Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[moa999]

And same issues in Syria at present

 

[whatmeworry]

Putin with his theory about ISIS. Plus Putin is going to conscript 150 thousand into the Russian military.

Vladimir Putin signs decree drafting 150,000 conscripts into the Russian military | Daily Mail Online

[video=youtube;Ykb5sxTl1Rw]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ykb5sxTl1Rw[/video]

 

[Major]

The Dutch Safety Board will release their final report early tomorrow

Dutch Safety Board | Investigations & Publication | Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014

 

[Major]

Here is a copy of the final report from the Dutch Safety Board

http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/report-mh17-crash-en.pdf

 

[MEL_Traveller]

4.2.2 of the report details responsibilities for determining whether a flight path is safe.

The report says carriers cannot assume unrestricted airspace is safe to fly, and in the absence of any restrictions it is the ultimate responsibility of the carrier to determine whether or not it is safe.

In determining the risk airlines should draw on a variety of sources including open public sources, government resources, consultants, other carriers, and their own personnel.

 

[whatmeworry]

Presentation of the crash by the Dutch safety board.

[video=youtube;iGm00TdqirY]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iGm00TdqirY[/video]

 

[basso]

The report says carriers cannot assume unrestricted airspace is safe to fly, and in the absence of any restrictions it is the ultimate responsibility of the carrier to determine whether or not it is safe.

I knew you'd focus on that one. Good thing that appendix R gives a list of 61 airlines that were overflying that area. I assume that all of those airlines are also on your no fly list for not having adequate risk management. http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendices-au-mh17-crash-en.pdf

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I knew you'd focus on that one. Good thing that appendix R gives a list of 61 airlines that were overflying that area. I assume that all of those airlines are also on your no fly list for not having adequate risk management. http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documents/appendices-au-mh17-crash-en.pdf

Even after the incident, MH was saying that it should have no personal responsibility for determining the flight paths over which it flies. It maintained (and possibly still does), that the responsibility lies with international authorities to determine safe flight paths.

I don't know whether the other 61 airlines adopt the same position, or whether they have now started to do their own risk analysis as outlined in the investigation report. MH however has previously shown no signs of accepting any responsibility going forward.

Unfortunately, MH was the unlucky one. The issue of negligence is relevant to the amount of compensation victims can recover under the Montreal Convention. While the report doesn't outline blame, the findings that the airline didn't turn their attention to the issue of flight path safety could possibly make it hard for MH to escape the higher limits of Montreal.

 

[basso]

I don't know whether the other 61 airlines adopt the same position, or whether they have now started to do their own risk analysis as outlined in the investigation report. MH however has previously shown no signs of accepting any responsibility going forward.

We don;t knwo what MH position is given it is under new ownership. But given that 61 airlines all came to the same conclusion, would suggest there is something bigger. Putting aside the compensation issue, you have made it clear that you don't hink MH is a safe airline to fly on. I would suggest that for consisitency purposes you also put the likes of Singapore Airlines on your no fly list, as they made the same decsison. Anything else would be hypocritical.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

We don;t knwo what MH position is given it is under new ownership. But given that 61 airlines all came to the same conclusion, would suggest there is something bigger. Putting aside the compensation issue, you have made it clear that you don't hink MH is a safe airline to fly on. I would suggest that for consisitency purposes you also put the likes of Singapore Airlines on your no fly list, as they made the same decsison. Anything else would be hypocritical.

I take your point, but it's missing the issue.

The aftermath of the event is what I'm judging. MH's consistent attempts to indicate they should not be responsible for such issues. They didn't come out and say they didn't do a risk assessment but will be taking such steps going forward, instead they said they should be able to focus on on-board comfort, not flight path safety.

This is in direct contravention of the findings of the investigation which says ultimately airlines have the final say: the final risk assessment. yes there is a lot of scope for government agencies, intelligence services and airlines to cooperate. But ultimately, the individual airline needs to conduct risk assessment. If events are in mainstream news services, I assume the airline knows.

The huge glaring problem is the 61 airlines and MH didn't come to the conclusion it was safe to fly... they didn't even turn their mind to whether it wasn't.

I trust SQ, the Singapore Government, and Singapore intelligence agencies that they won't be allowing one of their aircraft to fly without doing a risk assessment.

All I have heard from MH is excuses. The new CEO has not sent Enrich members an email overruling the former Commercial Director's position.

 

[whatmeworry]

AJ just said at the Press club, QF security deemed it would not have gone over Ukraine.

 

[defurax]

The new CEO has not sent Enrich members an email overruling the former Commercial Director's position.

In his defence, anything he says about the previous management might be enough for a defamation trial in Malaysia.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

AJ just said at the Press club, QF security deemed it would not have gone over Ukraine.

Which is interesting. If this was the case, why not share it with oneworld partners? (There was no requirement for them to do so, but why not do it anyway?)

The accident report seemed to highlight quite a disjointed intelligence network, both in terms of gathering and sharing between all parties.

Unfortunately the report doesn't seem to be available on line right now (technical issues i guess?) but IIRC there was an interesting recommendation... that ICAO work with airlines to set up information sharing with passengers about the safety of specific flight routes. From my reading this would enable passengers to assess the level of risk, rather than going into it blind. I'll have to recheck that once the report is back up.

 

[basso]

I trust SQ, the Singapore Government, and Singapore intelligence agencies that they won't be allowing one of their aircraft to fly without doing a risk assessment.

How on earth can you trust Singapore Airlines. They were overflying the area (they were one of the 61 airlines flying over the area), and were about 10 minutes behind the Malaysian Airlines plane. On that basis, they did not make an appropriate risk assessment, so how can you trust them?

 

[dajop]

How on earth can you trust Singapore Airlines. They were overflying the area (they were one of the 61 airlines flying over the area), and were about 10 minutes behind the Malaysian Airlines plane. On that basis, they did not make an appropriate risk assessment, so how can you trust them?

Some of the other major airlines on that list of 61 included:

14-17 July (within 3 days of incident): A3, SU, AF, AI, OS, OK, DL, LH, EK, EY, BR, 9W, KL, QR, SQ, LX, TG, UA, VN & VS
and on the day of incident: SU, AI, OS, LH, EK, EY, BR, VN, 9W, KL, QR, SQ, LX, TG, VS

To use the analogy of MH being caught speeding, where others get away with it 0 ye MH were the ones that were caught speeding, but a lot of others didn't see the speed limit sign either, and were lucky they didn't get caught. The essence of the report was that airlines are ultimately responsible for looking for and adhering to the speed limit, but there were also suggestions things could be done to by other parties to make the speed limit sign easier to see.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

How on earth can you trust Singapore Airlines. They were overflying the area (they were one of the 61 airlines flying over the area), and were about 10 minutes behind the Malaysian Airlines plane. On that basis, they did not make an appropriate risk assessment, so how can you trust them?

I'm talking present tense re SQ/SIN govt.

Do I get the same level of confidence from MH?

Given:

• the aftermath and handling of MH17 (refusal to accept any responsibility on flight path)
• that the malaysian aurthorities refused to fully cooperate with Dutch investigators (stated in the report)
• the aftermath and handling of MH370

it's not a picture of an organisation/country responding to its responsibilities.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

The website for the report is now back up and working.

The report recommends airlines publish information regarding routes through conflict zones on (at least) an annual basis, allowing passengers to make informed decisions about the carriers they wish to fly.

The report pretty much supports my position over the last year on key points. Namely:

• that airlines are ultimately responsible
• if you have a civil war, you cannot trust the state in question that their airspace is safe (they don't control all the airspace)
• that airlines should conduct their own risk assessment (I know there was a lot of discussion on AFF countering that position - particularly that airlines can't be expected to have their own risk assessment departments)
• that airlines should outline the steps they are taking with regard conflict zones (although I mentioned that specifically in relation to MH's handling and rebuilding confidence)

The one area of argument the report did not support was the changing of flight path by a number of airlines before July. From the flight maps widely published at the time, it looked like four or five airlines were avoiding the area (which I argued may have given MH cause to question their flight path). This was not supported by the report which found only one airline had changed its flight paths, some three months earlier, to avoid the region.

None of the above is excusing the shooting down of a commercial airliner. But can the chances of it happening again be reduced? That is perhaps going to be the legacy of MH17 if the report's recommendations are accepted by the aviation industry.

 

[medhead]

Yep, again with the MH (and all other airlines) must run their own intelligence agency to not be negligent line. There is all this talk about not overflying conflict zones. But that ignores the most important point, capability is required as well as conflict. There are limited surface to air weapons systems that are capable of hitting targets at cruise altitude. The Russian system, and no doubt a USA system, China, and possibly France, Germany, UK. Australia? Israel? South Africa?

So in assessing if there is a risk to overfly a given conflict zone MH needs to determine is system capable of hitting an aircraft at cruise height is present in that conflict zone. What do they just ring up the CIA "You guys got any MIM-14 Nike Hercules systems over in XYZ?" Then ring the Russians "You guys got any BUKs in XYZ?"

Yep, airlines should definitely be running intelligence operations.

Even after the incident, MH was saying that it should have no personal responsibility for determining the flight paths over which it flies. It maintained (and possibly still does), that the responsibility lies with international authorities to determine safe flight paths.

I don't know whether the other 61 airlines adopt the same position, or whether they have now started to do their own risk analysis as outlined in the investigation report. MH however has previously shown no signs of accepting any responsibility going forward.

Unfortunately, MH was the unlucky one. The issue of negligence is relevant to the amount of compensation victims can recover under the Montreal Convention. While the report doesn't outline blame, the findings that the airline didn't turn their attention to the issue of flight path safety could possibly make it hard for MH to escape the higher limits of Montreal.

The report pretty much supports my position over the last year on key points. Namely:

• that airlines are ultimately responsible
• if you have a civil war, you cannot trust the state in question that their airspace is safe (they don't control all the airspace)
• that airlines should conduct their own risk assessment (I know there was a lot of discussion on AFF countering that position - particularly that airlines can't be expected to have their own risk assessment departments)
• that airlines should outline the steps they are taking with regard conflict zones (although I mentioned that specifically in relation to MH's handling and rebuilding confidence)

The bolded point is pretty much rubbish. If there are no systems with the capability on the ground then it can be trusted as safe. 100 dudes throwing rocks at each other does not mean they can throw rocks 46 km straight up. To suggest a conflict zone is the only criterion ignores the risk assessment process.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Yep, again with the MH (and all other airlines) must run their own intelligence agency to not be negligent line. There is all this talk about not overflying conflict zones. But that ignores the most important point, capability is required as well as conflict. There are limited surface to air weapons systems that are capable of hitting targets at cruise altitude. The Russian system, and no doubt a USA system, China, and possibly France, Germany, UK. Australia? Israel? South Africa?

So in assessing if there is a risk to overfly a given conflict zone MH needs to determine is system capable of hitting an aircraft at cruise height is present in that conflict zone. What do they just ring up the CIA "You guys got any MIM-14 Nike Hercules systems over in XYZ?" Then ring the Russians "You guys got any BUKs in XYZ?"

Yep, airlines should definitely be running intelligence operations.

That is exactly what the report says.

It outlines a number of avenues and sources for airlines to base their decisions, including openly available public (ie media) sources.

The bottom line however is that if you can't confirm it is safe, or if there is doubt - don't fly. It's a simple as that. If your airline is unable to conduct a risk assessment, the result should be that you fly a different path - don't risk heading into a danger you can't ascertain.

 

[RAM]

The website for the report is now back up and working.

The report recommends airlines publish information regarding routes through conflict zones on (at least) an annual basis, allowing passengers to make informed decisions about the carriers they wish to fly.

The report pretty much supports my position over the last year on key points. Namely:

• that airlines are ultimately responsible
• if you have a civil war, you cannot trust the state in question that their airspace is safe (they don't control all the airspace)
• that airlines should conduct their own risk assessment (I know there was a lot of discussion on AFF countering that position - particularly that airlines can't be expected to have their own risk assessment departments)
• that airlines should outline the steps they are taking with regard conflict zones (although I mentioned that specifically in relation to MH's handling and rebuilding confidence)

The one area of argument the report did not support was the changing of flight path by a number of airlines before July. From the flight maps widely published at the time, it looked like four or five airlines were avoiding the area (which I argued may have given MH cause to question their flight path). This was not supported by the report which found only one airline had changed its flight paths, some three months earlier, to avoid the region.

None of the above is excusing the shooting down of a commercial airliner. But can the chances of it happening again be reduced? That is perhaps going to be the legacy of MH17 if the report's recommendations are accepted by the aviation industry.

It is easy to be wise after the event.

Saying that all airlines should prepare for the possibility that the world's (reportedly) most sophisticated anti-aircraft missile system will be used against a civilian aircraft flying on an established air route - is fine after the event.

Operating that system is something I suspect that nobody belonging to AFF could do. It requires over 150 hours of training according to the Jane Defence reports. It also requires a team of operators not just one person.

It will be interesting to see how the criminal investigation proceeds.

QUESTION: How many civilian airliners have been brought down by a missile when the plane was flying at an altitude of 30,000 feet or more?