Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes in Ukraine

[eastwest101]

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?

Or maybe perhaps the more relevant question would be - How many civilian airlines have been brought down by a ground based missile system (excluding ship and submarine based platforms and also excluding air launched missiles from fighter jets) when flying at an altitude of 30,00 feet or more?

 

[clazman]

Haven't there been 2 others, the Americans in the gulf and Russians around Korea

 

[clazman]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 - oops sorry shot down by a fighter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 - American navy

Looks like a few more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents

 

[basso]

Do I get the same level of confidence from MH?

I guess if you accept the reasons that Singapore Airlines gave for its aircraft being in the exact same area. Oh wait. None of those other 60 airlines had to give any reasons, so we can just stick our head in the sands and say their risk management was fine. If you look at the cold hard facts, people should stop flying all of those 60 airlines until they give their reasons for flying over that area that is acceptable to you.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

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.

That's what the report said in relation to the Ukraine/rebel territory.

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I guess if you accept the reasons that Singapore Airlines gave for its aircraft being in the exact same area. Oh wait. None of those other 60 airlines had to give any reasons, so we can just stick our head in the sands and say their risk management was fine. If you look at the cold hard facts, people should stop flying all of those 60 airlines until they give their reasons for flying over that area that is acceptable to you.

No one has said the 61 airlines had sufficient or adequate risk analysis.

However, they don't have a case to answer, because no harm was done.

One of the report's recommendations is that airlines should publish, explain, and be held accountable for their risk assessment and management in relation to conflict zones. If that ever happens, that will allow passengers to determine if the reasons are acceptable.

 

[dajop]

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)

Yet you are selectively quoting the recommendations to support your long held hypothesis. Whilst no doubt, I think we all agree, with you and ineed the DSB agree that it is the ultimate responsibility of the operator to ensure route safety, these are not the only conclusions or recommendations in the report. Major tragedies like this can never be just blamed on one thing, and one thing alone, it takes (to use the well worn cliche) all the holes in the swiss cheese to line up.

The "Recommendations" section (section 11) of the report makes recommendations for states, aviation organisations and operators alike. It includes recommendations for improving airspace management over conflict zones, risk assessment and operator accountability. It suggests better information sharing mechanisms, urges airlines to undertake better risk assessment and be better informed.

 

[Himeno]

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

That is not interesting at all. QF ceased flying over that area when the LHR route was changed from SIN to DXB. They flew over Crimea until Russia annexed it and US and ICAO officials both issued alerts to avoid the Crimea FIR as both Ukraine and Russia were issuing conflicting ATC orders.

QF sercuity saying they didn't/wouldn't go over Ukraine after the shoot down is a completely mute point. They didn't and hadn't flown in the area for many months - since before the civil war had even started.

As it is, QF1 was spotting over flying Syria a short time after MH17. It was only the public comments of the FR24 screenshots shown in the media that caused QF to reroute through Iran.

 

[medhead]

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.

Oh right, so the CIA puts a list of locations for all their nuclear warships in the media? A list of all their high altitude SAMs in the notices section of the New York Times?

the report might say that but it is unrealistic to suggest that public information, the media, can remove doubt.

If we take your last sentence about being able to confirm it's safe, the USS Vincennes incident says it is impossible to confirm any given flight path is safe. Therefore all over ocean flights need to be shut down. :?:

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Oh right, so the CIA puts a list of locations for all their nuclear warships in the media? A list of all their high altitude SAMs in the notices section of the New York Times?

the report might say that but it is unrealistic to suggest that public information, the media, can remove doubt.

If we take your last sentence about being able to confirm it's safe, the USS Vincennes incident says it is impossible to confirm any given flight path is safe. Therefore all over ocean flights need to be shut down. :?:

The idea of media scanning is not to remove doubt, it is to create doubt, which then prompts risk assessment.

passengers have a right not to be put in harm's way by airlines. In this respect, airlines are no different to any other person or entity that owes someone else a duty of care. Why would an airline have any less standard applied to it that you or I would to each other?

There may be cases where something is completely unforeseen. Those things happen. But in this case, at least MH, and possibly some or all of the other 61 airlines and government agencies didn't even consider the risk. They didn't identify it and make an assessment... they didn't even turn their mind to it.

Was as there enough evidence to prompt airlines and government agencies to consider the risk? The report says 'yes' there was. This was not some covert secret intelligence... this was 'intelligence' readily available by switching on CNN.

A hidden submarine would not fall into the above category.

Once airlines had had turned their mind to the risk, including that military jets were shot down at high altitude (meaning weapons more powerful than shoulder launched missiles were in use), the airline may have realised its planes might not be safe, or at least if they couldn't ascertain the level of safety, that an alternative flight path would be preferable.

 

[RAM]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 - oops sorry shot down by a fighter

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 - American navy

Looks like a few more

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents

The list of airliner shoot down incidents is mostly planes shot down by armed military aircraft on purpose. Then there a a handful of ones shot down by shoulder launched (low-altitude) missiles.

There is one high-altitude capable SAM incident (the US Navy shooting down the Iranian Commercial flight) previously however that actually happened as the plane was early on its ascent.

UNTIL MH17 there has never been a SAM attack on a commercial airliner transiting a war zone at high altitude.

Not one!

Curiously enough, apart from the tragic Iranian shoot-down, every shoot down by a missile has been with Russian made missiles. The Strela-2 being the most common.

SA-7 GRAIL (9K32M Strela-2)

The SA-7 GRAIL (Strela-2) man-portable, shoulder-fired, low-altitude SAM system is similar to the US Army REDEYE, with a high explosive warhead and passive infrared homing guidance. The SA-7 was the first generation of Soviet man portable surface-to-air missiles. Although classed as "fire and forget" types, the missiles were easily overcome by solar heat and, when used in hilly terrain, by heat from the ground.

Max range 3,700m (Note range not height)


The Americans have always been paranoid about their SAMs being used against them. See Charlie Wilson's War if you want to see just how paranoid - basically a true story.

"In the early 1980s, Charlie Wilson is a womanizing US congressional representative from Texas who seemed to be in the minor leagues, except for the fact that he is a member of two major foreign policy and covert-ops committees. However, prodded by his major conservative supporter, Houston Socialite Joanne Herring, Wilson learns about the plight the people are suffering in the brutal Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. With the help of the maverick CIA agent, Gustav "Gust" Avrakotos, Wilson dedicates his canny political efforts to supply the Afghan mujahideen with the weapons and support to defeat the Soviet Union. However, Charlie Wilson eventually learns that while military victory can be had, there are other consequences and prices to that fight that are ignored to everyone's sorrow."

Last 3 minutes of the movie (2007) are very prescient unfortunately.

 

[drron]

No one has said the 61 airlines had sufficient or adequate risk analysis.

However, they don't have a case to answer, because no harm was done.

One of the report's recommendations is that airlines should publish, explain, and be held accountable for their risk assessment and management in relation to conflict zones. If that ever happens, that will allow passengers to determine if the reasons are acceptable.

Well I guess now CX will be your airline of choice.
Cathay Pacific suspends flights over Iran after warning of missiles fired at Syria - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

So QF and SQ have determined no risk overflying Iran but CX thinks there is.

 

[dajop]

Well I guess now CX will be your airline of choice.
Cathay Pacific suspends flights over Iran after warning of missiles fired at Syria - ABC News (Australian Broadcasting Corporation)

So QF and SQ have determined no risk overflying Iran but CX thinks there is.

Interestingly MH have been using Iran route for months now .... basically avoiding Pakistan and Afghanistan, only overflying India, Iran and Turkey before reaching EU airspace. However since last Friday they have been avoiding the area, with flights taking a more southerly path over Oman, UAE, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Israel.

 

[RooFlyer]

I was happy (in relative terms) with the route my flydubai plane took from DXB to TBS . The longer way round, but not playing dodgems (yeah, I know the cruises are much lower ... but they are passive heat seekers!)

 

[woodborer]

Was as there enough evidence to prompt airlines and government agencies to consider the risk? The report says 'yes' there was. This was not some covert secret intelligence... this was 'intelligence' readily available by switching on CNN.

Good thing you have that list of 61 airlines that don't do adequate risk assessment!

 

[MEL_Traveller]

Good thing you have that list of 61 airlines that don't do adequate risk assessment!

I think this is confusing past and present tenses. The 61 airlines at the time didn't undertake an adequate risk assessment. That is not an indication that they are currently in the same position. What we don't know is whether MH has changed the position it maintained after the downing of MH17, which was that it should have no responsibility in making risk assessments over which paths are safe, and which aren't.

Of concern in the abc news article linked by drron (above) is that SQ is saying it only uses routes 'cleared by authorities'. Is that 'ICAO/EuroControl' or 'Singaporean intelligence' authorities? If the former, it clearly ignores the findings of the Dutch report into MH17.

A class action is being mounted in Australia against MH's flight path: MH17 news and report 2015: Aussie families in class action with Shine Lawyers

I think passengers have a right to know the policy of individual airlines with respect to flights over [potential] conflict zones. Ultimately that might mean tickets are refundable/changeable in the event a passenger is not satisfied.

 

[UP4014]

I think this is confusing past and present tenses. The 61 airlines at the time didn't undertake an adequate risk assessment. That is not an indication that they are currently in the same position. What we don't know is whether MH has changed the position it maintained after the downing of MH17, which was that it should have no responsibility in making risk assessments over which paths are safe, and which aren't.

Of concern in the abc news article linked by drron (above) is that SQ is saying it only uses routes 'cleared by authorities'. Is that 'ICAO/EuroControl' or 'Singaporean intelligence' authorities? If the former, it clearly ignores the findings of the Dutch report into MH17.

A class action is being mounted in Australia against MH's flight path: MH17 news and report 2015: Aussie families in class action with Shine Lawyers

I think passengers have a right to know the policy of individual airlines with respect to flights over [potential] conflict zones. Ultimately that might mean tickets are refundable/changeable in the event a passenger is not satisfied.

Agree with that, passengers/customers should have the right to know regarding risk assessments so they can make informed choices themselves.

In rail, any of our customers can come and audit us, our systems and our risk assessments which is mandated in the Rail Safety Act. As an extra, a railway operator is prohibited (the word used in the Act) from shifting risk from say an operator to a maintainer or network manager if third party contract work is carried out. So in effect, if our gear it's our responsibility, no exceptions.

Either rail is over regulated or the airline business could do with some more clarity about accepting blame. An airline should not simply accept the word of "authorities" on what is ok or not but should do it's own assessment to satisfy it's Board that risk is managed so far as reasonably practical - SFARP is the term used.

Matt

 

[MEL_Traveller]

I have to admit the current Qantas position gives cause for some concern.

I accept reporting can be abbreviated/out of context, but the Qantas CEO still apparently said (regarding current flying over Iran):

"The Europeans said that those issues were there, but didn't make any recommendations or changes to what airlines do," Mr Joyce said.

This by itself is in direct conflict with the recommendations/findings of the Dutch investigation which says airlines cannot simply assume a flight path is safe just because no authority has closed it.

On one hand the comments were made by the CEO on Wednesday - perhaps without the benefit of reading the report findings. And it may be that this is just one data input QF uses. If I had a flight on QF (or SQ for that matter) I'd be monitoring the issue.

 

[jb747]

Iran is one of the better places to be flying over.

 

[defurax]

Iran is one of the better places to be flying over.

You previously mentioned an alternative route via Saudi Arabia. Would that route go over Jordan and Israel or Egypt?