Going back to aviation aspects of the matter.
One thing I would really, really like to hear would be the ATC transcripts of communications with MH17 over Ukraine. Certainly, everyone should be interested in that.
Here is why I am interested in it.
1. ICAO, FAA, etc. excluded Crimea area from passenger traffic - and this was the route heavily used for Asia bound airplanes. The reasons were political - the West refusing to recognize Russian annexation of Crimea. As far as safety goes - apart from bureaucratic confusion who should be doing the ATC with Russia now considering Crimea its territory and Ukraine never agreeing to it, there never was any military activity over Crimea.
2. From flight-paths I have seen, MH and other carriers were still taking the Crimea routes nevertheless.
3. The moment heavy SAM action starts happening further north, they no longer take Crimea routes but fly right through the areas of SAM activities. Coincidence? Did they do it on their own or did someone "help" them to do make that decision?
4. The timing coincides with heavy Ukrainian military activities in the air - need to resupply their units on the border with Russia, to put "rebel" areas under siege and cut them off from possible resupply from Russia. Not a bad military tactics, but clearly leading to attempts to prevent that by rebels.
5. Regardless how one feels about Russia/Crimea etc. I think we should expect regulators to care for passengers, not play politics. If someone wants to get themselves involved in the conflict, he has a right to do that - with their own bodies and lives. But I doubt the MH17 passengers wanted to play a role in that conflict.
6. I doubt that the pilots can have complete view of the situation on the ground, even if they pay attention. Ironically, hearing of the SAM activities in Ukraine, relying on ICAO maps they could have assumed they needed to go further North, away from the Crimea exclusion zone, which was exactly the WRONG thing to do at the moment.
7. Is it possible that the Ukrainians wanted the civilian traffic there as shields for their military transports? Well, it is. From their point of view, it is a win-win situation, no matter what happens.
Anyone here has more info on the matter????
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...mh17.html?_r=0