Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Malaysia T7 down!!

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

  • Evan
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post

    It seems quite reasonable to me
    that avoiding war zones might be a reasonable safety precaution.
    It is quite reasonable. US and Russian operators were duly warned not to overfly the region. Three days prior to this catastrophe a Ukrainian jet was downed at an altitude that MANPAD's could not have reached. High-altitude SAM's were definitely in the theatre. The danger was clear and present. Unfortunately, so was the bureaucracy.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by elaw View Post
    Um... it certainly does!...So it seems quite reasonable to me that a flight crew seeing airspace closed at and below FL320 but not above it, would think that a threat assessment had been made and whoever did it determined there were no missiles that could hit an airplane flying above FL320.
    My record of making broad, sometimes factually wrong assumptions is well known, so I don't doubt that you are correct.

    That being said, an airliner flew over a war zone and got shot down by a missile.

    It seems quite reasonable to me
    that avoiding war zones, where homing missiles, designed to shoot down fighter aircraft, are being used ~2 miles below, might be a reasonable safety precaution for a big, fat, slow airliner.

    I also like to remember how flight crews will dutifully brief for instrument approaches even when the weather is clear and a million...just to be on the safe side.

    Leave a comment:


  • elaw
    replied
    Originally posted by 3WE View Post
    It's an expletive, rocket-powered missile...FL320 or FL350 or FL530 doesn't mean a whole lot!
    Um... it certainly does!

    All SAMs have an altitude limit, and many older and smaller SAMs, particularly the so-called "MANPADS" (shoulder-launched missiles) can't reach the altitude at which the Malaysian plane was flying.

    So it seems quite reasonable to me that a flight crew seeing airspace closed at and below FL320 but not above it, would think that a threat assessment had been made and whoever did it determined there were no missiles that could hit an airplane flying above FL320.

    Leave a comment:


  • 3WE
    replied
    Originally posted by Evan (not said by Evan) View Post

    ...(restriction below FL530)...no NOTAMS restricting flights above FL32...
    These comments still drive me nuts!

    It's an expletive, rocket-powered missile...FL320 or FL350 or FL530 doesn't mean a whole lot!

    ...and worse, yet, it's another expletive black and white procedure that dismisses broad, fundamental concepts, like the fact that Missiles, that are designed to shoot down fighter planes and bombers, have no problem catching up to the altitudes and speeds of fuel-efficient airliners!!!!!

    Let's use good CRM, FO, please check the QRH to see if our altitude is OK to fly over a war zone. (And maybe it was operations and not the flight crew...But, the concept is still valid!)

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    The last moments:

    There was the deafening noise of the impact, abrupt deceleration and acceleration, decompression and the corresponding mist formation, reduced oxygen level, extreme cold, powerful airflow, the aeroplane’s rapid descent and objects flying around.

    As a result, some occupants suffered serious injuries that probably caused their death. In others, the exposure led to reduced awareness or unconsciousness in a very short space of time. It was not possible to ascertain the time at which the occupants died; it was established that the impact on the ground was non-survivable.It cannot be ruled out that some occupants remained conscious for some time during the one to one and a half minutes for which the crash lasted.

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    I see no surprises in it.

    Operators, as users of the airspace, bear responsibility for safe flight operations. In the case of MH17, the operator was Malaysia Airlines...
    ...and the code share partner was KLM. Neither had restricted their flights over the conflict zone, nor had a list of other operators, despite clear indications of a SAM threat.

    The US had issued a Special Federal Aviation Regulation prohibiting US operators from overflying the region. Apparently the Russians had as well (restriction below FL530). But not ICAO, not the European CAA's and, naturally, not the airlines either.

    Therefore, I think fault, as usual, falls with the regulatory agencies involved. As I've said a million times here, you can't expect operators to regulate themselves. Because they saw no NOTAMS restricting flights above FL32, they saw no problem in conducting them. Nobody at Malaysia or KLM seems to have considered the obvious danger, only the obvious legalities.

    And you can't blame the Russians because Russiams will be Russians the same way that wind shear will be wind shear. It is the task of CAA's to keep the operators clear of the dangers.

    So I blame the system.

    Leave a comment:


  • eTang
    replied
    The Dutch Safety Board today released their final report.

    Here's the link to the full PDF document:

    http://cdn.onderzoeksraad.nl/documen...7-crash-en.pdf

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    Final report expected to be released tomorrow.

    Leave a comment:


  • Black Ram
    replied
    Interesting, but where is the news? There was this story a few months ago:

    http://www.news.com.au/technology/in...-1227270469205

    Also, the first interim report last winter confirmed the plane was hit near the cockpit.


    Even if it is proven conclusively this was a missile strike, it still won't be over. Come on, the official claim from the Kremlin is that a Ukrainian SU-25 did this, and anyone who knows anything about planes realizes this is ridiculous. Sukhoi engineers explaining this is impossible did not help either.

    So the latest claim will be that it was a BUK/SA-11, but that it was a Ukrainian missile, fired from a Ukrainian system, controlled by Ukrainians. A few weeks ago, a Russian newspaper called Novaya Gazeta did a story on this and hinted the debate would shift to where the missile was fired from. The Kremlin is ready with its designated location, which was under Ukrainian control last summer. The newspaper also admits there are only eye-witness reports of a launch from a town called Snizhne (which is the place where the US claimed the missile was launched).

    Leave a comment:


  • Highkeas
    replied
    Missile strike confirmed according to this report
    http://aviationweek.com/defense/mh17...intel-confirms

    Leave a comment:


  • James Bond
    replied
    I think what we have here is a KAL007 situation. The truth will come out but it may take several years.

    Leave a comment:


  • brianw999
    replied
    So...the Russians veto a resolution to get at the truth eh ?

    Kinda' hints at what the truth really is, doesn't it ?

    Leave a comment:


  • sjwk
    replied
    Not really sure that it constitutes 'news', but BBC have been reporting this afternoon that the crash site has yielded 'Russian missile parts'.

    Fragments of a suspected Russian missile system have been found at the Flight MH17 crash site in Ukraine, investigators in the Netherlands say.
    They say the parts, possibly from a Buk surface-to-air system, are "of particular interest" and could help show who was behind the crash.
    But they say they have not proved their "causal connection" with the crash.
    Of course, it still doesn't provide any proof which side fired it, and the Russians have vetoed a resolution to set up an international tribunal to investigate, so we may never know for sure, only suspect..

    Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-33865420

    Leave a comment:


  • Evan
    replied
    From a BBC report today:


    Diplomatic cables sent two days before the crash said the situation had become "very alarming", German media say.

    The cables cited the downing on 14 July of a Ukrainian air force plane at a height of about 6,000m (20,000ft).

    German intelligence had repeatedly warned [German officials] of the risk to aviation security, the report adds.
    And yet, a Lufthansa source tells German media that no communique was given to the airline of a change in the situation.
    Three Lufthansa planes flew over the area on the day of the disaster - including one 20 minutes beforehand - and it was pure chance that none was hit, the report says. Other German airlines had been avoiding the region for some time.
    "If the government had given our company a warning with an advisory of 'new status', then certainly Lufthansa would not have flown over eastern Ukraine any more," the source said.

    Leave a comment:


  • Fear_of_Flying
    replied
    Last post

    Not that anyone cares or will see this, but MH17 has finally done me in. The beautiful human beings crushed like melons upon impact with the ground deserve better than what the Internet can ever provide. I wish to express my love for these passengers and crew - I live their fate every day. Human beings should never do this to one another. God help us all ...

    F_o_F

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X