Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia T7 down!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Jpmkam
    replied
    More accusations.

    Kiev, Ukraine (CNN) -- Did a Russian fire the missile that downed Malaysia Airlines Flight 17? That depends on who you ask.
    A top Ukrainian official says he has no doubt.

    Vitaly Nayda, Ukraine's director of informational security, told CNN the person who shot down the flight was "absolutely" a Russian. "A Russian-trained, well-equipped, well-educated officer ... pushed that button deliberately," he said.

    "We taped conversations" between a Russian officer and his office in Moscow, Nayda said. "We know for sure that several minutes before the missile was launched, there was a report" to a Russian officer that the plane was coming, he said.

    "They knew the plane was coming with constant speed, in constant direction," and should have known it was not a fighter jet but "a big civilian plane," he said.

    Who leads the pro-Russian rebels?

    U.S. officials say pro-Russian rebels were responsible for shooting down Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, but they now believe it's likely the rebels didn't know the plane was a commercial airliner when they opened fire, U.S. intelligence officials said Tuesday.

    The officials have determined that Russia bears some responsibility for the incident because of its support for the rebels, but they haven't been able to determine exactly who fired the missile, whether Russian military were at the site or whether the Russians were directly responsible for launching the missile.

    Moscow has denied claims that it pulled the trigger. And Russian Army Lt. Gen. Andrei Kartapolov suggested a Ukrainian jet fighter may have shot the plane down.

    Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko rejected that in an exclusive interview with CNN, saying that all Ukrainian aircraft were on the ground at the time.

    Vitaly Churkin, Russia's ambassador to the United Nations, was asked Monday about different intercepted recordings, purportedly of pro-Russian rebels talking about shooting down a plane. Churkin suggested that if they did, it was an accident.

    "According to them, the people from the east were saying that they shot down a military jet," he said. "If they think they shot down a military jet, it was confusion. If it was confusion, it was not an act of terrorism."

    Pro-Russian rebels have repeatedly denied responsibility for the attack.
    Source: CNN

    Leave a comment:


  • Jpmkam
    replied
    Originally posted by retox View Post


    More on the "they could not ident the target" as if we needed it.
    Which apparently contributed to the shootdown without the other radar detection vehicles being the complete BUK system.

    Leave a comment:


  • retox
    replied
    More evidence Ukraine knew exactly what they had before:

    "Intercepted*conversations*among rebels and suspected Russian intelligence officers*discuss receiving the Buk system."Now we have (radar-guided surface-to-air) BUK (missile system), will shall bring them (planes) down," a separatist and alleged Russian intelligence officer*told*a separatist leader on July 14."



    Leave a comment:


  • retox
    replied


    More on the "they could not ident the target" as if we needed it.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    Betcha I know who that last comment is aimed at ?

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by elaw View Post
    ...Here's an interesting piece on cnn.com by Les Abend...
    Please be careful about bringing up obscure aviation journalists from obscure aviation magazines here.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by elaw View Post
    Here's a article that will provide some insight into how one such case worked out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_Romeo_Zulu
    Well, that captain not only refused and order (decision made more than by sheer judgement but according to regulations and own company procedures that the airline approved to keep their certificate but then encouraged to disobey), but also wrote a certified letter to the management saying that id the airline continued operating like that an accident in the short term was not only possible but unavoidable, then this letter got leaked to the mainstream media (although he never admitted being the one who leaked it).

    Shortly after that, the airline did suffer a fatal accident where poor cockpit discipline, unprofessional behavior and disregard for procedures and safety where the substantial cause, with the background of a poor (to say the least) company safety culture. So this captain knew what he was doing when he refused to follow orders and knew what he was talking about when he wrote said letter.

    Edit:
    I strongly recommend this movie to everybody, and it's a must see for aviation enthusiast and even more for aviation safety enthusiasts.
    It is a very good movie in itself, it has the best commercial aviation shots of all movies (with the actors that play the pilots' characters are in an actual cockpit of an actual commercial jet actually flying), it's quite accurate aviation-wise (although simplified to be understandable for the general public), and it's written, directed, produced and starred by the real pilot that refused to follow the orders and wrote that letters, who plays himself in the movie telling the real events that preceded the real LAPA accident, especially focusing in company safety culture (or lack of) and connivance by the regulation authorities (at that time the Argentine Air Force).

    Leave a comment:


  • retox
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    I'm sorry, I'm just so tired of these 'won't happen again' solutions to accidents that have could have been prevented with the imagination of a snail.
    Alas, we find common ground.

    Leave a comment:


  • elaw
    replied
    Originally posted by EconomyClass View Post
    I have this nagging feeling that people on this board have said airline captains don't have to do ANYTHING the consider unsafe. Is that an exaggeration? I mean, if I thought something was unsafe, refused, and got fired, I'd figure some company somewhere would value my professional concern not only for the company's bottom line but for the lives of the passengers I might have saved. Is that too rosey a picture of commercial aviation, that a captain could refuse an order and keep working?
    Here's a article that will provide some insight into how one such case worked out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whisky_Romeo_Zulu

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    This being an airport, where planes typically rejoin the surface, I would expect them to have proactively closed that airport and not waited until a rocket actually landed nearby. Also, these ARE missiles, regardless of where they are designed to strike, they are traffic...

    I'm sorry, I'm just so tired of these 'won't happen again' solutions to accidents that have could have been prevented with the imagination of a snail.
    For what it's worth, the airport itself is still not closed.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by ATLcrew View Post
    Perhaps because Hamas isn't known to have surface-to-air missiles, only surface-to-surface. It appears DL et al are concerned about aircraft being hit on the ground now that TLV appears to be withing range of those missiles.
    This being an airport, where planes typically rejoin the surface, I would expect them to have proactively closed that airport and not waited until a rocket actually landed nearby. Also, these ARE missiles, regardless of where they are designed to strike, they are traffic...

    I'm sorry, I'm just so tired of these 'won't happen again' solutions to accidents that have could have been prevented with the imagination of a snail.

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan View Post
    Am I the only one that sees the problem here?

    Whatever happened to foresight?
    Perhaps because Hamas isn't known to have surface-to-air missiles, only surface-to-surface. It appears DL et al are concerned about aircraft being hit on the ground now that TLV appears to be within range of those missiles.

    Leave a comment:


  • ATLcrew
    replied
    Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
    I am disappointed with Les Abend's article.
    First, the thing about "800 other airplanes were not targeted". Shit, 3WE was right. In my previous 800 take-offs no engine failed before V1, so why would we brief a rejected take-off?
    Capt Abend has a fairly lengthy history of expressing opinions that may be characterized as..."interesting", to say the very least.

    Leave a comment:


  • Jpmkam
    replied
    No evidence of direct Russian involvement say US intelligence offcials:

    WASHINGTON (AP) Senior U.S. intelligence officials say they have no evidence of direct Russian government involvement in the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17.

    They say the passenger jet was likely felled by an SA-11 surface-to-air missile fired by Russian-backed separatists in eastern Ukraine and that Russia "created the conditions" for the downing by arming the separatists.

    The officials briefed reporters Tuesday under ground rules that their names not be used in discussing intelligence related to last week's air disaster, which killed 298 people.

    They said they did not know if any Russians were present at the missile launch, and they wouldn't say that the missile crew was trained in Russia.

    A senior official said the most likely explanation was the plane was shot down by mistake.

    Leave a comment:


  • Gabriel
    replied
    Originally posted by Quench View Post
    Does anyone know if chemical analysis of aircraft fragments is likely to offer a signature of the explosive,
    Possibly.
    and then indicate its country of manufacture ?
    or even weapon type ?
    You can determine the type of explosive used by the byproducts left after the explosive chemical reaction, maybe even reconstruct the approximate original formula of the explosive. If the formula is of a very exclusive type used specifically for one country in one type of missiles, maybe you can tell which it is. But if this explosive is a "standard" one used in different types of missiles from different origins, then it will be hard to tell the origin. Water is H2O, and ammonium nitrate is NH4NO3, be it in Russia or in the USA. (I know that ammonium nitrate will be hardly used as warhead in an advanced missile, just giving an example).

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X