Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia T7 down!!

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

  • Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
    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

    Comment


    • Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
      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
      Last edited by Peter Kesternich; 2014-07-21, 04:45.

      Comment


      • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
        Or how did PPLs fly in the 80s or earlier before GPS was available and accessible?
        People used LORAN C, before the GPS.
        A Former Airdisaster.Com Forum (senior member)....

        Comment


        • Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
          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.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
            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....

            --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
            --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

            Comment


            • Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
              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....

              --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
              --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

              Comment


              • Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
                People used LORAN C, before the GPS.
                Hum, yes, a lot of PPLs used LORAN C before GPS. NOT!!!

                --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                Comment


                • Originally posted by Gabriel View Post
                  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.

                  -

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Evan View Post
                    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.

                    --- Judge what is said by the merits of what is said, not by the credentials of who said it. ---
                    --- Defend what you say with arguments, not by imposing your credentials ---

                    Comment


                    • 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

                      Comment


                      • 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.



                        Diverting the ill-fated Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 around hostile Ukrainian airspace would have cost the airline just $66 a passenger, calculations have revealed.

                        Comment




                        • "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.

                          UPDATED 6.15PM MH17 FREE Ukraine releases another set of intercepted calls.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by AVION1 View Post
                            Whoever pushed the fire button, should be convicted for war crimes and genocide !

                            War crime O.K. but genocide? WTFO

                            Comment


                            • retox, Are you trying to imply that Malaysian Airlines is complacent in this in any way?

                              Comment


                              • Adds a very compelling twist to the question, "at what were they shooting".

                                Since the Russian interceptors had downed a Su-25 on the previous days, the Ukrainian escorted all military and civil flights over eastern Ukraine ...

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X