Malaysia T7 down!!

[retox]

"I have a request for you,” Khodakovskyi supposedly told Andriy in the second phone call at 6.10pm (11.10pm Malaysian time).

"Our friends from high above are very much interested in the fate of the black boxes. I mean people from Moscow. There are two items – Khmuryi, Strelok’s head of intelligence, has one.

"Please, cooperate with the Ministry of Emergency. All that you find must not come into somebody else’s hands," Khodakovskyi says.

http://www.malaysiakini.com/news/269458

[retox]

Where you get your news and who it benefits does matter. As I said earlier, there is not 1 truth, just versions of it.

2 Versions of the same exact information. The first, from "The Australian" which presents the facts. The second from the "Daily Mail" in true link-bait fashion adding an adjective here or there to manipulate your emotions. And we get upset when Facebook manipulates us. Sheeple.

#1
"It would have cost Malaysia Airlines about $66 per passenger to divert around the Ukrainian airspace where it was shot down, sources have told The Australian. A former flight planner calculated that the diversion would have added up to 45 minutes to the journey, and with the direct operating cost of a Boeing 777-220ER estimated to run at up to $25,000 per hour, this would have added between $14,500 and $18,750 to the overall cost of the flight, or $66 per paying passenger."

#2
"Diverting the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 around hostile Ukrainian airspace would have cost the airline just $66 a passenger, calculations have revealed.The additional 45 minutes of flight time that would have been required to divert the flight - accounting for costs such as fuel, maintenance, and cabin crew - would have cost the airline between $15,500 and $18,750.That figure is based on direct operating costs running at up to $25,000 an hour for the 777-220ER aircraft."

The best has to be "revealed" as if to say they uncovered a great conspiracy.

It is no secret that Malaysian is hemorrhaging money. They are under intense pressure to get profitable so their majority owners (gov't) can dump their shares. They knowingly took a safety risk that did not pay off. $66 per pax in the airline world is life or death in more ways than one.

Http://m.theaustralian.com.au/in-dep...1226995377756#

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...passenger.html

[Haendli]

Definitly a Tourist map

If you see the other things on the picture its the typical things a tourist needs for orientation 1 ot 2 Tourist guide about the Area to visit etc. Greets Mike

[Gabriel]

I am pointing out the distinct difference between a gross military error committed in self-defense within a highly-charged, confusing moment of panic and an error comitted during a deliberate act of pure offense.

So let me summarize my point on both incidents:

1) Placing an AEGIS cruiser in the Straits of Hormuz in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war and then using it as a gunboat in Iranian waters is a recipe for civilian disaster. Fault falls upon those responsible for the presence of the ship at that point (the Captain and US Naval High Command).

2) Placing a Buk launcher into the hands of trigger-happy rebels currently targeting anything that flies above them and failing to provide crews trained to distinguish civilian targets is a recipe for civilian disaster. Fault falls upon those who provided the medium-range missiles to these simpletons (The Russians, apparently).

But my larger point is that there is a very different motivation between the two attacks. The Vincennes fire control crew (not their Captain) was on a DEFENSIVE mission to protect the ship and fired in preceived self-defense. The Ukranian separatists were trigger-happy morons on an AGGRESSIVE mission: destruction for destruction's sake.

Thise are very different kinds of human error.

Evan, I more or less agree with all these points.

I am quite sure that if instead the US Navy in foreign territorial waters it had been a private company in US soil doing something where highly trained professionals and experts in their fields, violating own procedures (the US had issued a NOTAM warning aircraft that they were at risk of "defensive measures" if they had not been cleared from a regional airport and if they came within 5 nautical miles of a warship at an altitude of less than 2,000 feet) and mistaking almost all cues that they had about the situation, generated an accident with hundreds of dead, someone would have been charged with involuntary murder or manslaughter with criminal negligence.

I agree about the difference, though: The Vincennes acting on what they thought was self-defense against what they amazingly and against many evidence against correctly displayed in the AEGIS system, thought was an Iranian F-14 attacking them. The rebels (if it was them as it seems), on the other hand, were attacking, "a deliberate act of pure offense on an AGGRESSIVE mission", as you say.

Now, "a deliberate act of pure offense on an AGGRESSIVE mission" is something licit in a war, as long as it is carried against a licit target. I don't agree with "trigger-happy morons targeting anything that flies above them on a mission of destruction for destruction's sake". The rebels are fighting a war for a cause (leaving at a side my opinion about the cause itself and my opinion that a war is, in most case, not a good way to advance a cause), and I'm sure (well, not as much a "sure") that they honestly thought they were firing at an Ukrainian military transport plane, which would have been a licit target, and that they would have not fired had they thought that it could be a civilian airliner.

Did they base their decision on weak evidence? They didn't have enough data to show that it was a military plane and not a civilian one? Did they act negligently, maybe criminally negligently? I think so. I think the same for the Vincennes (No, sorry, to "think" that you are under attack is not enough to escape from criminal negligence. Try to shoot your 38 against a shadow that you think is going to assault your home only to find that it was the newsboy and then tell me). So, acknowledging all the differences, this is the point of connection between the two events in my opinion.

And I especially agree with you on one thing: If a monkey kills a bunch of people after YOU gave it a sub-machine gun, loaded and unlocked, in a shopping mall on Christmas eve, then YOU have a major share of guilt on the killing and are 100% accountable. So if the Russians gave these SA system to the rebels, they are also to blame for sure. There are reports, though, that it might have been captured by the rebels from the Ukrainian. (not that I especially believe in those reports though).

Too many variables here and very little known yet.

[Evan]

Sorry, I didn't want to get into this. Let's make a deal: You stop minimizing and defending the US navy for their shooting down of Iranian Air and I stop acting like the Iranian lawyer, which you have no idea how far it is from what I want to do.

I'm not minimizing or defending anything. I'm trying to explain something. AS I SAID, full blame falls upon the US Captain for taking an AEGIS cruiser on a gunboat mission into international waters. HIs crew in the fire control room had no say on that decision. He didn't order his crew to shoot down air traffic however. That was the result of a gross example of confirmation bias by a highly-stressed crew trying to DEFEND themselves from an erroneously perceived threat (based largely on the USS Stark incident one year earlier). Yes, I am aware of all the evidence they had to the contrary, but as we have learned on this forum over the years, confirmation bias typically occurs under extreme pressure when reaction time is very short. This was certainly true in the Gulf of Hormuz on that day in 1988, especially when the crew knew that their Captain was provoking an attack.

You also need context: in 1987 the USS Stark was attacked by an Iraqi Mirage firing two exocet missiles. The US was not at war with Iraq either. US ships were posiitoned there to defend commercial shipping from gunboat and missile attacks by both Iraq and Iran (Iraq stated that the Stark was mistaken for a tanker). The US naval mission was to engage gunboats in international waters and to provide SA defense against threats from the air. Iran, now under the leadership of anti-US zealots and still in posession of pre-revolution F-14's, was seen as a clear and present threat to those ships. The exocets that struck the Stark were fired at 15 and 20 miles out, respectively. In that theatre this means there is virtually no time for hesitation if the target is considered hostile. They were not trigger-happy, they were trigger-nervous. THAT IS WHY IT IS A VERY DANGEROUS PLACE FOR AN AEGIS CRUISER TO BE STATIONED. But the Iraq-Iran war destabilized the region and both sides took to targeting non-military shipping in the gulf, and THAT is what started the chain of events.

But you are missing my point Gabriel. I am not trying to minimize the atrocity of the US action. I am pointing out the distinct difference between a gross military error committed in self-defense within a highly-charged, confusing moment of panic and an error comitted during a deliberate act of pure offense.

So let me summarize my point on both incidents:

1) Placing an AEGIS cruiser in the Straits of Hormuz in the middle of the Iran-Iraq war and then using it as a gunboat in Iranian waters is a recipe for civilian disaster. Fault falls upon those responsible for the presence of the ship at that point (the Captain and US Naval High Command).

2) Placing a Buk launcher into the hands of trigger-happy rebels currently targeting anything that flies above them and failing to provide crews trained to distinguish civilian targets is a recipe for civilian disaster. Fault falls upon those who provided the medium-range missiles to these simpletons (The Russians, apparently).

But my larger point is that there is a very different motivation between the two attacks. The Vincennes fire control crew (not their Captain) was on a DEFENSIVE mission to protect the ship and fired in preceived self-defense. The Ukranian separatists were trigger-happy morons on an AGGRESSIVE mission: destruction for destruction's sake.

Thise are very different kinds of human error.

-

[Gabriel]

People used LORAN C, before the GPS.

Hum, yes, a lot of PPLs used LORAN C before GPS. NOT!!!

[Gabriel]

People used LORAN C, before the GPS.

PPLs and LORAN C. Sure.
I can't say that NO PPL ever used a LORAN C, but....

[Gabriel]

People used LORAN C, before the GPS.

PPLs and LORAN C. Sure.
I can't say that NO PPL ever used a LORAN C, but....

[BoeingBobby]

People used LORAN C, before the GPS.

And doppler before LORAN, and low frequency range stations before that, sextants with star and sun shots etc. etc.

It has very little to do with the fact that the picture you posted is not an aeronautical chart of any kind at all.

[AVION1]

Or how did PPLs fly in the 80s or earlier before GPS was available and accessible?

People used LORAN C, before the GPS.

[Peter Kesternich]

I have never seen a "tourist map" indicating terrain elevation (brown color for mountains) and green

Just a tourist map, maybe for hiking cross-country or driving in country... nothing to it.

Oh, and by the way, AVION1, invest a couple of dollars and let Jeppesen send you the nav chart set for Asia. You'll be surprised what has happened in what you call the third world since you travelled there

[Highkeas]

I have never seen a "tourist map" indicating terrain elevation (brown color for mountains) and green

Quite common in Europe. Here is one I used to use for hiking and cycling when I lived in the UK some decades ago. http://maps.nls.uk/view/75202802

[BoeingBobby]

There are not too many navaids in the third world. You are lucky if you find a VOR station, most pilots fly with commercial radio stations (ADF).
I have flown in the amazon and the caribbean, GPS such a Garmin GNS430 is a must.

You really think I cross the Baltic area in a 747 using ADF stations? There are not that many left. But triple INS and triple GPS do the trick just fine.

That chart in the photo looks like it came out of an Atlas. You see the tour books next to it? It is in NO WAY an aeronautical chart of any kind.

[Gabriel]

There are not too many navaids in the third world. You are lucky if you find a VOR station, most pilots fly with commercial radio stations (ADF).
I have flown in the amazon and the caribbean, GPS such a Garmin GNS430 is a must.

I've made many VFR cross-country flights, some of them in excess of 250 NM, using that V in VFR as the main and only navaid (okay, together with "ded-reckoning too).
Or how did PPLs fly in the 80s or earlier before GPS was available and accessible?

But no, that doesn't look like an aeronautical visual chart even in a navaid deprived region. I see no blue rectangle with the label no only of a navaid, but also an airport (even a small one), a comm frequency, a restricted zone, an obstruction, or even a commercial AM radio many of which are depicted in the VFR charts.

But as 3WE said, the resolution is not very good so maybe there are some of those in the chart but they are not distinguishable in the photo.

[AVION1]

~300 people...

The odds that someone is a private pilot is...

And that they might have a map for grins, or planning to take a flight, or took a flight...

And let me side with BB- while the resolution is bad, I'm not seeing stuff that looks like navaids, airways nor airspace restrictions.

Or does the map have markings to where the other MH plane is?

There are not too many navaids in the third world. You are lucky if you find a VOR station, most pilots fly with commercial radio stations (ADF).
I have flown in the amazon and the caribbean, GPS such a Garmin GNS430 is a must.