, you know.

Funny you mention political decisions. I heard some members on the US congress implying the decision made by the FAA was due to pressure from the US government who wanted to pressure Israel to end the conflict.
For the record, I don't believe it's true and I also don't believe the Israeli government will put it's own citizens in risk (and the national airline reputation on the line) if there was a major threat to airlines flying in that area.

Personally I think it was probably an overreaction (perhaps caused by recent events!) but you cant really say there is NO risk, very low yes but not non-existant.

I didn't say there is NO risk. I said the decision made by the FAA was wrong, probably an overreaction as you said. Problem is overreaction is expected from ordinary people, not so called experts.
The risk must be extremely high to make such a decision, otherwise it's safe. There is not much middle ground there, either airlines are permitted to fly to a certain region or not.

 

[drron]

An insight into the man who according to the phone recordings(? genuine.) is the fellow responsible for downing MH17.

Ukraine rebel chief Igor Bezler: 'I won't hesitate to have you shot' | World | The Guardian

 

[straitman]

Personally I think it was probably an overreaction (perhaps caused by recent events!) but you cant really say there is NO risk, very low yes but not non-existant.

There is never no risk.

 

[straitman]

Would you need to install missile defense systems for domestic Australian flights? I'd probably say 'no'... so people will still be able to get around within australia. Just flying overseas might be more expensive. I can appreciate there may be urgent circumstances when people might need to fly overseas (sick family member etc), but if their Disneyland holiday costs more and they don't want to spend that, they don't need to fly.

Aren't there still a few rocket launchers missing from the Holdsworthy episode?

From where I'm sitting that is a fail in your risk assessment MEL_Traveller :!:

Is this significantly different to what MH has done :?: In my opinion no it is not and that is the essence of this discussion.

 

[medhead]

Airlines need to think about the heavy cost of one terrible incident compared to the cost of investing in technology that supposed to prevent it from happening.
The case of MH17 should serve as a warning sign to everyone in the aviation industry that something like that can happen to any airline at any time, no matter if they are directly involved in a conflict or not.
If the governments were willing to help their flagship carriers to finance those safety systems the cost of the ticket should not be much higher.
I'm a realistic person and I know it that probably nothing will change and we will end up talking about the same issue again in a few years when the next unfortunate incident will happen.

This still doesn't address the key question about capability of this defence system. The system I'm thinking about counters infrared guided missiles. The missile in this case is radar guided. Meaning installation would not have protected MH17 anyway.

The system is also listed on Wikipedia as costing $1 million. For a fleet with 40 aircraft like LY that's not so bad. But then MH have about 100 aircraft and QF/JQ 200 aircraft. Even I it was effective against the BUK missiles, I'm not sure $1mil is realistic when a couple of dollars per flight isn't spent on aircraft monitoring. I don't think the source of the money mitigates the cost factor.

NB Wikipedia is used as it's a public source of information. Potential deficiencies are acknowledged. Northrop Grumman Guardian for those interested.

 

[burmans]

There is never no risk.

Yes I'm aware of the that, that's partially why I noted it. There seem to be plenty here who do seem to think risk assessment is absolute though. I too do risk assessment as part of my day to day job and know that risk avoidance, while one strategy is almost never possible and all we can hope for is mitigation of risk to an "acceptable" level.

One of the hardest parts of determining an acceptable level is always getting through to people that there is alway some risk and some just find this concept really hard to grasp (plenty on this forum). Airlines can never be completely safe, if you want completely safe don't fly! But we do know that the level of airline deaths is actually incredibly low and many people regard that as "acceptable".

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yes I'm aware of the that, that's partially why I noted it. There seem to be plenty here who do seem to think risk assessment is absolute though. I too do risk assessment as part of my day to day job and know that risk avoidance, while one strategy is almost never possible and all we can hope for is mitigation of risk to an "acceptable" level.

One of the hardest parts of determining an acceptable level is always getting through to people that there is alway some risk and some just find this concept really hard to grasp (plenty on this forum). Airlines can never be completely safe, if you want completely safe don't fly! But we do know that the level of airline deaths is actually incredibly low and many people regard that as "acceptable".

I don't think absolute risk avoidance is necessary or even desirable. But I do advocate an 'if you don't know, don't take the risk' approach. Some airlines appear to want to have nothing to do with risk assessment other than 'someone else has told us so'. If an airline truly believes they should concentrate solely on their in flight service offering rather safety, I think that is going too far to the extreme of burying your head in the sand.

Qantas and some other airlines are perhaps fortunate to have access to security intelligence. If another airline doesn't, it doesn't mean you can just try and forget there is a potential problem.

 

[Alanslegal]

A footage of the procession of hearse vehicles. No matter how many times I have seen this, it still brings a tear to my eye and much sadness. It is almost two weeks on and the emotions still feel so raw.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CImFlhuSn40

 

[straitman]

I don't think absolute risk avoidance is necessary or even desirable. But I do advocate an 'if you don't know, don't take the risk' approach. Some airlines appear to want to have nothing to do with risk assessment other than 'someone else has told us so'. If an airline truly believes they should concentrate solely on their in flight service offering rather safety, I think that is going too far to the extreme of burying your head in the sand.

Qantas and some other airlines are perhaps fortunate to have access to security intelligence. If another airline doesn't, it doesn't mean you can just try and forget there is a potential problem.

All the answers you are looking for are already in this thread but you seemingly don't want to accept them.

Unfortunate one of the best ways to enhance safety is to have an accident or two as this actually highlights the issues so that corrective measures can be taken. In case you are wondering what the industry is doing going forward. : Task Force To Examine Airspace Safety In The Wake Of MH17 and Ukraine Shootdown May Spur Risk-Assessment Reform


Back in the days of my military flying we had some accidents though at a rate that was considered acceptable at the time and for the type of flying be done. With evolution of time and knowledge that accident rate has diminished to practically zero. The problem now is the new generation is questioning why the procedures are so stringent and even to the point of wanting to relax some procedures. Why? Because that's all they know.

Slightly OT but do you know how the accident statistics for 2014 stack up compared to previous years? You will probably be surprised to know that they do not stack up too badly. See: Is 2014 the deadliest year for flights? Not even close

 

[whatmeworry]

Allegations that the separatists have mined the crash site.

Donetsk: International observers were turned back on Wednesday after making another attempt to reach the site where Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 went down in eastern Ukraine, and a government official said the area near the zone had been mined by pro-Russian separatists who control it.

Read more: Ukraine official says pro-Russian separatists planted mines near MH17 crash site
​

 

[anat0l]

How long is it going to be until we get a full military intervention onto the site?

Of course, full military action may be seen as a further compromise to the integrity of the crash site.

 

[amaroo]

How long is it going to be until we get a full military intervention onto the site?

Of course, full military action may be seen as a further compromise to the integrity of the crash site.

The first foreign military on the scene will most likely be flying the Russian flag.....

 

[kelvedon]

How long is it going to be until we get a full military intervention onto the site?

Of course, full military action may be seen as a further compromise to the integrity of the crash site.

But which country should provide the military force? The might of the Ukranian Army has not been able to overcome the rebels, so what chance does a token force of Australian or Dutch troops have of securing the crash site without the acquiescence of the rebels.

And emotions aside, if the rebels resist, is it worth another life to secure the wreckage of the plane when we know the cause of the crash?. I don't think the Australian Government would pay such a political or human price.

 

[anat0l]

But which country should provide the military force? The might of the Ukranian Army has not been able to overcome the rebels, so what chance does a token force of Australian or Dutch troops have of securing the crash site without the acquiescence of the rebels.

And emotions aside, if the rebels resist, is it worth another life to secure the wreckage of the plane when we know the cause of the crash?. I don't think the Australian Government would pay such a political or human price.

If the posture of our leader is to believed, then he likely agrees with your final conclusion in principle and thus is going inter alia with Russia via political pressure to possibly supply that force without affecting Australians and without needing to feel any further regard or regret for loss of life.

Anyway, point is at the moment it seems like a rather indirect and fully diplomatic approach is the only method being embraced so far. I'm sure there must be a more forceful plan in reserve that we don't quite have an idea of yet; it must be that will be a more or less "last resort".

Of course, if the bounty was an oil reserve, the US would be onto it like white on rice, with AU in tow....