Ukrainian Aircraft down in Iran [Archive] - Page 3

View Full Version : Ukrainian Aircraft down in Iran

Pages : 1 2 [3]

Widger

13th Jan 2020, 18:20

Not a bad read at all, but I'm surprised that the "caused by human error" trope is still alive and well in discussions of this sort. The launch crew almost certainly made a reasoned decision to fire within the context of its training and the information available at the time.

There are many assumptions being made in this thread. Knowing how much training is required to form an effective air defence team there is a lot that can go wrong.

We assume that the SA-15 platform was fully serviceable. The IFF might have been broken or the command system itself may have had defects. Remember that the country is under significant sanctions and whilst this is a Russian built system, did the regime have enough money to pay for spare parts or regular maintenance?

What training did the operators have? If you spoke to the average UK or US grunt, he would have little idea of airways, squawks and SIDs. He would be trained for an all out war environment on the whole, where there would NOT be Non combatants.

We are guilty of applying NATO levels of training expectation against a largely conscripted force. Even the US Navy got it wrong in similar circumstances, probably reliant too much on automation rather than human interrogation, formed from significant amounts of training.

Add to all this the threat of attack and such reactions are unsurprising.

Out of all this I hope that all parties wake up and realise this cannot continue. That dialogue needs to occur and normal relations resume. Maybe the Ukraine is in a good place now to be the broker, as they seem to have negotiated this political minefield very well, having known the truth early on.

The Persians are a proud and ancient race and something has to be offered to enable them to step back without losing face. I know some will criticise me for such a pacifist view but how would we feel if Iranian ships sailed up and down the Eastern seaboard everyday. How did the US nation feel when the redcoats were blockading Philli and other cities. Its gonna make you lash out!

Longtimer

13th Jan 2020, 19:01

The following is meant to be Shared so here goes: https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/tsb-s-role-in-the-investigation-of-ukrainian-airlines-flight-752-826520441.htmlTSB's role in the investigation of Ukrainian Airlines flight 752NEWS PROVIDED BY
Transportation Safety Board of Canada (https://www.newswire.ca/news/transportation-safety-board-of-canada)Jan 13, 2020, 14:00 ET

SHARE THIS ARTICLE
2020 /CNW/ - Transportation Safety Board of Canada (TSB) Chair Kathy Fox today provided an update on the TSB's role in the investigation of Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752 in Tehran, Islamic Republic of Iran.
Since learning of the accident, the TSB has been in direct contact with the Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB) of the Islamic Republic of Iran. Given the high number of Canadian fatalities, the TSB has confirmed its role as an expert and accepted Iran's invitation to attend the accident site as entitled in Annex 13 to the Convention on International Civil Aviation. Two TSB air accident investigators left Canada on Friday evening and, over the weekend, met up with members of the Canadian consular team in Turkey. They have since obtained visas to travel to Iran and have departed for Tehran, along with members of Canada's Consular team. Additionally, the TSB will also deploy a second team of investigators with expertise in aircraft recorder download and analysis, once the time and place that this activity will take place is confirmed.

"As 57 of the passengers who died in this tragedy were Canadian, it is our hope that the TSB will be allowed to bring more of its expertise to a thorough and transparent investigation," said Kathy Fox. "The TSB is seen as a world leader, and we have participated in foreign investigations for almost 30 years. […] As an independent accident investigation agency, we will also collaborate with the other international investigation authorities with whom we have long-standing and well-developed relationships—including those from France, Sweden, the UK and the US, as well as Ukraine."

Aviation accident and incident investigations are governed by Annex 13 to the Convention of International Civil Aviation. As the "State of Occurrence", the Islamic Republic of Iran and, specifically, its Aircraft Accident Investigation Bureau (AAIB), has the right to lead the safety investigation. The role of states with a special interest by virtue of fatalities, serious injuries or other direct interests, which includes Canada, is also similarly prescribed. As the lead investigation agency, the Iranian AAIB is also responsible for communicating information about the progress and results of the investigation.

"The purpose of an ICAO Annex 13 safety investigation is to find all causal and contributing factors to an accident, without attributing blame or civil or criminal liability, to address safety deficiencies, and prevent similar accidents from happening again," said Kathy Fox. "Experience has shown that a thorough safety-focused investigation offers the best chance of confirming what really happened and providing the answers that everyone is asking for, particularly for the families who lost so much."

See the backgrounder on foreign air occurrence investigations (https://c212.net/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=2690887-1&h=1945516645&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bst-tsb.gc.ca%2Feng%2Fcoll%2Findex.html&a=backgrounder+on+foreign+air+occurrence+investigations) for more information.

The TSB is an independent agency that investigates air, marine, pipeline, and rail transportation occurrences. Its sole aim is the advancement of transportation safety. It is not the function of the Board to assign fault or determine civil or criminal liability.

The TSB is online at www.tsb.gc.ca (https://c212.net/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=2690887-1&h=2485755951&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.tsb.gc.ca%2F&a=www.tsb.gc.ca). Keep up to date through RSS (https://c212.net/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=2690887-1&h=221908312&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bst-tsb.gc.ca%2Feng%2Ffils-feeds%2Findex.asp&a=RSS), Twitter (https://c212.net/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=2690887-1&h=3427053610&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.twitter.com%2FTSBCanada&a=Twitter) (@TSBCanada), YouTube (https://c212.net/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=2690887-1&h=2454799&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.youtube.com%2FTSBCanada&a=YouTube), Flickr (https://c212.net/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=2690887-1&h=1868866197&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.flickr.com%2Ftsbcanada&a=Flickr) and our blog (https://c212.net/c/link/?t=0&l=en&o=2690887-1&h=3480509777&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.bst-tsb.gc.ca%2Feng%2Fmedias-media%2Fblogue-blog%2Findex.html&a=blog).

SOURCE Transportation Safety Board of Canada

lomapaseo

13th Jan 2020, 19:18

The scope of Annex 13 specifically excludes incidents involving injury or death inflicted by a third party.

Can you remind us if they do use the word "exclude" or is a slight weaker meaning that it does not "include"? which leaves it up to the investigator to choose what applies to their work?

PJ2

13th Jan 2020, 19:33

. . .
If they choose to end this process sooner rather than later, I hope that decision will be taken in consultation with Ukranian and Canadian goverrnments, at the least.
Yessir, Lonewolf_50, Amen to that statement.
PJ2

jantar99

13th Jan 2020, 20:02

He adds: the crew commander "evaluates the signal strength from the target by the magnitude of the mark (i.e. on the radar): if it's a large or small target. The indicators show a bright or dim mark. Simply put, the commander should have seen something big fly. From a large passenger plane, the mark will be ten times brighter than from a military target" (i.e. like a fighter plane). A cruise missile "has a very low reflecting power. The brightness of this point is no longer ten, but a hundred times less bright than that of a commercial airplane. And a cruise missile flies at a very low altitude, in order to avoid being detected... we are speaking about just tens of meters. And the Iranians shot down a huge plane flying at an altitude of 2400 meters. How can this be confused?

I second that statement about the reflective power of a B737 vs a military rocket or plane and a subsequent difference in the radar mark (intensity or similar).

jantar99

13th Jan 2020, 20:06

The launch crew almost certainly made a reasoned decision to fire within the context of its training and the information available at the time.
Then this crew must be incompetent. Or did they think about a huge bomber approaching them in the middle of Iran?

Lonewolf_50

13th Jan 2020, 20:35

jantar, there are a myriad of ways for a crew to show up for their mission/shift and not be on their A game.
Example:
Sergeant A has gotten an arse chewing or two during the past month for not being on time. The Captain has put him "on the sh** list"
Sergeant A has been feeling sick, but does not want to draw too much attention to himself by asking to go to the doctor.
The Captain has been keeping an eye on him.
He gets some medicine from (wife, friend, brother, cousin who runs a drug store / chemist's) and self medicates.
The stuff's a bit strong, so he's a bit foggy and is not as sharp as usual ...
Could it happen?
Yes.
And of course there are training issues, and more, in human factors cases ...
(And this accident (https://aviation-safety.net/wikibase/77226) was often brought up when our flight surgeons discussed why not to self medicate ...)

gearlever

13th Jan 2020, 21:31

And the Iranians shot down a huge plane flying at an altitude of 2400 meters. How can this be confused?.
PS-752 was shot down at 8.000 ft MSL, about 4.700 ft AGL / 1.400m AGL.

DaveReidUK

13th Jan 2020, 21:41

Can you remind us if they do use the word "exclude" or is a slight weaker meaning that it does not "include"? which leaves it up to the investigator to choose what applies to their work?

I think you misunderstand. The scope of Annex 13 explicitly excludes deaths and injuries caused by a third party. It follows that the document is (by definition) silent on the procedures to be followed in an event where such exclusions apply.

But there is, of course, no reason why a (non-Annex 13) investigation should not follow similar SARPS to those in Annex 13, even though it has no force. Same as, for example, the investigations into PA103 and MH17, where the AIBs of the countries involved played a major part in parallel with the respective criminal investigations.

katekebo

13th Jan 2020, 22:57

One important thing to consider is the very short time that the missile crew has to decide if to launch the missile or not. TOR's effective range is 12 km. Detection range is probably somewhat bigger, but not much. For an incoming missile flying ~500 knots, it's ~60 sec from detection to impact. Considering that the missile has be launched before the attacking missile or aircraft gets too close, the crew literally has a less than 30 sec window to decide between "kill or get killed". 30 sec to identify the incoming aircraft, confirm if it is a threat, perform whatever manual tasks are needed to lock on the target and launch the missile. There is no time for telephone calls, asking for confirmation or lengthy analysis. The crew is trained to perform memorized tasks like a machine - it's "do or die" situation, not thinking time. Any hesitation or delay can mean death.

Of course, this does not justify the action. But it may explain why the missile operator pushed the "launch" button. He was performing things he was trained to do. Based on how tense the situation was and the expected imminent retaliation from US side, he erred on side of safety (his own and his defended area, not the passengers).

The real failure is on the command side that did not properly prepare for such situation. It could be lack of long range radar to identify and assess potential threats with sufficient time (minutes, not seconds), proper training about routine departure routes and flight profiles from the airport for the missile crew, positive radio confirmation about every departing airplane, etc., etc. There is a number of procedural and technical things that could have been implemented to prevent a tragic event like this one, and most likely they were missing.

It is a much larger structural and organization problem than just a "trigger happy" missile operator.

HarryMann

13th Jan 2020, 23:32

Simply said...if we don't know their rules of engagement nor their circumstance at the time, then we really are pissing into the wind a bit.. no?

Mozella

14th Jan 2020, 02:41

......... snip............. The launch crew almost certainly made a reasoned decision to fire within the context of its training and the information available at the time.

I'm not saying you're wrong, but based on my experience living in Iran for a number of years and flying with their military I would say a "reasoned decision" is far from certain. You may be right, but I wonder if you are projecting your previous personal experience onto a completely different set of circumstances.

Lord Farringdon

14th Jan 2020, 03:51

I'm not saying you're wrong, but based on my experience living in Iran for a number of years and flying with their military I would say a "reasoned decision" is far from certain. You may be right, but I wonder if you are projecting your previous personal experience onto a completely different set of circumstances.
Agree Mozella. Also, with your previous experience in their military I am guessing you are being more than tactfully polite!!

As I said in a previous post, without some facts, we have nothing to form a valid speculation on, only possible scenarios. To that end I was interested in a post by 'ele' that contained excerpts from "two interviews with Andrey Gorbachevsky, a Russian engineer and developper of radar anti-aircraft missile systems who worked for the Russian State Scientific Research Institute of Aviation Systems (GosNIIAS). That is: a person familiar with the Tor system."

The Russian article contains some insights into what the systems operator might see on his radar scope regardless of what he might be expecting ie a large a blip for a commercial airliner a much smaller and more faint blip for a cruise missile or fighter aircraft. He also shed some light on the number of missiles that may have been fired suggesting only one would have been necessary since the target was big and non-maneuvering and firing a second missile would have wasted missiles while also unnecessarily exposing the crew to SEAD. Here is the link: https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2020/01/11/83411-vse-taki-obezyana-s-granatoy. (https://novayagazeta.ru/articles/2020/01/11/83411-vse-taki-obezyana-s-granatoy) It can be translated to English.

Now this article cannot be verified as 'fact' as such but if we accept that the article probably does offer some insight into the modus operandi of this particular system, then it's title "Monkey with a Grenade", does suggest a less than 'reasoned decision'. Factors such as the search radar which would follow the flight from shortly after take off from a civilian airfeild and along a known passenger aircraft corridor, the accuracy of the acquisition radar which could determine if there was another object attempting to hide in the shadow of the Ukrainian B737, the transponder identification systems and even an assessment of why this would not have been an intentional shoot down. So, a fair amount of incompetency suggested here and not just leveled at Iran military. He also sniped at Russian missile instructors involved in an accidental shoot down of a Syrian aircraft!

In the article's summary, it suggests that Iran's delay in admitting this was a shoot down was "to hide the degree of collapse of its air defense. Because I will not remember a more serious mistake in the history of air defense".

rightstuffer

14th Jan 2020, 09:45

AlJazeera showing academic from Tehran University claiming that ‘now hearing that transponder not working 30 seconds before missile hit’. I suspect that at 30 seconds before impact the missile launch had already started. More wriggling?

WillowRun 6-3

14th Jan 2020, 10:39

News broadcast this morning in Canada (on a major FM radio station) reports that government of Iran has made arrests, a number of people are detainrd and are undergoing questioning, and that there are reports of proposals or suggestions in Iran of the government empaneling a special (ad hoc) tribunal of some sort, as a court of inquiry or an inquest.
Also reported was the existence of "sensitive" negotiations with several Canadian families over handling of decedents' remains, with Iran not respecting (i.e., following) the families' instructions because Iran does not recognize the dual citizenship of the decedents.
WillowRun 6-3

gearlever

14th Jan 2020, 11:20

triumph61

14th Jan 2020, 12:22

Two Missiles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=xeMoXqbqLBA&feature=emb_logo

jolihokistix

14th Jan 2020, 12:59

Triumph61, why the date of 2019 10 17 top right?

triumph61

14th Jan 2020, 13:48

I think the Camera Date is not set correctly.

dave.rooney

14th Jan 2020, 14:47

Just saw this on Twitter: t w i t t e r.com/BabakTaghvaee/status/1217107084568858625
It appears that the first missile didn't start the fire, and it would explain why the person who took the video of the second missile was pointing his phone in the flight's direction.

https://twitter.com/BabakTaghvaee/status/1217107084568858625

tow1709

14th Jan 2020, 15:14

"To those quoting Occams Razor I ask...have you never seen a transponder fail for reasons other than a missile impact? I have, many times.
Could the flight crew simply have dialled up a wrong squawk code? One that was not on the list of traffic the SAM ground crew was expecting, or did not IFF itself correctly in some way? Would such an error normally be detected?

GarageYears

14th Jan 2020, 15:35

I am dubious that this is a video of two missile strikes on the Ukrainian Aircraft.

Er, why? Is there something implicitly wrong with anything you see?

Given we know an airliner was brought down by (allegedly) two missile hits, and this video shows that, and we have other camera phone videos that clearly were alerted to something happening in the sky (presumed to be the first missile hit), and then videoed a missile exploding and followed by a fire... what's the problem?

Airbubba

14th Jan 2020, 15:37

From Babak Taghvaee's Twitter feed:

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1082x632/tag_2_55e37e5d5b058091549bf020f5f34670d0e0c802.jpg
https://cimg7.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/1097x693/tag_3_17477231deffe5fc37d52a1b6bc7954d2a9c5dc3.jpg
https://cimg8.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/994x695/tag_4_0002320d6d2153c46e40b29ad417e88bd5981521.jpg

Lonewolf_50

14th Jan 2020, 15:42

Or, perhaps, temporarily silenced the transponder to avoid squawking wrong codes while dialing new one received from ATC? If/when the CVR/FDR data is analyzed, this kind of (usually minor) correction of a squawk could be confirmed or shown not to be in play. One hopes that the CVR/FDR analysis is completed soon and quesstions like this put to rest / answered.

It's possible.

As to Mr Rooney's video/twitverse offering from the Babak account, and Airbubba's posting of what looks to be the same twitmatter: "sources in IRGC/ASF"
As with Western media, sometimes a reporter is protecting a source, and sometimes it's not the full story, and sometimes there's a bit of making stuff up going on.
A grain of salt served for the time being, though this source did provide some useful input early on in the chain of information events ...

As to M Mihajlovic's observation: that a unit can be in an autonomous mode does not mean that it necessarily will be at a given date and time. There are a lot of different ways to put together an integrated air defense posture around one's capital city and around one's operating base.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

14th Jan 2020, 15:48

1. I have no doubt to authenticity of the latest video. It answers a couple of my questions.

2. At heightened alert readiness I have no doubt that missile battery could be in autonomous mode. ie no need to obtain further launch approval if engagement criteria are met. Don't confuse AUTONOMOUS with AUTOMATIC.

3. I do however doubt the order to engage anything coming from S or SE. Why engage targets coming from within your own airspace and why were earlier ac not targeted. More likely instructed to engage tracks on a S or SE TRACK. ie entering your airspace.

SAMXXV

14th Jan 2020, 16:21

Two Missiles.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=1&v=xeMoXqbqLBA&feature=emb_logo

Assuming that this video is genuine:

The second missile is launched 12 seconds after the explosion of the first missile. What this tells us is that the system CANNOT have been in automatic mode. If it was in automatic, a second missile would have been selected by the computer immediately upon launch of the first & the thermal batteries (to ignite the solid propellant motor) charged. Upon the explosion of the first missile, if there was still a radar return, the system would immediately launch a second missile (say 2 seconds after the first missile exploded).

This 12 second delay confirms that the SAM operator observed his "C" scope display & assumed he had missed as he still had a return after the first had exploded. He selected another missile and fired but there would be another delay of 3-4 seconds before launch as the thermal batteries ignited. I have no doubt that this was NOT an automatic firing.

fdr

14th Jan 2020, 16:43

I am dubious that this is a video of two missile strikes on the Ukrainian Aircraft. That video is absolutely consistent with the engagement of a SAM battery with a civil aircraft.

It was highly probable that at least 2 missiles were fired, that would be the appropriate training for an engagement against a defending tactical target, however the spread time is around 30 seconds, which is longer than would usually be applied.

The first missile burn time is just on 12 seconds, and detonates in the air 6 seconds later, within the max range of the 9M331 missile. About 10 seconds after the detonation the second missile is fired, and that detonates while still under rocket thrust, within the burn time of the same type of missile. That is consistent with the earlier images of the second missile strike against the aircraft.

The intervals between launch and detonation are consistent with a reducing engagement range, the aircraft has closed the launcher such as to reduce the flight time of the missile by ~5.5 seconds over about 32 seconds of launch interval, which gives a higher rate of closure than I expected to see, The launches appear to be from the same area, but could have been from multiple TOR systems, but that is unlikely, tactically the units can be deployed in clusters, but the systems would have had a more deterrent effect if deployed as single independent launcher systems.

Concur with SAM XXV that the launches were manually selected, and not an automatic launch.
The timing interval indicates a manual second launch, deliberate but sadly against a misidentified target.

The early images of the wreckage showed damage consistent with shrapnel, but in areas that were not consistent with a single strike, and with directional witness markings that looked inconsistent with a constant aspect of missile to aircraft. The timing of the first strike is consistent with the loss of ADSB data out.

The video shows the aircraft after the strike, around 45 seconds after the second detonation, and it is tracking well away from the launch site at that time, It goes out of view around 90 seconds after the first detonation. With what appears to be a steep descent, the aircraft is probably less than 45 seconds to its impact at that point, and that indicates a very high speed in the dive, and an abrupt turn towards the NE after the strikes.

Finally, the first missile launch shows what appears to be the ejection charge and then the missile motor ignition, which is consistent with the canister launch process of the TOR system. It may also just be a fluke of image timing, or obscuration by buildings etc, as the second launch shows a similar flash but a shorter period to the SRM ignition. would need frame by frame analysis, but it is redundant, the images are highly likely to be authentic, and show what is expected to have occurred.

An awful sight

Airbubba

14th Jan 2020, 16:45

Another tweet from Babak Taghvaee. I'm posting screen shots since Twitter links are famous for not rendering properly on some platforms and the links may be soon deleted or blocked.

https://cimg5.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/959x567/tag_5_1600799249795344a6c7d2973834199c802e476f.jpg

gearlever

14th Jan 2020, 16:50

Beamr

14th Jan 2020, 17:20

Obviously too simple to monitor IKA TWR (118.10) by the defence officers.....
KISS
would they speak english so that they'd be able to understand what is being said?

aox

14th Jan 2020, 17:33

I am dubious that this is a video of two missile strikes on the Ukrainian Aircraft.

i did wonder a bit to start with, on the basis the aircraft reached about 4700' agl, but the view in the video is roughly level or if anything slightly downwards.

However a look at the map shows the terrain goes to 16,000 at one nearby high point, so a missile station somewhere on the southern slopes would be consistent with something at 8000' not being above the horizon from that point.

Grebe

14th Jan 2020, 18:37

Seems to me that the argument- analysis of one or two hits and why ( automatic versus manual ) versus two sites versus flight path versus transponder on off , etc etc ad nauseam may be interesting to some but in reality without actual data etc are obfuscating the only facts that matter

a) At least ONE missile hit the plane and brought it down- NOT a mechanical fault
b) Over a hundred innocent passengers of various nationalities were killed
c) Accidental or deliberate firing of one or two missiles currently unknown- but MAY eventually be verified

ALL else is speculation :ugh:

ele

14th Jan 2020, 18:49

About the last video showing 2 missiles: "The Times has confirmed that the new video was filmed by a camera on the roof of a building near the village of Bidkaneh, four miles from an Iranian military site".
Link to the article (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/world/iran-plane-crash-video.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage):

jack-daw

14th Jan 2020, 20:19

I have just realised that the video from the security camera is actually a video of a screen playing back the original recording. Therefore the original recording must be much clearer if ever they can extract it from the security system.

Double Back

14th Jan 2020, 21:08

Just heard on the news that one of the guys who shot one of the videos has been arrested....
<Sigh>

Fortissimo

14th Jan 2020, 21:47

I appreciate that not everyone agrees with my view that a full Annex 13 investigation is neither required nor necessary. And if it was my relative or loved one involved, I too would want to know how/why.

This tragic event differs from MH17 and Pan Am 103 in that the causal event for both those needed to be established, whereas it is not the case for Tehran. Until the forensics were done, the exact cause of Pan Am 103's in-flight break up was unknown and there was sustained denial that a missile had downed MH17, so it was unsurprising that the states of occurrence went for an investigation in both cases. In its most cynical interpretation, you might consider that Iran opened an investigation as 'smoke on the objective' until it became obvious that the true cause could not be concealed. Or it may be that the people opening the investigation were unaware of the military involvement and were trying to do the right thing at the time. We will never become privy to that information.

Bear in mind also that there are dozens of Annex 13 investigations into fatal accidents around the world that have never seen the light of day, or which have taken so long that events have faded from memory other than for those with a personal connection. The fact that a safety investigation has been conducted does not mean its results will be made public, especially if it involves a state that consistently flouts international norms.

Despite the importance of 'face' in that part of the world, the Iranian authorities have admitted to a global audience that their military was responsible for the destruction of that aircraft and the enormous loss of life it entailed. They have admitted the engagement was caused by a failure within their command and control system (it matters not how many missiles were fired after the first one, which set the conditions and expectations for what followed) and they will no doubt learn the lessons from it. However, I find it inconceivable that a nation that considers itself beleaguered and militarily threatened by neighbours and others would willingly expose the inner workings and shortcomings of its air defence systems to public and international scrutiny, however much we might want them to do so. The context of this tragedy is important, and it will inevitably affect any inquest into events and the amount of information subsequently made available. You need to put yourself in Iranian shoes.

What matters now is preventing a recurrence. Let the legacy of this disaster be a more responsive system for alerting commercial traffic to areas of significantly increased risk. We do not need to know why, we just need to know when and where to avoid operating That implies a system for getting such information onto the flight deck for those already in the air, and into the flight planning system for everyone else. And it needs to be beyond the decision of operators and instead in the hands of regulators who can make the call unfettered by commercial considerations.

WillowRun 6-3

15th Jan 2020, 00:33

A thoroughly thoughtful post by Fortissimo deserves a thoughtful response, and this is an attempt at doing just that.

Taking few if any liberties with the content, the main point (or certainly one of the main points) is "a full Annex 13 investigation is neither required nor necessary" because, unlike MH 17 and Pan Am 103 where "the causal event for both those needed to be established", in the current case the causal event already is known. While I agree with nearly all the points made, still my contention is that Annex 13 should be "worked" - for reasons other than establishing the causal event.

And yes, even though the standard orthodoxy in public international air law is that Annex 13 was not written for this purpose. In a phrase, both that orthodoxy and the reasoning in Fortissimo's post prove too much (as lawyers are apt to say) - their position does not deal with all possible cases or reasons.

First, some items from the news, both for context and support. Jan. 13, CBC News, "Canada investigates reports that Iran is harassing families trying to repatriate remains of crash victims". Article on CBC website (I don't think I can post links) reported Ukraine's ambassador to Canada had informed Canadian officials that repatriation could take days or weeks, or even months. The article also reported that TSB had sent a team to Iran as well as Global Affairs CA sending its Standing Rapid Deployment Team. And that a group had been formed, led by Canada, the International Coordination and Response Group, including Ukraine, Sweden, Afghanistan and the U.K.- "to ensure transparency and accountability in the wake of the crash."
And, Jan. 14, on the "north shore news" site, also id'd as The Canada Press, "Zelensky says he, Trudeau talk crash punishment, as Iran announces arrests." The article, in reporting the content of a phone call between the two national leaders, states that Canada's Trudeau said the call had "underscored the need for a full, complete and credible investigation with international participation" to provide "answers, accountability, and justice that all those affected by this tragedy deserve." Not least the report indicated the Int'l Coordination and Response Group is meeting in London, Thursday.

For three reasons, Annex 13 continues to hold a central place in the aftermath. First, as a guiding principle, or set of practical guidelines, for proper handling of an accident site and the remains of crash victims, Annex 13 certainly has been until this incident, the unquestioned coin of the realm, gold standard and highest authority. What Iranian authorities may have done or not done obviously is over with now, but following Annex 13 as much as possible would serve to uphold its primacy. And it might even lay down some guardrails for what ongoing activities are yet to occur . . . a comment reliably attributed to a knowledgeable official about repatriation possibly taking more than weeks is some significant cause for concern.

Second, and the aviation expertise I lack may be flagrantly showing on this point, but is it not the case that having the kind of in-depth, technically high-virtuosity inquiry into the operational details of the flight would still be very useful and very important, even though the cause of the loss of the aircraft - a SAM firing or more than one - is known? As an example, did the ADS-B cut out as a result of a missile detonation, or because of something else? And more broadly, isn't everything on the CVR and FDR relevant to having a complete picture of what happened, again even though the missile or missiles as the cause (in an immediate sense) are known already?

As the Iranian authorities report on their findings, such as they might turn out to be, having a complete operational record from the nominal investigation process certainly would seem a wise bulwark against possible shading of the truth.
Stated another way, why not push the Annex 13 process as much as feasible and possible? Nothing I have read indicates that doing so would interfere or in any other way be a detriment to Iran's inquiry or inquiries (in its military, by its courts and criminal justice authorities, and otherwise).

And third, the Annex 13 process could be the single best way to support the nascent International Coordination and Response Group in its efforts, though there is little reporting so far on precisely what its portfolio will be. That is, to the extent Annex 13 investigation and inquiry is not "necessary", certainly there is no contention that the rest of the world in the global international civil aviation sector should just sit back and wait for Iran to tell us what it decides to tell us. And so the nominal process under the Chicago Convention could very well serve as the prep cook for the big-name chefs of the Int'l Coord. & Resp. Group.

There is one other subpart, of course: keeping this from happening all over again, or trying.

Cynicism about the pronouncements and promulgations and papers of regulators having any significant effect in the operational world runs deep, but it is both impossible and pointless to disagree that leaving the decisions in the hands of commercial interests will lead to predictable recurrence of bad results. I happen to believe that deploying the Annex 13 process as far as it can go in this case will yield benefits when the actually smart people on this issue all get together next, and even if that turns out to be incorrect, I can't see that it could hurt. Alert statuses for air defense units around the world aren't likely to go away any time soon, and it seems more than just plausible that anything that could provide some leverage on the problem should be endorsed, and given a try.

HarryMann

15th Jan 2020, 09:16

Iran arrests originator of missile video...

BBC News - Iran plane downing: Person who filmed video 'arrested'
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51114945

But an Iranian journalist based in London who initially posted the footage has insisted that his source is safe, and that the Iranian authorities have arrested the wrong person. (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-51114945)

deeceethree

15th Jan 2020, 11:29

Triumph61, why the date of 2019 10 17 top right?

The New York Times article here (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/14/world/iran-plane-crash-video.html?action=click&module=Top%20Stories&pgtype=Homepage) includes this snippet:

The new video was uploaded to YouTube by an Iranian user around 2 a.m. on Tuesday.

The date visible on the footage is “2019-10-17,” not Jan. 8, the day the plane was downed. We believe this is because the camera system is using a Persian calendar, not a Gregorian one. Jan. 8 converts to the 18th of Dey, the 10th month in the Persian calendar. Digitally that would display as 2019-10-18 in the video. One theory is that the discrepancy of one day can be explained by a difference between Persian and Gregorian leap years or months.

TEEEJ

15th Jan 2020, 15:52

Is this correct?

The New York Times is referring to the second missile. They clarified it in the article but I can see how it could lead to confusion. The New York Post highlighted the New York Times article.

The New York Times reported that it has verified the footage, which helps explain why the Boeing 737-800’s transponder stopped working seconds before it was struck by a second missile.

An earlier analysis by the newspaper confirmed that an Iranian missile struck the plane shortly after it took off from Tehran en route to the Ukrainian capital of Kyiv.

The paper also established that the transponder ceased working before that missile hit the plane.

The latest footage appears to confirm that the first strike disabled the transponder before the second strike — also seen in the video – about 23 seconds later, the Times reported.

https://nypost.com/2020/01/14/iran-plan-crash-video-shows-two-military-missiles-strike-ukraine-plane/

Turkey Brain

16th Jan 2020, 17:08

As a pilot, who regularly flies past conflict areas I have to fight with “ management “ over what is considered a safe routing.

As a Captain I never waiver in my battle, but some do.

Why should I have to fight management to provide safe passage for my trusting passengers? Safety always has to be the top priority when flying a defenceless civilian aircraft near these areas.

At the moment missing Iran by 15 nm is what is considered acceptable by my employer.

As dodging missiles wasn’t part of my training, how much distance would be considered prudent. Obviously tension rise and fall.

But assuming, tensions are at a maximum, what would be a sensible min distance to the border of Iran or certain sensitive parts of Iran.

Open to any thoughts, but the more simple the better.

Does anyone with knowledge in this area have a good rule of thumb?

Thank you to all that posted details at personal risk. Let’s hope things change and we learn from this terrible event.

rgds

gums

16th Jan 2020, 19:03

Salute!

Good question and good basic common sense, Brain.

The 15 n.m. distance might be great if tracking parallel to the coast or known defense facilities or..... But heading straight in is asking for trouble ( that was the Vincennes delimma). Some of these SAM systems can reach out and touch you at much further ranges than 15 n.m. if you are at medium or high altitude at 0.8M or slower. In this tragedy case, the "target" was heading straight for the missile battery and associated "research" or military site.

The fog of war and poor integrated air defense comm was a definite player.

Gums sends...

ele

16th Jan 2020, 20:40

Many articles in the Ukrainian press today report that Iran is ignoring the requests by the Ukrainian authorities. In particular Polina Chizh (Полина Чиж), representative of Ukraine's Attorney general's Office, stated that they sent 2 official requests to Iran (on January 8th and on January 15th), asking to have access to the flight recorders, and to let their (i.e. Ukrainian) experts decrypt them, but that they "didn't receive any answer". The Office also offered to decrypt the flight recorders in Ukraine, and unofficially agreed to have an Iranian expert inspect the Ukranian laboratory yesterday (January 15th) to get final approval, but the much-awaited Iranian expert never arrived (Polina Chizh: "Now they say, that their expert, as it was promised, today - January 15th, is not coming").
Interesting detail: in the second official request to the Iranian authorities the Office asks also to 'gain access' to the passangers' seats (I remember someone on Pprune noticing that they weren't visible in the crash site pictures).

WillowRun 6-3

16th Jan 2020, 23:41

Canada, other countries issue demands for Iran, including compensation for victims - National | Globalnews.ca
https://globalnews.ca/news/6419180/iran-plane-crash-meeting-minister/

Globalnews Canada reporting om meeting Thursdsy in London, convened by Canada, with Ukraine, Sweden, Afghanistan and U.K.
Interesting reference to ICAO at the end.
As stated in a previous post, even if Annex 13 process can be seen only as a roadmap in these circumstances, it still has significant usefulness in that capacity - note the reporting about CVR and FDR in this article.

ele

17th Jan 2020, 16:07

Yesterday (all articles about it appeared today) the “Kiev Scientific Research Inst. of Forensic Expertise of the Min. of Justice of Ukraine” released a video in which the head of the Ukranian investigative committee (a certain Ruvin) gives us a glimpse of how the investigation in Iran unfolded.

On the first day the Ukrainian investigators arrived (January 9t:), the Iranian officials “gave us the possibility to look at the remains of the airplane. They said that they were in a hangar. Turns out the hangar, when we arrived there at the end of the day, is just a heap of airplane rubble, that they had gathered together by bulldozer. But they (i.e. the Iranian officials) work only until 4pm”… so the Ukrainians must stop working.
On the second day a part of the investigators goes to the crash site (others go to see the flight recorders and try to access the recording of the conversations between ATC and pilots). Ruvin comments: “At the crash site we saw a lot of unknown people - Iranians that were collecting remains, things, debris. Some were collecting metallic wrecks for scrapping, some (took things) as a souvenir”.

As regards the airplane remains, Ruvin says that the investigators wondered “Where is the lower part of the airplane, where is the cockpit? Because we could not see them.” After they sorted out the remains, they noticed that the lower part of the plane “was completely missing, and that also the cockpit was missing. Only the cockpit was brought us later, a little piece of the frontal part… The seats were still missing. Not a single seat. Where they kept the plane remains (i.e. in “the hangar”), we didn’t find any”

Ruvin adds that later on -at the crash site- the Ukrainian investigators found “fragments” of 4 seats, and collected them.
He says the investigators looked for the passengers’ mobiles and tablets. They found some, and also some cards, and document bags, and on them they saw the signs of shrapnel impact. Those signs were found also on the plane remains
When it was clear what happened (it was already night//Ruvin doesn’t say “what” happened), the Ukrainians told the Iranians. At that point “a lot of cars came”, with representatives of the Iranian government. “They looked, asked to cover (everything) with plastic sheets and (also asked) not to film with mobile phone and said “We’ll deal with it tomorrow”. On the following day Iranian authorities admitted that the airplane had been shot down.

Full article with video link (in Ukrainian) gordonua .com / news/localnews/irancy-zabirali-na-pamyat-i-kak-metallolom-veshchi-s-mesta-katastrofy-samoleta-mau-chlen-ukrainskoy-gruppy-1483152.html

Mr Optimistic

17th Jan 2020, 21:18

Turkey Brain

17th Jan 2020, 21:35

So as per Gums’ post if your main “ risk “ is inadvertent shoot down, then don’t fly towards known sensitive areas. Inside 15 miles you’re extreme at risk, if directly flying towards missile batteries etc. As seen. The operator has seconds to decide if he wants to live.

But as per Optimistic’s post. If you believe you are the intended target, then the range of the missile becomes the main factor. So maybe 250 miles.

So all I have to do, is ascertain if I’m an intended target.

This brings me onto the two or three accidental shoot down of airliners, at 100 mile plus ranges in the past.

Can I forget these, as they were just training accidents?

wongsuzie

18th Jan 2020, 06:02

Somehow my original post regarding landing lights ON below 10.000' has been removed. Any assumed "cruise missile" in the area would certainly not have any such lights . . . . . .

Operator will be in a isolated box viewing a tiny black and white screen with a mouse and keyboard. Not even looking into night sky

Lake1952

18th Jan 2020, 15:36

https://news.sky.com/story/iran-to-send-black-boxes-from-downed-jet-to-ukraine-11911509

BVRAAM

19th Jan 2020, 14:02

Twitter

19th Jan 2020, 15:06

retired guy

20th Jan 2020, 07:42

Now being reported by SRF Swiss News, that the Iranians will attempt to download fdr data themselves, 24hrs after having agreed to send the recorders to Ukraine...
After the missile strike(s) there won’t be much, if any data to be had, but it is important to establish the state of the aircraft before that, in order to debunk or confirm any reasons being put out by the Iranian authorities for the downing.
Watch this space.

Thanks Twitter
not good news. Doubt they have expertise and could easily lose the entire data storage.
Yes, the recorders can confirm or deny missile theory - there won’t be any data post strike, but that will prove it was an explosion. It also looks like they’ve gone back into “not our fault” mode. Their problem would seem to be that nobody or everybody is in charge of things. Clerics. Army. Government. Revolutionary Guards etc

Thanks for that update
R Guy

ATC Watcher

20th Jan 2020, 12:15

From an ATC perspective according what I saw so far .
The aircraft was on a flight plan but actually departed 1h late , this is not unusual , Tech problem was reported in another site , even that the tech problem was not (or could not be) fixed and a/c departed with item not signed, ( Twitter) , the flights plans are all passed to air defense / military, together with the transponder code the aircraft will have on departure.
Normal VHF contact with Khomeini TWR , normal departure, following SID with normal rate of climb for a 737 ( FR24) . transfer of control and frequency to Mehrabad APP/ACC ( located on the other Tehran airport in city ) positive contact . The Mehrabad centre is a joint cicil military unit using the same data processing system , so the flight was correlated and know to the military at the center on departure . . The aircraft was then cleared to climb to FL260 ( Iranian CAA) . 5 min after taking off . aircraft disappear from Radar ( Iranian CAA) would indicate Mehrabad APP/ACC worked on secondary only. Aircraft was called by ATC , no answer (Iranian CAA)
Now , If the aircraft Transponder was jammed by outside forces ( e.g. USA) the aircraft would indeed have disappeared from radar displays but then the VHF would have stilled worked, and the crew able to answer the controller calling them after the SSR loss.
If the VHF was jammed from outside( possible and relatively easy to do ) it would have affected everyone else on that frequency, but there is report that another aircraft on the frequency reported to ATC seeing an explosion ( Ukraine and Iranian CAA).
Therefore one can assume that the moment the transmissions stopped was the moment the first missile hit . Therefore the contents of the CVR/FDR will be of no real use as they most likely stopped at the same time .
The thing that is unclear to me , again from an ATC view, is that normally once an aircraft is positively correlated as civil one by the military system, this info is passed to air defense which automatically correlate the associated primary track on their system , and keeps this until it cross their State boundary if it is an international flight . Same for an incoming flight to the country.
Now, If we believe some twitter messages from Iran dissidents posted after the event, where it was suggested that a massive cyber attack was taking place on Iranian air defense communications that morning. That could perhaps explain why the data was not transmitted. But as this in unverified it is pure speculation from my side .

ele

20th Jan 2020, 14:26

Doubt they have expertise
R Guy
On this purpose, news agency Interfax-Ukraine, in a yesteray's article, stated that Iranian authorities (specifically Hassan Rezaifer) had previously explicitly declared that they didn't have the technology to process the flight recorders (article says 'as it was a contemporary Boeing').
Canadian minister Champagne (yesterday's video available on line) invited again Iran to give the flight recorders either to France or to Ukraine, and (reasonably worried) added that Iran has to "choose its path... either they go to a path of transparency, accountability, and taking full responsibility..."
A side note for ATC Watcher: Danilov (Ukranian authority) stated in that same article I quoted earlier, dated January 11th, that there were conversations with the ATC, but that they "ceased immediately" (due to the missile strike, says Danilov).
Judging by subsequent statements by Ruvin (he said that on Januery 10th that a part of the Ukr. investigators tried to get access to ATC recordings in Teheran), it's possible that they really got access to them (and that's why Danilov says "conversations ceased immediately")
Exact words: Danilov "We consider this (the missile attack) a proven fact. For this reason those comunications (in Russian they call them 'negotiations", i.e. with the ATC), that our pilots had to carry out, ceased immediately".

lomapaseo

20th Jan 2020, 14:49

Can't they (Iran) download the recorders and provide copies eventually to some parties. That way multiple interpretations may be made and released to the media to serve different audiences

T28B

20th Jan 2020, 16:02

Quick mod note: for those of you pursuing Pilip Giraldi's theory on radar shennanigans, the thread has been moved to here (https://www.pprune.org/jet-blast/629019-american-herald-tribune-electronic-meddling-caused-iran-shoot-down.html).

DaveReidUK

20th Jan 2020, 16:24

Can't they (Iran) download the recorders and provide copies eventually to some parties. That way multiple interpretations may be made and released to the media to serve different audiences

I'd be surprised if they can download them at all. The recorders from the last major accident in Iran, in 2018, went to the BEA in France to be read.

edmundronald

20th Jan 2020, 16:37

Just a bit!

Considering some SAM systems can accurately hit an aircraft from a hundred miles away or more, I wouldn't want to be anywhere near a conflict zone in a defenceless airliner.

According to a post above Iran has the equivalent of S400 with 200 miles reach, but of course some of the same are active in Syria, possibly Turkey nowadays and there are similar US-supplied systems based in Saudi Arabia and of course Israel seems to be well endowed. I don’t know who would want to get near these loaded guns when the operators are feeling nervous. That’s without counting the Russian and US armed forces’ own weapons systems, sea and land based which have been known to down a civilian airliner on occasion.

Ukraine themselves are of course no strangers to own-goal shootdowns, having been on both sides of the equation, which now can also be said of Iran as well.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siberia_Airlines_Flight_1812

Personally, I don't understand why everybody seems so trigger happy.

Edmund

jugofpropwash

20th Jan 2020, 17:56

SWBKCB

21st Jan 2020, 11:09

Update on the Flight website:

Iranian investigators have disclosed that two missiles from a Tor-M1 anti-aircraft system were fired before the loss of Ukraine International Airlines Boeing 737-800 shortly after departure from Tehran

It has detailed the preparations for the flight to Kiev, stating that the aircraft was replenished with 9,510kg of fuel. But a load sheet calculation showed the maximum weight for the aircraft needed to be 72.5t, and that 82 items in the baggage hold – equating to 2,094kg of the overall 6,794kg of baggage – were offloaded in order to meet the criteria, bringing the 737’s weight down such that it was 32kg below the maximum. This offloading resulted in a delay to the departure. The flight, parked on stand 116R, had been scheduled for 05:15 but the aircraft’s doors were not closed until 05:49. The inquiry says 167 passengers had boarded, with one no-show. Shortly afterwards the aircraft was cleared for pushback and it eventually took off at 06:12 from runway 29R.

.Flight : Two anti-aircraft missiles fired from north towards UIA 737: inquiry (https://www.flightglobal.com/safety/two-anti-aircraft-missiles-fired-from-north-towards-uia-737-inquiry/136251.article)

Twitter

21st Jan 2020, 12:00

The 82 items average out at 25.5kg each, so probably pax baggage.

I wonder how many pax would have preferred at the time to disembark if given the choice...

Luc Lion

21st Jan 2020, 12:33

There is a new preliminary report available on the Iranian CAA site : https://www.cao.ir/web/english/investigation-reports
The document is here :
https://www.cao.ir/web/english/investigation-reports?p_p_id=NetFormGetFile_WAR_NetForm&p_p_lifecycle=2&p_p_resource_id=getFile&_NetFormGetFile_WAR_NetForm_file=RFpLRk5zMTJjRlI1L0NyVEZzbEM vNTVCQXZKSzl2RGtZVlBDNnVFV0d2emw4Y3dzUzJvQkl3REtlcExyN1BOUGd MS0JaZTZnU0M1MwpkRVZmUlZNQU5nPT0=.pdf
Unfortunately,, there is no English translation available.
Maybe someone fluent in Farsi can write down a translation...

WHBM

21st Jan 2020, 14:03

Now , If the aircraft Transponder was jammed by outside forces ( e.g. USA) the aircraft would indeed have disappeared from radar displays but then the VHF would have stilled worked, and the crew able to answer the controller calling them after the SSR loss.One has to wonder how the Flight Radar site could still interpret the accurate track of the departing aircraft if the transponder was, by some unknown force, interfered with. And how everything else around at the time was unaffected.

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

21st Jan 2020, 14:38

One has to wonder how the Flight Radar site could still interpret the accurate track of the departing aircraft if the transponder was, by some unknown force, interfered with. And how everything else around at the time was unaffected.
one would expect Primary Radar would be used. It would still show on radar but without the supplementary SSR data.

ATC Watcher

21st Jan 2020, 21:35

One has to wonder how the Flight Radar site could still interpret the accurate track of the departing aircraft if the transponder was, by some unknown force, interfered with. And how everything else around at the time was unaffected.
SAM tracking is not using transponders.
The FR24 downlinked stopped at same time as SSR returns stopped . whether this stoppage is due to a missile or jamming is the unknown .
There is a very tiny possibility that if the loss of ID was due to an outside jamming , it may look then to a SAM system as an unknown threat Flying towards them using infrared and/or primary radar.
But pure speculation .

DaveReidUK

21st Jan 2020, 22:34

The FR24 downlinked stopped at same time as SSR returns stopped.

Strictly speaking, all we can say is that a certain point, the local source that was monitoring ADS-B and feeding FR24 stopped receiving data from the flight.

It's highly likely that the reason for that is that the aircraft stopped transmitting at that point, but at this stage we can't say that with absolute certainty.

Shandy52

22nd Jan 2020, 08:53

Unfortunately,, there is no English translation available.
Maybe someone fluent in Farsi can write down a translation...

You should find Google Translate helpful.

grity

22nd Jan 2020, 11:45

Strictly speaking, all we can say is that a certain point, the local source that was monitoring ADS-B and feeding FR24 stopped receiving data from the flight.
It's highly likely that the reason for that is that the aircraft stopped transmitting at that point, but at this stage we can't say that with absolute certainty.
we know the distance between the last ADS-B position and the video-direktion/position for the SAM2 impakt, ~3300m and the last speed of UR-PSR, so the time window of all this will be ~23s

this time-way diagram show backwarts the timeline for the two SAM´s with 10s between them, if the shortest time for aktivation the SAM´s between radarview and start is ~ 5-8s??? the operator must start the prozedere nearly in the same moment of the last ADS-B signal or earlier, the diagram show maximum 9.2 s time for decision and implementation (the red line is for a shorter distance between impakt and tor-system)
https://cimg6.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/800x421/time_way_cc228a41acaf21767b55ae3fd41317c667933f5d.png

but this diagram fit not for the old-theorie that the first sam destroid the ADS-B transponder...the first impakt is in this calculation 14s later
I am sorry, it fits rather for a common cause?

Recc

22nd Jan 2020, 14:40

but this diagram fit not for the old-theorie that the first sam destroid the ADS-B transponder...the first impakt is in this calculation 14s later
I am sorry, it fits rather for a common cause?

The video of the two SAMs shows 30s between launches, with 23s between detonations, which (on your diagram) would place the 1st detonation coincident with the last ADS-B data.

grity

22nd Jan 2020, 15:19

The video of the two SAMs shows 30s between launches, with 23s between detonations, which (on your diagram) would place the 1st detonation coincident with the last ADS-B data.

ok thank you, is 850 miles for the miessile a realistic value? or rather in the direction of 750 ?

grity

22nd Jan 2020, 16:11

https://cimg3.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/669x242/time_way2_b1add3e0e847c646fc712b13f7827c2f7bd0b594.png

grizzled

23rd Jan 2020, 00:40

ok thank you, is 850 miles for the miessile a realistic value? or rather in the direction of 750 ?

Hi Grity

I'm not sure what question you are asking about the missile but if you are asking about the speed of the missile in this case, I would suggest 650 m/sec as an average speed from launch to detonation would be close.

grity

23rd Jan 2020, 08:03

yes, asking about the speed...
is the sound in the film the explosion or a supersonic bang to which is heard?

like david hilbert: we must understand, we will understand

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

23rd Jan 2020, 11:36

yes, asking about the speed...
is the sound in the film the explosion or a supersonic bang to which is heard?

There is a fair amount of background noise but from this sequence in Triumph61 post above I think the "bang" at 46 seconds is a sonic boom.
At 33 seconds we see the launch.
At 43 seconds we see the flash.
At 46 seconds there is a "bang".

3 seconds flash to bang time would suggest the flash was 1000metres away if they were linked. I think the a/c is farther away than 1000metres (from the camera) I therefore believe the 46sec "bang" to be the sonic boom.

There is a further very faint noise at 55 seconds. Flash to "noise" time 12 seconds suggests a source approximately 4000 metres away and that looks more probable.
Hope that makes sense and helps.

grity

23rd Jan 2020, 13:02

there are two further noises 1:16 ; 1:22 ?

SATCOS WHIPPING BOY

23rd Jan 2020, 15:23

there are two further noises 1:16 ; 1:22 ?
There is too much noise from someone washing dishes to really be sure.

Has the location of that video been identified? I may have missed it.

grity

23rd Jan 2020, 18:14

rumour is 13000m north of impakt 2, view to south

wow, that fit exact to impact sound 1:22

(43`+(13000/333))=(43+39)=1:22

moosepileit

26th Jan 2020, 15:51

a2soup

26th Jan 2020, 16:02

Excellent NYT article this morning on the abortive Iranian attempt at a coverup. They combine public info that I haven't seen in the English media before with highly-placed sources to report some of what happened behind the scenes, and the result is a disturbing picture of dysfunction between the elected, military, and clerical arms of Iran's government.

nytimes (dot) com/2020/01/26/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-coverup.html (Sorry, can't post links.)

Some particularly interesting bits:

But in a tragic miscalculation, the government continued to allow civilian commercial flights to land and take off from the Tehran airport.

Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Guards’ Aerospace Force, said later that his units had asked officials in Tehran to close Iran’s airspace and ground all flights, to no avail.

Iranian officials feared that shutting down the airport would create mass panic that war with the United States was imminent, members of the Guards and other officials told The Times. They also hoped that the presence of passenger jets could act as a deterrent against an American attack on the airport or the nearby military base, effectively turning planeloads of unsuspecting travelers into human shields.

By Wednesday night, the committee had concluded that the plane was shot down because of human error.

“We were not confident about what happened until Wednesday around sunset,” General Salami, the commander in chief of the Guards, said later in a televised address to the Parliament. “Our investigative team concluded then that the plane crashed because of human errors.”

Ayatollah Khamenei was informed. But they still did not inform the president, other elected officials or the public.

On Friday morning, Mr. Rabiei issued a statement saying the allegation that Iran had shot down the plane was “a big lie.”

Several hours later, the nation’s top military commanders called a private meeting and told Mr. Rouhani the truth.

Mr. Rouhani was livid, according to officials close to him. He demanded that Iran immediately announce that it had made a tragic mistake and accept the consequences.

The military officials pushed back, arguing that the fallout could destabilize the country.

Mr. Rouhani threatened to resign. [...]

As the standoff escalated, a member of Ayatollah Khamenei’s inner circle who was in the meeting informed the supreme leader. The ayatollah sent a message back to the group, ordering the government to prepare a public statement acknowledging what had happened.

Iran’s National Security Council held an emergency meeting and drafted two statements, the first to be issued by the Joint Armed Forces followed by a second one from Mr. Rouhani.

As they debated the wording, some suggested claiming that the United States or Israel may have contributed to the accident by jamming Iran’s radars or hacking its communications networks.

But the military commanders opposed it. General Hajizadeh said the shame of human error paled compared with admitting his air defense system was vulnerable to hacking by the enemy.

Iran’s Civil Aviation Agency later said that it had found no evidence of jamming or hacking.

Lonewolf_50

26th Jan 2020, 16:16

WSJ today: "Iran's 72 Hour Lie (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-coverup.html)..." summation - false alert of cruise missiles inbound, later cancelled, topped the chain of events and lined up the swiss cheese holes.
Before this disappears behind a pay wall, it is worth noting how information gets disseminated in the first few days after an aircraft accident. And I think this story - Moose's caution, it is a story, and I'll offer that it should not to be mistaken for The Whole And Complete Truth even if it looks pretty well researched - underscores why we value transparency in the accident investigation process. Or rather, why we should value it.
Beyond that, an old saying applies here: bad news does not improve with age.

Attribution: New York Times. (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/26/world/middleeast/iran-plane-crash-coverup.html)
Photographs removed. Anatomy of a Lie: How Iran Covered Up the Downing of an Airliner
By Farnaz Fassihi, Jan. 26, 2020, 3:00 a.m. ET
For three days, Iranian military officials knew they had shot down a Ukrainian jetliner while the government issued false statements, denying any responsibility. When the Revolutionary Guards officer spotted what he thought was an unidentified aircraft near Tehran’s international airport, he had seconds to decide whether to pull the trigger.

Iran had just fired a barrage of ballistic missiles at American forces, the country was on high alert for an American counterattack, and the Iranian military was warning of incoming cruise missiles. The officer tried to reach the command center for authorization to shoot but couldn’t get through. So he fired an antiaircraft missile. Then another.

The plane, which turned out to be a Ukrainian jetliner with 176 people on board, crashed and exploded in a ball of fire.

Within minutes, the top commanders of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards realized what they had done. And at that moment, they began to cover it up. For days, they refused to tell even President Hassan Rouhani, whose government was publicly denying that the plane had been shot down. When they finally told him, he gave them an ultimatum: come clean or he would resign.

Only then, 72 hours after the plane crashed, did Iran’s supreme leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, step in and order the government to acknowledge its fatal mistake.

The New York Times pieced together a chronology of those three days by interviewing Iranian diplomats, current and former government officials, ranking members of the Revolutionary Guards and people close to the supreme leader’s inner circle and by examining official public statements and state media reports. The reporting exposes the government’s behind-the-scenes debate over covering up Iran’s responsibility for the crash while shocked Iranians, grieving relatives and countries with citizens aboard the plane waited for the truth.

The new details also demonstrate the outsize power of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps, which effectively sidelined the elected government in a moment of national crisis, and could deepen what many Iranians already see as a crisis of legitimacy for the Guards and the government. The bitter divisions in Iran’s government persist and are bound to affect the investigation into the crash, negotiations over compensation and the unresolved debate over accountability.

TUESDAY

Around midnight on Jan. 7, as Iran was preparing to launch a ballistic-missile attack (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/07/world/middleeast/iran-fires-missiles-us.html) on American military posts in Iraq, senior members of the Islamic Revolutionary Guards Corps deployed mobile antiaircraft defense units around a sensitive military area near Tehran’s Imam Khomeini Airport.

Iran was about to retaliate for the American drone strike that had killed Iran’s top military commander (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/03/obituaries/qassem-soleimani-dead.html), Gen. Qassim Suleimani, in Baghdad five days earlier, and the military was bracing for an American counterstrike. The armed forces were on “at war” status, the highest alert level. But in a tragic miscalculation, the government continued to allow civilian commercial flights to land and take off from the Tehran airport.

Gen. Amir Ali Hajizadeh, commander of the Guards’ Aerospace Force, said later that his units had asked officials in Tehran to close Iran’s airspace and ground all flights, to no avail. {italics added by LW_50}

Iranian officials feared that shutting down the airport would create mass panic that war with the United States was imminent, members of the Guards and other officials told The Times. They also hoped that the presence of passenger jets could act as a deterrent against an American attack on the airport or the nearby military base, effectively turning planeloads of unsuspecting travelers into human shields.

WEDNESDAY

After Iran’s missile attack began, the central air defense command issued an alert that American warplanes had taken off from the United Arab Emirates and that cruise missiles were headed toward Iran. The officer on the missile launcher near the airport heard the warnings but did not hear a later message that the cruise missile alert was a false alarm.

The warning about American warplanes may have also been wrong. United States military officials have said that no American planes were in or near Iranian airspace that night. When the officer spotted the Ukrainian jet, he sought permission to fire. But he was unable to communicate with his commanders because the network had been disrupted or jammed, General Hajizadeh said later.

The officer, who has not been publicly identified, fired two missiles, less than 30 seconds apart. General Hajizadeh, who was in western Iran supervising the attack on the Americans, received a phone call with the news.

“I called the officials and told them this has happened and it’s highly possible we hit our own plane,” he said later in a televised statement.

By the time General Hajizadeh arrived in Tehran, he had informed Iran’s top three military commanders: Maj. Gen. Abdolrahim Mousavi, the army’s commander in chief, who is also the chief of the central air defense command; Maj. Gen. Mohammad Bagheri, chief of staff of the Armed Forces; and Maj. Gen. Hossein Salami, commander in chief of the Revolutionary Guards.

The Revolutionary Guards, an elite force charged with defending Iran’s clerical rule at home and abroad, is separate from the regular army and answers only to the supreme leader. At this point, the leaders of both militaries knew the truth. General Hajizadeh advised the generals not to tell the rank-and-file air defense units for fear that it could hamper their ability to react quickly if the United States did attack.

“It was for the benefit of our national security because then our air defense system would be compromised,” Mr. Hajizadeh said in an interview with Iranian news media this week. “The ranks would be suspicious of everything.”

The military leaders created a secret investigative committee drawn from the Guards’ aerospace forces, from the army’s air defense, and from intelligence and cyberexperts. The committee and the officers involved in the shooting were sequestered and ordered not to speak to anyone.

The committee examined data from the airport, the flight path, radar networks, and alerts and messages from the missile operator and central command. Witnesses — the officer who had pulled the trigger, his supervisors and everyone involved — were interrogated for hours. The group also investigated the possibility that the United States or Israel may have hacked Iran’s defense system or jammed the airwaves.

By Wednesday night, the committee had concluded that the plane was shot down because of human error.

“We were not confident about what happened until Wednesday around sunset,” General Salami, the commander in chief of the Guards, said later in a televised address to the Parliament. “Our investigative team concluded then that the plane crashed because of human errors.”

Ayatollah Khamenei was informed. But they still did not inform the president, other elected officials or the public.

Senior commanders discussed keeping the shooting secret until the plane’s black boxes — the flight data and cockpit voice recorders — were examined and formal aviation investigations completed, according to members of the Guards, diplomats and officials with knowledge of the deliberations. That process could take months, they argued, and it would buy time to manage the domestic and international fallout that would ensue when the truth came out.

The government had violently crushed an anti-government uprising (https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/01/world/middleeast/iran-protests-deaths.html) in November. But the American killing of General Suleimani, followed by the strikes against the United States, had turned public opinion around. Iranians were galvanized in a moment of national unity.

The authorities feared that admitting to shooting down the passenger plane would undercut that momentum and prompt a new wave of anti-government protests.

“They advocated covering it up because they thought the country couldn’t handle more crisis,” said a ranking member of the Guards who, like others interviewed for this article, spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations. “At the end, safeguarding the Islamic Republic is our ultimate goal, at any cost.”

That evening, the spokesman for the Joint Armed Forces, Brig. Gen. Abolfazl Shekarchi, told Iranian news media that suggestions that missiles struck the plane were “an absolute lie.”

THURSDAY

On Thursday, as Ukrainian investigators began to arrive in Tehran, Western officials were saying publicly that they had evidence that Iran had accidentally shot down the plane. A chorus of senior Iranian officials — from the director of civil aviation to the chief government spokesman — issued statement after statement rejecting the allegations, their claims amplified on state media.

The suggestion that Iran would shoot down a passenger plane was a “Western plot,” they said, “psychological warfare” aimed at weakening Iran just as it had exercised its military muscle against the United States. But in private, government officials were alarmed and questioning whether there was any truth to the Western claims. Mr. Rouhani, a seasoned military strategist himself, and his foreign minister, Javad Zarif, deflected phone calls from world leaders and foreign ministers seeking answers. Ignorant of what their own military had done, they had none to give.

Domestically, public pressure was building for the government to address the allegations.

Among the plane’s passengers (https://www.nytimes.com/2020/01/08/world/canada/iran-plane-crash-victims.html) were some of Iran’s best and brightest. They included prominent scientists and physicians, dozens of Iran’s top young scholars and graduates of elite universities, and six gold and silver medal winners of international physics and math Olympiads.

There were two newlywed couples who had traveled from Canada to Tehran for their weddings just days earlier. There were families and young children. Their relatives demanded answers. Iranian social media began to explode with emotional commentary, some accusing Iran of murdering its own citizens and others calling such allegations treason. Persian-language satellite channels operating from abroad, the main source of news for most Iranians, broadcast blanket coverage of the crash, including reports from Western governments that Iran had shot down the plane.

Mr. Rouhani tried several times to call military commanders, officials said, but they did not return his calls. Members of his government called their contacts in the military and were told the allegations were false. Iran’s civil aviation agency called military officials with similar results.

“Thursday was frantic,” Ali Rabiei, the government spokesman, said later in a news conference. “The government made back-to-back phone calls and contacted the armed forces asking what happened, and the answer to all the questions was that no missile had been fired.”

FRIDAY

On Friday morning, Mr. Rabiei issued a statement saying the allegation that Iran had shot down the plane was “a big lie.”

Several hours later, the nation’s top military commanders called a private meeting and told Mr. Rouhani the truth. Mr. Rouhani was livid, according to officials close to him. He demanded that Iran immediately announce that it had made a tragic mistake and accept the consequences.

The military officials pushed back, arguing that the fallout could destabilize the country.

Mr. Rouhani threatened to resign.

Canada, which had the most foreign citizens on board the plane, and the United States, which as Boeing’s home country was invited to investigate the crash, would eventually reveal their evidence, Mr. Rouhani said. The damage to Iran’s reputation and the public trust in the government would create an enormous crisis at a time when Iran could not bear more pressure.

As the standoff escalated, a member of Ayatollah Khamenei’s inner circle who was in the meeting informed the supreme leader. The ayatollah sent a message back to the group, ordering the government to prepare a public statement acknowledging what had happened.

Mr. Rouhani briefed a few senior members of his government. They were rattled. Mr. Rabiei, the government spokesman who had issued a denial just that morning, broke down. Abbas Abdi, a prominent critic of Iran’s clerical establishment, said that when he spoke to Mr. Rabiei that evening, Mr. Rabiei was distraught and crying.

“Everything is a lie,” Mr. Rabiei said, according to Mr. Abdi. “The whole thing is a lie. What should I do? My honor is gone.”

Mr. Abdi said the government’s actions had gone “far beyond” just a lie.

“There was a systematic cover-up at the highest levels that makes it impossible to get out of this crisis,” he said.

Iran’s National Security Council held an emergency meeting and drafted two statements, the first to be issued by the Joint Armed Forces followed by a second one from Mr. Rouhani. As they debated the wording, some suggested claiming that the United States or Israel may have contributed to the accident by jamming Iran’s radars or hacking its communications networks.

But the military commanders opposed it. General Hajizadeh said the shame of human error paled compared with admitting his air defense system was vulnerable to hacking by the enemy.

Iran’s Civil Aviation Agency later said that it had found no evidence of jamming or hacking.

SATURDAY

At 7 a.m., the military released a statement admitting that Iran had shot down the plane because of “human error.”

The bombshell revelation has not ended the division within the government. The Revolutionary Guards want to pin the blame on those involved in firing the missiles and be done with it, officials said. The missile operator and up to 10 others have been arrested but officials have not identified them or said whether they had been charged.

Mr. Rouhani has demanded a broader accounting, including an investigation of the entire chain of command. The Guards’ accepting responsibility, he said, is “the first step and needs to be completed with other steps.” His spokesman and lawmakers have demanded to know why Mr. Rouhani was not immediately informed.

Mr. Rouhani touched on that concern when he put out his statement an hour and 15 minutes later. The first line said that he had found out about the investigative committee’s conclusion about cause of the crash “a few hours ago.” It was a stunning admission, an acknowledgment that even the nation’s highest elected official had been shut out from the truth, and that as Iranians, and the world, turned to the government for answers, it had peddled lies. {italics added by LW_50}

“What we thought was news was a lie. What we thought was a lie was news,” said Hesamedin Ashna, Mr. Rouhani’s top adviser, on Twitter. “Why? Why? Beware of cover-ups and military rule.” I apologize that in the end I felt that I could not edit out some of the political stuff without more or less ruining the continuity of the report.

RatherBeFlying

26th Jan 2020, 19:17

The organizational dynamics in holding back the bad news are of a piece with the MAX saga.

Translation: To cover up is human

Especially applies to managers, superior ranks and politicians.

WillowRun 6-3

26th Jan 2020, 21:54

So the on-again, off-again status of Iran cooperating with international investigation specifically with respect to proper handling of the CVR and FDR is affected in what way by the in-fighting (per NYT's reporting) between power centers or factions within their government and military hierarchies? The multi-national group convened by Canada seems conspicuous by omission in the Times article.

The possibility of a more deliberately overt, and obviously far more malevolent, act wasn't ruled out before the NYT reporting. And its reporting still does not warrant ruling out such a more sinister truth. Not conspiracy theorizing, rather just bitterly skeptical when a story is recited but appears not to add up in one or more ways, and could plausibly (or more than only plausibly) turn out to be a cover story.

A few years ago, at an official conference of a major organization in international civil aviation I had the chance to meet two staff members from Iran's Civil Aviation Organization, a Director in Air Navigation Services and Aerodromes; an Assistant Director also. The mostly small-talk conversation was cordial enough. I wondered how significantly their career paths and actual roles and responsibilities were as professionally appropriate as they were in conversation, rather than having been dictated by what is usually called a theocracy. As to what these young men - both appeared pretty early in career years - would say about the black boxes, in their professional capacities, we only can wonder, guess, and hope.

Airbubba

3rd Feb 2020, 00:54

Alleged ATC audio.

https://youtu.be/wQhV3cFkgwQ

GordonR_Cape

3rd Feb 2020, 12:14

The BBC reports that the Ukrainian leak of the ATC tape is further straining the investigation: https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-51356626

WillowRun 6-3

3rd Feb 2020, 13:58

BBC report helps to clarify - especially in that a regrettable language barrier here impedes understanding much of anything in the RT on the recording. Other than the basic nature of calls to 752 that go unanswered, of course.

Or is it still now only a "purported" ATC recording? . . . . . one would think that Iran's ending cooperation with Ukraine civil aviation and/or diplomatic officials does tend toward authenticating the released segment.

Specific example: identity of pilot of the other flight communicating with ATC; locate and debrief; report. That's happening, right?? . . . . or is the multilateral group earlier convened by Canada, and the investigatory effort it was trying to press forward, behind 10 points with time starting to run out?

ATC Watcher

3rd Feb 2020, 15:28

Assuming the BBC report/translation is correct ( I do not speak Farsi nor can read Ukrainian ) what is new here is only the fact that the Aseman pilot report sighting what looked like missiles . We knew from day 1 that other pilots had witnessed the explosion and reported it on the R/T to ATC ( CAA chairman Press conference) but he omitted that part , so yes we can deduct that even the civil authorities knew from the beginning about the likelihood of a missile shutdown .. ( Unlike radar, audio VHF recording is accessible within a few minutes) So much for transparency and lies...

TheEdge

4th Feb 2020, 06:38

So much for transparency and lies...

I think the above sums up quite well everything happened so far.

EFHF

6th Feb 2020, 21:05

Translation of the Ukrainian transcript from Unian news: (https://www.unian.info/world/10856315-ps752-downing-ukraine-releases-intercepted-tower-communications-proving-iran-was-aware-of-missile-launch-all-along.html)

The recording time is 05:12
Tower: - Good morning, Ukraine International Airlines 752 (inaudible), departure identified alt 260, climb to 6000 feet, turn right to Paroch.
Tower: - After 6000 feet to Paroch.
Pilot EP3768: - We are approaching from the north, 3768.
Tower: - Good morning, 3768.
Tower: - Aseman 3768 (inaudible), identify 3343 left, level 110.
Pilot EP3768: - Flight 3768, come in.
Pilot EP3768: - We are approaching from the north, 3768.
Pilot EP3768: - No, sir?
Pilot EP3768: - Zone 320, active for passage?
Tower: - GPS (inaudible).
Pilot EP3768: - Flares on route, as if from a missile. Should anything like this be happening there?
Tower: - Zone 320? How many miles away? Where?
EP3768 Pilot: - Can't say for sure. But I think it is near (air field) Payam, (city) Karaj.
Tower: - How many miles? Where?
Pilot EP3768: - I now see the light as it flies off of there.
Tower: - We were not informed of this.
Tower: - How does it look like? What does this light look like?
Pilot EP3768: - That surely is the light from a missile.
Tower: - It's not flying toward the city (Tehran), is it?
Pilot EP3768: - It might be… Oh, no it was flying from the direction of the city.
Tower: - We were informed nothing, but keep watching.
Pilot EP3768: - Okay. I'm getting on the landing course.
Tower: - "Ukraine International Airlines" 752, do you read?
Tower: - "Ukraine International Airlines" 752, do you read?
Tower: - "Ukraine International Airlines" 752, do you read?!
(message repeated several times from 02:27 to 04:25, unanswered)
Tower: - "Aseman" 3768, 9000 (inaudible), landing course.
Tower: - "Aseman" 3768, everything, you see nothing else up there?
Pilot EP3768: - Mr engineer, we saw an explosion, a big flare from the explosion, we don't understand what it is.
Tower: - We don't know for sure...
Pilot EP3768: - Is our course OK?
Tower: - Yes, I don't think there will be any problem for you.
Pilot EP3768: - God forbid!"

ATC Watcher

7th Feb 2020, 06:24

Thanks for posting this, it is unambiguous, this definitively had to be reported so the civil CAA knew from the beginning . Shame on them .
. Just a correction , this is the R/T recording from Approach ( Meharbad ACC) not that from the Tower..
The remarks " We were not informed of this." made twice most probably refers to the activation of the military area R320, not to the missile launches themselves.

grity

7th Feb 2020, 09:21

"Pilot EP3768: - We are approaching from the north, 3768.
Tower: - Good morning, 3768.
Tower: - Aseman 3768 (inaudible), identify 3343 left, level 110.
Pilot EP3768: - Flight 3768, come in.
Pilot EP3768: - We are approaching from the north, 3768."

EP3768 is the everyday Aseman flight from Shiraz(SYZ) to Teheran(THR not IKA!), (STA 02:55 UTC; 06:25 IRST)
flight direction ordinarily directly north

approching from the north? at jan.8

Twitter

7th Feb 2020, 10:50

BBC says A-320 just missed by Syrian AA fire near Damascus.

T28B

7th Feb 2020, 15:56

Quick mod note:
For those who wish to discuss the Damascus news that Twitter refers to, please use a different thread.

grizzled

10th Feb 2020, 15:20

Canada is trying to pressure Iran regarding the CVR and FDR (diplomatically: i.e. strongly enough to hopefully convince them, yet gently enough not to cause loss of face and the resultant push-back).

https://globalnews.ca/news/6521385/iran-plane-crash-black-boxes-analysis/

WillowRun 6-3

10th Feb 2020, 23:45

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/politics/article-canada-turns-to-un-agency-to-press-iran-to-hand-over-flight-752-black/#

Another report of continuing efforts by International Coordination and Response Group (convened by Canada).

Have similar groups (that is, similar in purpose, functioning, or organization - or in all those attributes) been convened in prior incidents of military units shooting down civil transport category aircraft?

And this Group's appeal to ICAO leadership recently and the invocation of Annex 13 - this prompts a high degree of anticipation about the response (if any) by those ICAO officials, and action by ICAO out-front or behind the scenes (also, if any).

Also, about the perhaps pedantic question of how any manuevering by ICAO in any form would become a matter of record in the organization's massive "house of reports and documents". If there is a next such incident, OR if the organization's initiatives on conflict zones or IATA's or anyplace else's initiatives are to have successful preventative benefit - either outcome - having this Iran instance made a matter of record would seem an obvious necessity. I don't know that a legal--diplomatic--regulatory equivalence for "pointy end" exists, but still.

Airbubba

15th Feb 2020, 01:38

From an NBC interview with Iranian Foreign Minister Javad Zarif:

Zarif also acknowledged that Iran is not able to extract information from the black box from the Ukrainian airliner that was shot down by Iranian forces on Jan. 8, but said that Tehran will not hand over the box to outside governments. Zarif defended Iran's decision not to hand over the black box from the Boeing-manufactured aircraft, which Iran says it shot down. Zarif called the incident a tragedy and noted that most of the 176 passengers killed had Iranian passports and relatives in Iran.

Under international aviation rules, Iran had the right to lead the investigation into the downing of the airliner, Zarif said. But he said Iran needed software, cables and additional expertise from the U.S. or other Western countries to be able to decipher the information in the black box.

"We have asked for help, why haven't the United States helped us? This is a humanitarian issue. Why haven't they given us the software? Why haven't they given us the expertise?" Zarif said.

"There are still a lot of unknowns. That's why we want more than anybody else to know what is in the black box, to know what actually happened."

For the moment, "it's just sitting there," Zarif said of the black box.

NBC's Engel asked Zarif, "Right now as we're sitting here , nobody is working on it? Nobody's trying to decipher this?"

And Zarif answered, "No, no. we will not touch the black box without the presence of all interested parties."

In a meeting earlier with Zarif in Munich, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said he had "impressed upon" Iran's foreign minister that a complete and independent investigation into the shooting down of the Ukrainian passenger plane had to be carried out.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/world/trump-pushed-u-s-iran-close-brink-iran-s-zarif-n1137196

Lonewolf_50

15th Feb 2020, 14:48

I would like to see the form of the formal request for assistance.
There a numerous nations who have the capability, and doubtless a few who can put an "on the road" package together to read the data.
Smells a bit, that protestation.

hunterboy

15th Feb 2020, 17:25

Once again, I hope it isn’t the poor bastard at the end of the chain that gets the blame for this. As James Reason would have said there are systemic failures that caused this and it would be fitting for someone very high up the command chain to take responsibility for this.

ATC Watcher

15th Feb 2020, 18:05

I hope it isn’t the poor bastard at the end of the chain that gets the blame for this.
As we learnt during the MH17 to fire a SAM missile developed during the Soviet era, you need at least 3 persons. It is not just like a trigger happy soldier can shoot an aircraft on his own .. Someone much higher up had to give the OK to shoot .

WillowRun 6-3

20th Feb 2020, 14:50

Iran Says Airliner’s Black Box Damaged

Iran said the black box of a Ukrainian airliner it mistakenly shot down is significantly damaged, complicating an already protracted investigation of an incident that sparked domestic protests and angry calls for greater government accountability.

After Iran’s military admitted to shooting down Ukraine International Airlines Flight 752 and killing all 176 people on board on Jan. 8, Iranian officials indicated the country would send the flight data recorders recovered from the jet’s wreckage to another country—likely Ukraine or France—where the data could be downloaded in what they called a “neutral” laboratory.

However, Tehran has since refused to hand over the black boxes, despite admitting it doesn’t have the necessary technology to assess them.

Instead, Iranian officials asked the U.S. or France to transfer to Iran the equipment needed to download the data—an unusual request that wasn’t met.

On Wednesday, Iranian Defense Minister Amir Hatami said the box was too damaged to read and needed to be repaired first. “The black box of the Ukrainian plane has been considerably damaged,” Mr. Hatami said, according to the IRNA state news agency, adding that Iranian defense authorities had been asked to help repair the box.

“The plan is to first restore the black box and then read it,” he said.

Oleksiy Danilov, the head of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council, who recently visited Iran to discuss the investigation, said on Wednesday that Ukraine is technically ready to analyze the black boxes and Kyiv continues negotiations with Tehran.

“The decoding of the ‘black boxes’ is an important stage in the investigation as it may well provide additional information,” Mr. Danilov said in a statement. “We are committed to fully uncovering all of the details that resulted in this catastrophe. The investigation will continue until the causes are fully understood.”
________
In today's WSJ (claiming fair use derivative from Annex 13, Chicago Convention of 1944).

Interesting, as to how how much credibility is gained, or lost, by this new Iranian assertion.

Pilot DAR

20th Feb 2020, 15:01

adding that Iranian defense authorities had been asked to help repair the box.

“The plan is to first restore the black box and then read it,” he said.

Which leads me to wonder how an entity unable to read the data would know when the data recorder had been repaired to be read?

ATC Watcher

20th Feb 2020, 17:58

where the data could be downloaded in what they called a "neutral" laboratory.
and
Iranian defense authorities had been asked to help repair the box.
Does nor really fit together I would say.
Anyway like in MH17, the CVR/FDR are not going to tell us much more that we know already since they already admitted the missiles..

TC_Ukraine

1st Mar 2020, 19:07

and

Anyway like in MH17, the CVR/FDR are not going to tell us much more that we know already since they already admitted the missiles..
in case of MH17, CVR helped to find out side of missile explosion.

andrasz

2nd Mar 2020, 08:38

In that case it was relevant, because it helped identify the location of the missile launch. In this unfortunate case there is not much information to be gained from the FDR/CVR that we do not already know.

WillowRun 6-3

5th Mar 2020, 14:49

Whether or not proper - and I wish to emphasize or, to stress upon, the word "proper" - analysis of the contents of the FDR/CVR would or could yield new information explanatory of what occurred, there nonetheless is value and importance in pressing Iranian authority to deliver the recorders. The fact, by itself, that the Government of Iran was deliberately untruthful about the loss of Ukrainian 752 is reason enough to insist upon full compliance with all international processes, procedures and norms, including but not limited to the well-established and time-honored methods pursuant to and in accord with Annex 13.

If more reason were needed, the loss of Ukrainian 752 has found its way onto the current agenda of the ICAO Council, in its 219th Session, convened earlier this week: "Canada would [be] presenting a new working paper to Council on Risks to civil aviation in conflict zones: a safer skies initiative and next steps for ICAO, noting that the Representatives of the Ukraine to ICAO would be present at that meeting as well." (From ICAO announcement re the Council session; working paper title as in original) As readers of this thread and others following major developments in this international civil aviation incident are well aware, Canada has taken a leading and, to a degree, prominent role in diplomatic efforts to bring Iranian civil aviation and other authorities into proper compliance in the aftermath of this horrendous and tragic incident.
Link to ICAO website and announcement:
https://www.pressreleasepoint.com/salvatore-sciacchitano-inaugurates-219th-session-icao-council-its-new-president

Smurfjet

6th Mar 2020, 00:31

Risks to civil aviation in conflict zones...
Isn't this a pleaonasm? Self explanatory? Basic common sense?
Or are conflict zones nebulous?

ATC Watcher

6th Mar 2020, 08:00

Pleonasm ? yes it is an a way for 2 reasons, the C in ICAO and the nebulousness of many undefined areas of conflicts which are by nature military in some form or another .
example : Columbia , Turkey or Mexico to take only 3 at random , will fiercely refute that some areas of ( i.e inside) their territory are zones of conflict
And the C in ICAO means they cannot enter discussions of Military or Sate Sovereignty nature. They can only issue common sense recommendations like considering before flying into .etc... they have no power and are the wrong place to ask those questions .
There are specialized sites where you can buy the correct information on every airport and airspace in the world, updated 24/7 . Serious airlines use them ,some would like to use the info but are overruled by their marketing people or their politicians.
There is no World global regulator with powers to enforce anything.

Lake1952

6th Mar 2020, 17:05

Isn't this a pleaonasm? Self explanatory? Basic common sense?
Or are conflict zones nebulous?

OK, did anyone besides me have to look up "pleonasm"?

st7860

11th Mar 2020, 20:26

March 11 2020

https://www.theglobeandmail.com/world/article-iran-agrees-to-send-black-boxes-from-downed-ukrainian-airliner-to/
"Iran has promised to transfer the “black boxes” from Ukrainian International Airlines flight 752 to Kyiv, more than two months after the Iranian military shot the plane out of the sky, killing all 176 people on board.

Andriy Shevchenko, Ukraine’s ambassador to Canada, said the commitment was made Wednesday at a meeting of the International Civil Aviation Organization in Montreal by Farhad Parvaresh, Iran’s representative to ICAO.

Mr. Pavaresh told the ICAO council that Iran would deliver the two black boxes – which are expected to contain vital information about the last moments before the plane was destroyed by an anti-aircraft missile early on Jan. 8 – to Ukraine within 14 days.

“We hope Iran will not change its mind again,” Mr. Shevchenko wrote in a message, referencing previous Iranian promises to send the black boxes to Ukraine.

Flight 752 was hit by at least one missile shortly after it took off from Tehran’s Imam Khomeini International Airport on Jan. 8. The catastrophe occurred just hours after Iran had launched a ballistic missile attack on U.S. military bases in neighbouring Iraq, and while Iran’s military was braced for possible U.S. retribution."

ProPax

11th Mar 2020, 21:02

the two black boxes – which are expected to contain vital information about the last moments before the plane was destroyed
Like what?!

DaveReidUK

11th Mar 2020, 22:27

It's likely that, as with MH17, the CVR will help investigators to determine exactly where (relative to the aircraft) and when the missile strike occurred.

Longtimer

11th Mar 2020, 23:51

Really, who cares? The facts remain that the Jet was shotdown. Anything more is not needed.

WillowRun 6-3

12th Mar 2020, 00:43

In all likelihood the victims' surviving family members do, in fact, care about what information is to be found on the recorders. Clearly the diplomatic initiatives, including presently at ICAO Council, show that the countries from which the victims hailed have reason to care.

Unless, that is, we are to look at the aftermath of the incident as nothing but an exercise in bloodless calculus of flight dynamics, explosive force, and missile trajectories. My contention is that only abject cynicism, or rankly amatuerish apologia for Iranian malfeasance, can explain such indifference.

Let's tick off some reasons for treating the recorders as part of, if you will, an international civil aviation crime scene, shall we?

Military action against airliners is nothing new; KAL007 some 36 and a half years ago is a commonly cited exemplar. But is it really being contended that the current aftermath of Ukrainian 752 is the best the international system can do? That the recorders should be shrugged off because there are, to the knowledge of the authoritative and expert aviators, no material facts about the shootdown to be uncovered? What about the fact that obtaining the output from the recorders will remove any uncertainty or disbelief held by the victims' families? Perhaps the pilots' final words on the CVR will hold meaning for their families, dark as this might be.

And Annex 13, if it could speak, do we now say it would just shrug at Iran's deliberate, willful lies at the initial phase of the aftermath? The CVR/FDR won't erase the lies but allowing Iran to play its unbelievably bad faith games about the recorders compounds the issue.

I'm not going to contend that obtaining the recorders will suddenly empower ICAO or some other civil aviation-related body (or group of organizations) to prevent future incidents of this nature. That is, I'm not going to argue that point here. And not while the in absentia Dutch trial in re: MH17 is in progress.

grizzled

12th Mar 2020, 05:24

WillowRun 6-3

Your answer to Longtimer -- and others who may share his (either uninformed or simply cynical) opinion -- is superb. Thank you

WillowRun 6-3

26th Jun 2020, 15:45

According to remarks made by Ukraine's Ambassador to Canada on a cbc news interview segment, the ICAO Council today (Friday June 26) will hear and receive some form of report or statement by Iran with respect to status of the CVR and FDR from the Ukrainian airliner (Flight 752) shot down over, and by, Iran earlier this year. A look at the ICAO website for information about the Council agenda was not revealing. Yet the impression one gets is that it is not very typical for Member States who are not Members of the Council to present in such a fashion to formal sessions …. not that this matters - what will matter is any result, a big "if."
A link to the Ambassador's tv interview follows.
https://www.cbc.ca/player/play/1755209795888

WillowRun 6-3

27th Jun 2020, 18:56

From @icao on Twitter, June 26:
"Iran has advised today’s ICAO Council Session that #PS752 (https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/PS752?src=hashtag_click) black boxes are to be read-out in France on 20 July, employing #COVID19 (https://mobile.twitter.com/hashtag/COVID19?src=hashtag_click) protocols while assuring the participation of representatives from all countries involved. ICAO advisors will continue supporting all parties."

Imagegear

12th Jul 2020, 17:15

The link on the page takes you to the FARSI PDF document. The second half of the PDF contains the English version. (Thanks MikeSnow)

Factual Report (https://www.flightradar24.com/blog/ukrainian-flight-ps752-crashes-shortly-after-take-off-from-tehran/)

Ancient-Mariner

12th Jul 2020, 20:13

And on BBC https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-middle-east-53382794

rak64

12th Jul 2020, 20:24

magegear

Thanks!
In the English part page, 12/16 (in the PDF page 30/33) is a table of pax per nation.
It is somewhat difficult to understand but then I got it.
Travel documents submitted for reservation: means reservations.
Travel documents presented at IKA border control: means boarded.
If you add reservations for western passengers: 76 (63 Canadian, 3 German, 3 British, 10 Swedish)
But boarded western pax: 9 (5 Canadian, 4 Swedish).
They filled the no-show with: 146 Iranian instead of 82 booked and 10 Afghan instead of 4 booked.

How can it happen that almost all western passenger not boarded that flight? Just in fear after the assassination? Or was there a warning from a friendly side?

Longtimer

12th Jul 2020, 20:43

One source said the difference was because IRAN holds that if you were a citizen, then you still are .... evidently a number of those holding Canadian Passports were originally citizens of Iran.

WHBM

13th Jul 2020, 00:37

Aviation records rarely cater for dual nationality, which for those who have emigrated overseas is very common and requires them to travel with two passports. Issues with visas, and the inability to record different document details for different directions on the same airline booking, leads to significant inconsistencies. One may well have to show Iranian passports on departure at immigration to tie up with landing card details, but show Canadian passports to the airline to show ability to enter the destination country. Check in staff are fully familiar with all this but reservation system designers have overlooked it.

I still don't get one thing. The Malaysian shootdown over Ukraine one sort of sees, a lone radar image coming from a direction that hostility was expected from. But at Tehran the missile site was just on the departure side of the country's principal airport. There were a string of departures before this one. The missile crew must have seen them all passing on the same track, same height. Why suddenly this one ?

ATC Watcher

13th Jul 2020, 06:26

The report add a few light but roughly confirms a few points that I mentioned at the time .
1. after the US attacks ,their air defense overfly authorization mechanism as changed ( reversed ) page 3 , para 1 . )
2. ATC requested and obtained overfly authorization to air defense coordination center ( page 4, para 4 )
3.Main error was by local missile crew in calibrating the missile launch station by 107 Degrees and misidentifying its course ( Page 4 , para 7)
4 .Communications breakdown between coordination center and missile site ( para 12)
5 Decision to fire the 2 missiles without authorization from their air defense station.

The 107 degree mis- alignment is the key , breakdown in communications was the second. . They first did ( could) not correlate what they saw with the 737 track , and thought this target was heading for the city.
So much for flying civil aircraft in a war zone...

Tetsuo

24th Aug 2020, 13:07

It appears that Iran released further information from the black boxes.

https://www.euronews.com/2020/08/23/black-boxes-show-pilots-alive-after-missile-hit-ukraine-jet-in-iranThe head of Iran's civil aviation authority Touraj Dehghani Zanganeh said that the cockpit voice recorder registered a conversation between the pilot, co-pilot and an instructor between the two blasts.

"Up to 19 seconds after the first missile exploded in the vicinity of the aircraft, (they) noticed abnormal conditions and were in control of the aircraft until the last moment," he said, quoted by state television's website.

"The instructor indicates that the aircraft has an electronic problem and the auxiliary power has been activated," he said.

"The pilots were notified that both engines of the aircraft were on."

He said the black boxes stopped working 19 seconds after the first explosion, making it impossible to retrieve data on the impact of the second missile.

lomapaseo

24th Aug 2020, 14:09

ATC Watcher

I think ICAO needs to define a war zone to support your comment above

I had interpreted the report as concluding the aircraft was indeed flying in an approved airspace and the primary fault was in the missile battery not recognising the safe passage

TheEdge

25th Aug 2020, 06:34

Page 14 summarizes all, not much to be added.

Bergerie1

25th Aug 2020, 06:39

It is rather difficult to define a war zone when no war has been started. At what point does a revolution, a skirmish or a confrontation become a war?

Pali

25th Aug 2020, 10:29

Iranian general was killed in Baghdad by US drone, retaliating rocket strike from Iran to American bases in Iraq followed. Few hours later civilian airliner was shot down over Tehran.

Rebels in Donbas (rather unmarked Russian forces) shot down some Ukrainian planes including transport flying at 18.000 feet which couldn't be achieved with manpads and few days the MH17 was shot down with Buk.

Once the rockets fly in the area it should be a trigger to suspend civilian traffic in the area. But who will be in charge? For how long?

ATC Watcher

25th Aug 2020, 12:07

lomapaseo

I used the wrong word , ICAO does not define a war Zone , but a conflict area. But determination of a conflict area is not for ICAO to do but for the State itself . In case of MH17 and now here in Iran , both authorities did not flag the airspace used at the time as a Conflict area. And that is the issue. That said it is always the final responsibility of the airline to determine if an area is under a conflict or not and decides to fly or not in that area. Watching CNN is often a better indicator than waiting for an official airspace closure .

For info here is the ICAO text on Conflict area ( extract)

- Under the Convention on International Civil Aviation (Chicago Convention), States and States alone maintain sovereign authority over their airspace.

- This authority carries with it the responsibility to issue risk advisories regarding any threats to the safety of civilian aircraft operating in their airspace. Said threats may include, but are not limited to, armed conflicts, ash clouds due to volcanic eruptions, missile tests and rocket launches, etc.

- States also have authority to close their airspace where certain safety threats may warrant that action.

- Aircraft and airline operators are responsible for assessing global airspace risks communicated by States, and/or third parties, before deciding where they fly.

- Under this international framework, ICAO does not possess the authority to over-ride sovereign States in order to close their airspace or reroute airline traffic.

Bergerie1

25th Aug 2020, 12:31

ATC Watcher,

You are right, and very often the states responible do not promulgate the required, or even the correct, information. An airline needs to gather information from a wide range of sources, some of which are not always forthcoming. Deciding what may or may not be safe is not always easy. Quite often, a certain amount of dissembling may be the order of the day!

lomapaseo

25th Aug 2020, 13:39

Thanks for the above comments about warzones vs conflict areas. But now I am even more concerned and not just about a single incident. I really don't like the concept of ad-hoc airline responsibility for interpretation of "today's news" We must have a more responsible control as well as some sort of punitive response for unsafe follow through. I really do feel that ICAO needs to address the shortfalls here for the future and not just action on this one event.

Bergerie1

25th Aug 2020, 14:25

lomapaseo,

The dissembling I was referring to was from some of the government sources. I doubt that ICAO would be in a much better a position than even the better organised airlines.

ATC Watcher

25th Aug 2020, 15:16

lomapaseo: I really do feel that ICAO needs to address the shortfalls here for the future and not just action on this one event.
2 answers : a) ICAO did not react to this one event . The policy I quote earlier is much older. and was just renewed after MH17.
b) ICAO is just an organisation made of sovereign States. It has zero power to force a Member State to do anything against its will. Many States where there are currently conflicts , either deny it , and/or need the hard currency revenue that flights coming into their airspace or airports generate .They do not want their airspace closed.

Regarding Iran, as mentioned earlier, the drawing on page 14 the interim report explains the key failures that led to the accident ,but the second footnote on that page is interesting in our discussion .It says everything is normal now., but remember this is the assessment of the Iranian CAA, not the result of an investigation by an independent international organisation .

lomapaseo

25th Aug 2020, 20:26

Of course I know it doesn't enforce, but it does develop and publish and to seek agreement to the principals of its recommendations and if agreement is lacking may publish such actions for the rest of the states to see. I expect to support codification along these lines. At least this will help minimize ad-hoc actions

WillowRun 6-3

28th Aug 2020, 13:40

lomapaseo

In Feb. 2015 ICAO conducted its "Second High-Level Safety Conference" in Montreal. As is the case for all ICAO official events and proceedings, Member States and accredited groups and organizations as well presented Working Papers on a range of topics (each of which in turn reflects preliminary steps in committees and other forums - it's a somewhat byzantine process).

I am noting this because the subject of Conflict Zones was a prominent one at the conference. Along with Global Flight Tracking. . . As you can imagine, two Member States in particular presented especially poignant and impassioned positions. Of course, Malaysia and the Netherlands.

The limitations on ICAO action and the effectiveness of such actions as it does take (and sometimes, even whether there is any point at all in its actions) are one level of critique. There is another, however. ICAO, though this is an obvious oversimplification, grew out of the ashes and real carnage of Second World War. It has been an enormous success in being foundational for civil aviation safety and navigation standardization, globally, insofar as international aviation is concerned. If committed aviation diplomats and their national political entity superiors cannot navigate an issue such as better reduction of incidences of conflict zone damage to civil aviation, then the problem either cannot be addressed other than unilaterally (including by airline companies and their industry groups, especially IATA and IFALA), or it cannot be addressed at all.

This is not meant as a criticism of any particular Permanent Rep of any Member State. And I don't represent or advise any Member State or group . . . . (yet).

Bergerie1

28th Aug 2020, 15:43

WillowRun,

Having worked very closely with ICAO in a previous life, I very much admire the work that it does. You have described the relevant parts of, and the limitations of, the process admirably.

The problem is that signatory states do not always do what they have signed up to. And where conflict zones are involved they sometimes do not wish to reveal what is really happening, and even go so far as to deliberately conceal the information. How then is ICAO, IATA, IFALPA able to act? It still remains the responsibility of the airline to do its best, by whatever means it can, to monitor the situation itself.

Not easy!

Tocsin

28th Aug 2020, 16:46

I'm not an expert in commercial aviation or maritime, but marine traffic seems to be 'regulated' by insurance costs rather than state prohibitions. Is aviation not in a similar position?

WillowRun 6-3

29th Aug 2020, 16:26

Bergerie1

Whenever the subject of how ICAO functions (or how it doesn't) gets into discussions on this forum, there is reason to pause and try to think deeper, or since that is like editing one's own writing, at least think more accurately.

ICAO was driven into existence by fewer than all the countries who were then participants in the global civil aviation sector, obviously. Further the U.S. and the U.K. were the dominant writers, producers, and directors of the dramatic presentation from which the Chicago Convention as well as the Organization grew. Perhaps there is a cue to be found for problem-solving in the current era.

Acceptance is the only realistic option, with regard to the viewpoint that ICAO cannot - because it is not structured legalistically or operationally to do so! - control either airlines operating into or through the airspace in which "conflicts" are taking place, let alone those airspace areas themselves. By default, other groupings at the level of global civil aviation must be the venues for the effort, at least, to bring some additional order (stability, security, assurance) to the otherwise too-frequent chaos. Maybe there are those, in official capacities and underground - or under the radars as it were - who prefer the current state of affairs. I haven't yet found my contemporaneous notes from the 2015 Second High-Level Safety Conference but I do recall having found worthy of objection certain comments by the representative of the Russian Federation (but, caveat; perhaps their comment pertained instead to the agenda item on global flight tracking).

The case should be made and, the point which is the purpose of this post, the case can be made, that IATA and IFALPA can serve roles less than "All Member States" level which is the bailiwick of ICAO, and yet also greater than just unilateral. Also, not just two major players, as was the case on Chicago's lakefront in 1944. There are examples to be found in very current, that is very contemporary, organizational leverage programs. Canada recently (to name the prime example) developed and established a nationwide non-profit to guide, direct and oversee its national strategy for digital research (the NDRIO). This grew directly, purposefully and deliberately that is, from something called LCDRI, Leadership Council on Digital Research Infrastructure (universities, data consortia, research entities, and more). No reason interested airlines and pilots unions and associations, aided by others who likewise have proven bona fides for realistic approaches to what can be done, as well as some savvy and gumption to take on the more ineffective voices within the diplomatic corps who focus mostly on niceties, could not convene a similar effort and derive some sort of coordinated approach.

It's worth a shot. To avoid yet another SAM shot, that is.

meadowrun

16th Dec 2020, 00:22

Iran is not conducting its investigation into the downing of a civilian airliner in January properly and many questions remain unanswered, an independent Canadian report into the tragedy said on Tuesday.

The 79-page document is the latest expression of frustration from Western nations into how the Islamic Republic is handling the aftermath of a disaster that claimed 176 lives.

Iran’s Revolutionary Guards say they accidentally shot down the Ukraine International Airlines plane shortly after take-off, mistaking it for a missile when tensions with the United States were high. Many of the victims were Canadian citizens or permanent residents.

Former Canadian cabinet minister Ralph Goodale, charged with helping the victims’ families and examining how to deal with similar disasters in future, said “many of the key details of this horrific event” remain unknown.

“Iran...has not conducted its investigations (safety, criminal or otherwise) in a truly independent, objective and transparent manner, and answers to critical questions” are absent, he wrote in the report.

Last month the United Nations aviation agency and Ukraine complained separately about how Iran was conducting the probe.

“There’s not much of a track record to base any optimism on so far,” Goodale said by phone when asked about the chances of Tehran carrying out a fully transparent investigation. Reuters

ATC Watcher

16th Dec 2020, 07:13

This is unfortunately not unexpected as it touches the Revolutionary Guard, which is a separate State in Iran. But sadly we see this in most States when the military's are involved in shooting down an airliner either voluntarily (e.g Israel with LN114, , USSR with both Koreans, ) , or by mistake ( e.g. France with AF1611, Italy with Itavia870 , Russia with MH17, etc...) It often takes decades to get a vague idea of the truth and it generally come from investigation journalism rather that the local Accident investigation Bureau.

DaveReidUK

16th Dec 2020, 07:50

Iran is not conducting its investigation into the downing of a civilian airliner in January properly and many questions remain unanswered, an independent Canadian report into the tragedy said on Tuesday.

Report of the Special Adviser to the Prime Minister (https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/assets/pdfs/publications/flight-vol-ps752/flight-vol-ps752-en.pdf)

RoyHudd

16th Dec 2020, 09:10

ATC Watcher

In all fairness, all the shutdowns were by mistake, incl. the USSR, Israel, and Iran. Semantics, I know, but none of the ones mentioned here occurred as acts of war. Had the parties been aware of the nature of the target, they would not have taken place.
You forget the USS Vincennes shutdown of the Iranian airliner in your list. Perhaps the published report differentiates it.

Nevertheless, military admissions of error and guilt can lead to international consequences such as war crimes. Unsurprising that they are not published, rather than just simply unfortunate.

ATC Watcher

16th Dec 2020, 10:51

In the case of Israel and USSR , no, they knew perfectly what they were shooting at , and the decision to shoot down an airliner was given by the higher authority in full knowledge.. Look for the now published reports of Libyan B727 and the Korean707. In the case of Korean 007, we had to wait 10 years or so to get the Russian telephone transcripts that indicated that some Top brass thought it was a civilian airliner, while some others did not and ordered it shot down just in case. The transcripts are available on Wikipedia. In Iran now, yes it looks like they did not know what they were shooting at, like MH17and I excluded those. As to the USS Vincennes /IR case indeed I excluded from my list because we have a good report with exactly what failed and what happened from the US investigation board.

They are a lot more cases of voluntary shooting down civilian aircraft , in the cold war era , check El Al 402 by the Bulgarians in 1955 , or Malev 240 by the Lebanese. in 1975 , the 2 Rhodesians Viscounts airliners in 1978, DHL in Baghdad, etc... ..no misidentification , voluntary civil airliner shot down
And even this year last May , the east African Airways E120 Brasilia in Somalia ( shot down by Ethiopia) the list is long..

CargoOne

16th Dec 2020, 12:14

There is one point you missing about it. Both Korean incidents (accidents) have happened after their intrusion into Soviet airspace from a sensitive direction at the height of Cold War, accompanied with USAF activities nearby in case of KAL007. It is the same as no-comms 747 would be heading towards Washington D.C. city centre, ignoring interceptor signals in our days.

India Four Two

16th Dec 2020, 13:06

Report of the Special Adviser to the Prime Minister (https://www.international.gc.ca/gac-amc/assets/pdfs/publications/flight-vol-ps752/flight-vol-ps752-en.pdf)

I've just been reading the report posted by Dave Reid. Something I wasn't previously aware of - maybe I missed it here - is that the missile battery operators had set up the orientation incorrectly:

One of these mobile air defence units was located in some proximity to IKA airport, where its operator failed to align it properly, making an enormous directional error of 107 degrees off north;
........
The operator mistook a 40-metre long commercial passenger jet taking off and ascending from east to west for some sort of threatening aircraft or missile coming in from west to east;

andrasz

16th Dec 2020, 20:03

I scanned through the report, and honestly it is a waste of paper on which it was written. The Iranians in their preliminary report have come as close as possible without explicitly saying so that their supposedly invincible Revolutionary Guards have screwed things up in a monumental way. Pretty much everything that affects the aviation aspect of this tragic incident has been answered in that report. It is also clear from the initial reactions and the surprisingly unrestricted access of the local media to the crash site, that for the first 10-12 hours the lower ranks of the government were not aware of what really happened.

The 'crucial unanswered questions' raised in the report are all related to the command structure and training level of the Iranian military, and it is quite obvious that they will not answer those questions. Nobody else would. On the other hand, knowing Iran I would expect that those responsible have already received a far harsher punishment than any counterpart in western countries under similar circumstances.

WillowRun 6-3

17th Dec 2020, 01:55

Two things about publication of this report. Given the fact the aviation-related aspects of the incident were almost entirely (if not entirely in fact) already known, and the additional fact the IRG's command echelons and those of other command authorities in their country certainly are not going to participate in a publicly accessible inquiry, does the report still serve any purpose? (Both of the givens I've referenced, as noted in previous posts.)

The litigation options for victims' families probably are quite limited, for a number of reasons, in any effort to gain recourse for the loss of loved ones. So a report such as this provides some substitute sense of recourse - quite limited but better than nothing. So not exactly for mere political stances, but in a similar ballpark.

Maybe it's reading too much into the notion of Montreal's status as the global capital of international civil aviation but when an incident like this strikes at Canadian senses and sensibilities, maybe the subtext (and unspoken premise) is that despite good intentions driving prior efforts to improve operators' decisions about traversing conflict zones, some more robust approach is worth a try. Despite also the litany of prior incidents which suggests that nothing better can be done. . . . . . .

And while this SLF's familiarization with aviation law generally and such shoot-down incidents specifically still is "in work" - every time I read a litany like the ones above there's an entry I hadn't read of before. (Yeah, older lawyers think about curriculum reform as a means of trying to accomplish something, at least, after a mostly wasted existence adding up billable hours.)

[Post-script: another rip through the report compels this addition if not correction - the report certainly describes, in some detail, the steps taken in the context of coping with the tragic incident and mounting some semblance of the necessary response despite enormous hurdles. Secondly, the report while not contending that certain diplomatic and related efforts would greatly reduce (or prevent) incidents of this type, does document initiatives launched by Canadian government offices to address the problem area (Safer Skies Strategy, and the International Coordination and Response Group). I suppose cynicism arrives way too easily these days.... instead of compiling this report - and undertaking the many and varied actions it describes - what actions would detractors have had the Government of Canada take in lieu of what it has done?]

cessnaxpilot

17th Dec 2020, 03:08

CargoOne

you’re saying KAL007 no comm in that area is like heading to Washington DC? Not anywhere near any major Russian cities.

ATC Watcher

17th Dec 2020, 08:05

Cargo one , final try : there are internationally agreed procedures to intercept civil aircraft , USSR (Russia) signed them . In case of KAL 007 they were not followed and someone high up in the Soviet military gave the order to shoot down a 747 without proper attempt of identification , call on 121,5, forced to land, firing tracers in front , etc...
Initially ( i.e immediately after the accident in 83 ) they said they mistaken it for a USAF RC135, but the R/T and telephone transcripts released in 1993 showed that the Sukoi pilot first flew alongside the 747 knew it was a civilian 747, reported lights ,etc.. but none of the usual interception rules were followed.
And as cessnaxpilot pointed out , there was nothing out there, and they were heading out of Russian airspace when they decided to shoot it down before it entered international waters again .
The Su15 pilot that shot it down gave an interview in 1991 here is an extract what he said :
In a 1991 interview with Zwestia Major Gennadiy Osipovich, pilot of the Su-15 interceptor that shot the 747 down, spoke about his recollections of the events leading up to the shootdown. Contrary to official Soviet statements at the time, he recalled telling ground controllers that there were "blinking lights" .He continued, saying "I saw two rows of windows and knew that this was a Boeing. I knew this was a civilian plane. But for me this meant nothing. It is easy to turn a civilian type of plane into one for military use." : "I did not tell the ground that it was a Boeing-type plane; they did not ask me." Later we began to lie about small details: the plane was supposedly flying without running lights or strobe light, that tracer bullets were fired, or that I had radio contact with them on the emergency frequency 121,5, all not true.

CargoOne

17th Dec 2020, 13:36

ATC Watcher, well one more try from my side too - it is irrelevant whether it was civilian or military aircraft, as correctly quoted by Russian jet pilot. It is an intruder into the airspace from a sensitive direction at the height of the Cold War. Aircraft breaking into Washington DC will be shot these days irrespectively of being a pax 747 or TU-95. The only difference there was no capital or major city but indeed there was plenty of military installations in the area, including air defence and back then it was more important than any city. I don't remember all details of KAL007 chain of events and I'm too lazy to read wiki again but I definitely remember the other KAL B707 was properly warned by the interceptor and have chosen not to follow the commands. You can never judge the actions without taking into account the background of the times.

jmmoric

17th Dec 2020, 13:48

I wasn't but a child during the cold war, only some 14 when they tore down the wall.

But I believe that eventhough the war was cold at times, there are no deliberate shoot downs of civilian airliners by the NATO side, where the aircraft has been identified.

Didn't Soviet airliners stray into NATO airspace? Or were the Soviets just more anxious than we were? Or were we just better at the whole intercept and lead out again thing?

ATC Watcher

17th Dec 2020, 16:18

Cargo one, I rest my case no point to argue if you made up your mind already and do not want to read the facts. The ICAO reports are also on line, but , yes it need a bit of effort to find them and read them. For info both KALs were shot down leaving Soviet airspace, so no threat as per your DC example .

Jmmoric : good for you, I am unfortunately old enough to remember quite well KAL 007 and a few others . But you are right NATO members or the USA never shot down an airliner that was identified as such . IR655 shot by USS Vincennes was an ID error. The main difference between East and West in those days was that in the West the order to shoot had to come from an elected civil government minister , not a local air defense military commander , which was the case in USSR and its satellites.
I believe that today in modern Russia it is also the political level that can give those orders and not the military anymore, but I leave it to someone more local knowledgeable to correct me .

Back to the topic of this thread , in Iran there are 2 levels of military one is the Revolutionary Guards, aimed at protecting the Islamic revolution and which control the Country's missiles with their own chain of command. . But it is irrelevant in our case since it was a misidentification . The missile operators never thought they were firing at a civil B737, unlike the Russian interceptors pilots on both KAL,
.

WillowRun 6-3

17th Dec 2020, 20:20

The headline on one of the Chicago major daily newspapers, in the vending box in one of the O'Hare terminals, shouted the startling news, that a Korean 747 had been shot down by the Russians. It might not have been tanks lined up at CheckPoint Charlie in Berlin in the Kennedy Administration, but it certainly was Cold War vibrations.

But regardless, in this time when Big Data and Artificial Intelligence and various other technologies and organizational techniques are gaining more traction and presence in everything related to civil aviation, is it really the case that command echelons and responsibilities from back in the days of the Cold War are the standards by which incidents are assessed and evaluated? By which corrective actions are determined and sought to be implemented? As I am looking closely still at the new Canadian report, for now, I'll just say if the Cold War operating mindset is what the yardstick is said to be calibrated in, WR 6-3 dissents.

Beamr

18th Dec 2020, 06:23

Didn't Soviet airliners stray into NATO airspace? Or were the Soviets just more anxious than we were? Or were we just better at the whole intercept and lead out again thing?

You just reminded me of this story. "East of Shetlands" may well be in the NATO airspace, nevertheless, even though proven to be a spy plane it wasn't shot down.
https://theaviationgeekclub.com/the-unknown-story-of-the-raf-phantom-crew-that-intercepted-a-soviet-il-62-classic-spy-plane-disguised-as-an-aeroflot-airliner/

ATC Watcher

18th Dec 2020, 07:22

Great story Beamr.. never heard it before ! . yes, "deviating " Russian Aeroflot aircraft were common in those days ., especially the Tu134s , who ,as we suspected and learned later , had cameras in the glass nose and radio listening devices and recorders in the hold. . I witnessed a couple above Belgium . always the same procedure, radio comms failure for a few minutes deviations, then back on track with a " sorry Nav problems " But they were not the only ones doing this in those days , the use of the Berlin corridors by French , British and US aircraft was a nice playing ground for those spy games back then ..

DaveReidUK

18th Dec 2020, 07:37

Beamr

Ilyushin IL-62 with concealed camera ports? Great story!

Maoraigh1

18th Dec 2020, 18:12

Was this in international airspace, east of the Shetlands? If so, legal under international law.

Beamr

19th Dec 2020, 05:14

the story doesn't tell, but it might be either way.
However, the soviets had a long history of shooting down airliners in international airspace, starting from 40's: OH-ALL "Kaleva". It was nowhere near soviet airspace but on a scheduled flight between two independent countries when shot downby two soviet planes from close range. And it did not have any spying equipment. Nor did AY915, a DC10 which was fired at with a missile.

CargoOne

19th Dec 2020, 12:39

ATC Watcher

Well I am sorry but the aircraft intruding into the super power’s airspace 40 years ago, ignoring comms and interceptor commands and then trying to leave is no longer considered as civil flight with consequences attached. As we know from KAL b707 accident nothing bad would happen if they follow the interceptor - pax were sent home in one piece just a few days after and even the Captain was pardoned quickly. Taking your chances against the air defence may end up badly, be it now or 40 years ago

WillowRun 6-3

5th Jan 2021, 15:32

In the nature of a question, mostly (with a reason for considering it relevant, also...)

Does a particular item in the news reports today provide a basis for further considering how plausible, or rather how quite suspicious, Iranian explanations about missile crew mistakes really are? Not going to summarize the specific steps or subroutines involved in the specific missile launches or in operation of the air defense battery in general, given these parts of the Iranian storyline are found easily and readily enough.

But in the news today, Saudi Arabia and Qatar have reached enough of a framework agreement so that the Kingdom has reopened its borders which of course includes airspace, to Qatar, and hence to overflights by Qatar Airways. As the WSJ news article notes, the airline had been overflying Iran during the closure, which had generated additional airspace usage fees for Iran. A factor which should have been of obvious relevance already (although your friendly neighborhood SLF/atty poster just plain missed). So the question is:

In the situation during the closure of Saudi airspace to Qatar Airways, with the airline instead overflying Iran and doing so to the financial benefit of Iran, does it not register as plausible that the Iranian missile crews would have been more diligent and more vigilant, more closely overseen and supervised, more fear of supreme authority put into them, so that any possible mistake would not tragically down a Qatar flight? It's not the revenue here that is the hook, it's the fact that the overflights would appear to have been a reason for significantly greater oversight and vigilance, not less and not even just business as usual.

The reason I'm kicking this out at this moment is not that I got an "F" on my most recent Iranian geography quiz. Instead, it's that the Canadian government's diplomatic efforts in the aftermath of this tragedy are being taken quite seriously by the participants not only from Canada but from the other Member States as well...yes, I realize, what really can be done? and there have been shoot-downs before, et et etcetera. The point is, my sources say that despite those "so what?" factors the diplomats and government officials involved are taking the current initiative seriously. And that as a result, having a proper frame of reference around the ".....oh, the missile crews, they tried to operate this complicated gear properly but were fallible" storyline is important. Isn't it important?

grizzled

17th Mar 2021, 19:20

Final Report released today. Being quoted from by various news sources but no onlne link available yet.

DaveReidUK

17th Mar 2021, 20:31

https://cimg9.ibsrv.net/gimg/pprune.org-vbulletin/532x553/ps752_causes_41b6d71a6276a32ec0ea0819630ed30955d8f3a2.jpg

ATC Watcher

18th Mar 2021, 16:53

If the rest of the report is like these 2 paragraphs, no need to read the rest . we already know.
Am I correct in assuming that the report is not going into details as to why communications failed between the Civil ATC part and the Air defense unit responsible for the coordination ?

WHBM

18th Mar 2021, 21:51

Does the report say anything about how there had been a whole string of departures in the previous hour on the same track, but this was the one shot at..

grizzled

18th Mar 2021, 21:56

Here is a link to the full report (made available by the CTSB, Canada). English version begins on page 140:
https://www.tsb.gc.ca/eng/enquetes-investigations/aviation/2020/a20f0002/report/a20f0002.pdf

DingerX

19th Mar 2021, 03:10

I believe you're looking for pp. 75-76. Presumably, after a round of scanning for threats, the mobile SAM scooted about 100m at 4:54 AM, and went into Standby mode. They changed their direction, but did not reset north, resulting in a 105-degree error. They switched the radar on again at 6:07, and acquired a target at 6:14, apparently bearing 250 and heading 56, but actually bearing 143 and heading 309. At 6:14:19, they reported the contact to the Coordination Center and twenty seconds later fired. According to the Iranian military, which provided this information, the Coordination Center did not receive the call, nor could it be heard on their recordings.

Big Pistons Forever

19th Mar 2021, 03:26

The Iranian government is committed to a safe, effective and efficient civil air transport system......said no one, ever

WillowRun 6-3

19th Mar 2021, 09:39

Uncertain if any abbreviation might exist for the SLF-equivalent of an individual who lacks real, operational knowledge of SAM units or their radars, but ....
If a unit had decided to create facts that possibly would be seen as credible as an explanation for a supposed "error" - as a cover story - would a 105-degree error resulting from failure to "reset north" be a plausible way to set up the cover story?

Less Hair

19th Mar 2021, 10:27

While this is a tragedy I think it is quite remarkable, that they are finally open about what happened. This is a very good sign after all those lives lost.

Big Pistons Forever

19th Mar 2021, 18:24

I don't think so.....

From the head of Canada's Transportation Safety Board

The TSB’s Fox says her agency does not typically comment on other agencies’ reports. “However, given this unprecedented situation, where the state whose military was implicated in the event led the investigation, and given its impact within Canada, we feel that it is important to publicly convey our independent assessment of the final report,” she says.

Fox says Iran’s report frames the incident “in the context” of Iran-US military tension. But it fails to describe Iran’s missile-defence supervision and oversight practices, to address “underlying deficiencies” or to say what actions Iran has taken to prevent such future incidents.

“The AAIB says that military activities fall outside of the scope of” ICAO’s accident investigation guidelines, Fox says. “We do not agree.”

Fox also says Iran’s civil aviation agency failed to warn airlines of military-related hazards, as ICAO recommends.

TSB representatives had some participation in the investigation. Iran granted Canada “more access to the investigation activities than we were technically entitled to, but less than what we asked for”, says Fox.

For instance, the TSB was not allowed to hear the 737’s cockpit-voice recorder or to access flight-data recordings.

Less Hair

19th Mar 2021, 18:57

Reading #660 they clearly blame the military and its risk management. What else could they do realistically? I understand the frustration about that political blame game intro but it's a cvivil government body that finally openly criticizes their own military.

ATC Watcher

19th Mar 2021, 19:02

“The AAIB says that military activities fall outside of the scope of” ICAO’s accident investigation guidelines, Fox says. “We do not agree.”
Well he can disagree of course but this is a fact and correct.
I have not finished to read the Iranian report but so far I read the confirmation that the Civil ATC did coordinate the departure with the military sector , so the communication failure(s) were inside the military apparatus.
Procedure to avoid misaligning a missile battery and improving communications between them and their command center fall well outside of ICAO Annex 13.

That said, that the Canadians, seen the number of their nationals on board, feel unhappy with the report one can understand them.
Fox also says Iran’s civil aviation agency failed to warn airlines of military-related hazards, as ICAO recommends.
There they have a point, and in fact there lies the main issue. The Sates are responsible to declare a conflict area and airlines decide to fly or not in that area,. Often listening to CNN gives better info that waiting for a NOTAM of the State involved.
Similar situation at the moment with Saudi Arabia . IFALPA just issued a Safety bulletin , urging extreme caution. But if your airline schedule you to go , or, like in this case , to fly back home, what do you do ?

One mystery though , I cannot see why the Canadians were not allowed to have access to FDR and CVR recordings . What can there be in there that is subject to secrecy or that would alter the conclusions. ?

grizzled

19th Mar 2021, 19:18

ATC Watcher:

Re your last point. Canada's participation was restricted to only those areas listed under 5.27 of Annex 13, which lists the things that an observer / expert from a State that does not qualify (in that given accident) to particpate directly via the "Accredtied Representative" rules of Annex 13. The relevant section of Annex 13:

PARTICIPATION OF STATES HAVING SUFFERED FATALITIES OR SERIOUS INJURIES TO ITS CITIZENS Rights and entitlement
5.27 A State which has a special interest in an accident by virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens shall, upon making a request to do so, be permitted by the State conducting the investigation to appoint an expert who shall be entitled to:
a) visit the scene of the accident;
b) have access to the relevant factual information;
c) participate in the identification of the victims;
d) assist in questioning surviving passengers who are citizens of the expert’s State; and
e) receive a copy of the Final Report.

That section omits some of the entitlements for State's "Accredited Representatives" listed separately in the Annex, including the specifc right to be present for the decoding / playing of the various recorders.

ATC Watcher

19th Mar 2021, 19:33

Thank you for that explanation , forgot that bit. you are right. , I can guess the relations between the Iranians and the Canadians might have been strained that the Iranians decided tp play by the book.
They are correct but it is rather unusual I would say.

grizzled

19th Mar 2021, 19:56

ATC Watcher: I think your comment is right on the money re Iran played this "by the book" meaning doing only what Annex 13 requires and nothing more. As you suggest, that is somewhat unusual as, in my experience, most States allow those additional experts more latitude. And yes, the relations between Canada and Iran have been very strained since 2012 (Canada currently has no diplomatic representation in Iran and vice versa.)

WHBM

20th Mar 2021, 02:35

I wonder why for a flight under 1,300 nm and duration about 2hr 45min, departing before dawn, elevation 3,600ft on a recent 737-800, they needed to leave 85 pieces of luggage behind due to weight issues. Aircraft seems more capable than that.

WillowRun 6-3

6th Apr 2021, 21:46

Reporting in The Canadian Press today states that in Iran, ten officials have been indicted in connection with this incident. The indicated officials have not been named. The news article refers to other reporting about statements made by an Iranian "military prosecutor" - specifically referring to the "semiofficial ISNA news agency" and the "Iranian judiciary's Mizan news agency."

Article in The Canadian Press also reports statement by Canada Prime Minister Justin Trudeau demanding further accountability, compensation, and justice. Additional statements by others as well.

ORAC

21st May 2021, 05:21

https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/flightps752-private-lawsuit-against-iran-alleging-terrorist-activity-1.6034581

Iran intentionally shot down Flight PS752 in 'an act of terrorism,' Ontario court rules

Ontario's Superior Court of Justice has ruled that the shooting down of Flight PS752 by Iran was an intentional act of terrorism.

The Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC) shot down the Ukraine International Airlines flight with two surface-to-air missiles shortly after takeoff in Tehran on Jan. 8, 2020, killing all 176 passengers onboard. There were 138 passengers onboard with ties to Canada, including 55 Canadian citizens and 30 permanent residents.

"The plaintiffs have established that the shooting down of Flight 752 by the defendants was an act of terrorism and constitutes 'terrorist activity'..."Justice Edward Belobaba wrote in his decision issued Thursday. "I find on a balance of probabilities that the missile attacks on Flight 752 were intentional and directly caused the deaths of all onboard.”

Iran did not defend itself in court to refute the plaintiff's evidence, making this a default judgment.….The court decision is a way for victims' families in Canada to seek damages from Iran for the death of their loved ones.

Iran was served the claim in the fall of 2020 and was noted in default last December. The justice said the plaintiffs are entitled to default judgment on liability. Another court hearing will take place to determine compensation…..

Arnold told David Common, host of CBC News Network's Power & Politics, that there are Iranian assets in Canada and internationally that he would try to seize, including oil tankers.

"We will be looking internationally to seize whatever it is we can seize once we have a determination of what the level of compensation is," he said…….

jmmoric

21st May 2021, 11:06

…….

"Default judgement" since the defendant didn't meet in court.

I'm not sure about the idea of seizing Iranian property abroad to cover compensation..... that'll bring up a lot of questions about what is possible to do in the future.

Drag the US, or any other country, into court, they do not show, "default judgement" and we start seizing property......

atakacs

21st May 2021, 12:28

I understand that this is mostly a money grab but quite frankly this judgement is ridiculous in so many ways.

WillowRun 6-3

4th Jan 2022, 22:32

The Ontario Superior Court of Justice has issued a second ruling (dated Dec. 31, 2021) awarding damages, based on its prior ruling on issues of liability. The total damages award is $107 million, with almost $95,000 in costs. The estates of passengers killed in the accident were awarded a total of $1 million in compensatory damages for loss of care and companionship, $1 million to each of six estates for pain and suffering, and $100 million in punitive damages to be divided among the estates.

Here is the link to the Court's opinion - without any comment on whether the judgment will be collected or otherwise enforced. And also without prediction or forecast about whether or not it will have any benefit for the diplomatic efforts Canada has initiated and supported since the January 8, 2020 shootdown of Ukraine International Airline PS 752.

Zarei v. Iran Damages (squarespace.com) (https://static1.squarespace.com/static/5e2c96399357e236fda551a5/t/61d339545d4c6e16f3571532/1641232724567/Zarei+v.+Iran+Damages.pdf)

RatherBeFlying

5th Jan 2022, 01:39

Iran Air 655In February 1996, the U.S. agreed to pay Iran US$131.8 million in settlement to discontinue a case brought by Iran in 1989 against the U.S. in the International Court of Justice relating to this incident,[51] together with other earlier claims before the Iran–United States Claims Tribunal.[15] US$61.8 million of the claim was in compensation for the 248 Iranians killed in the shoot-down: $300,000 per wage-earning victim and $150,000 per non-wage-earner.

In both cases the missile operators believed they were under fire.

Anyway Iran needs to pay up too.

ATC Watcher

5th Jan 2022, 10:18

Iran Air 655
In both cases the missile operators believed they were under fire.
.
Not sure this is you meant . That the aircraft they tracked was an hostile, yes, but both there were not under fire from anyone.

Vitek

5th Jan 2022, 11:01

Not sure this is you meant . That the aircraft they tracked was an hostile, yes, but both there were not under fire from anyone.

Probably what was meant is that in both cases operators assumed there was an imminent and threat from the target. Not shooting at them (at that moment, at least) but could be momentarily should a decision not be taken.

The fact that the first missile was shot 20 seconds after seeing the target shows just how heated the situation must have been on the Tor. Having read the report I buy the Iranian version of events. The Canadian ruling that it was a terrorist attack and that the Iranians knew what they were shooting at is either political or incompetence on the Canadian's part.

WHBM

5th Jan 2022, 11:14

The Canadian ruling that it was a terrorist attack and that the Iranians knew what they were shooting at is either political or incompetence on the Canadian's part.
It is indeed unfortunate that stupid incompetence by the Iranian military has now been followed by stupid incompetence by the Canadian legal system. Rather invalidates everything. It's a shame, normally the Canadians are better at things than this.

Meanwhile, surprising is the complete silence by Ukraine, who one would have thought were even more central to this than Canada. But nothing. Was the Tor missile actually supplied by Ukraine, from onetime Soviet stocks ? Or did Ukraine do the training on them ?

boaclhryul

7th Jan 2022, 17:22

Al Jazeera: Iran says it has begun paying families over downed Ukraine plane (https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2022/1/7/two-years-on-no-resolution-over-downing-of-flight-ps752)

WillowRun 6-3

8th Jul 2023, 01:58

Canada, the Kingdom of Sweden, Ukraine, and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland have jointly filed an "Application" instituting proceedings, in the International Court of Justice in The Hague, against the Islamic Republic of Iran, in re: Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752. The ICJ press release indicates that the Application filing (if interested) is available on the ICJ website.

"Canada, the Kingdom of Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland jointly institute proceedings against the Islamic Republic of Iran"

THE HAGUE, 5 July 2023. Yesterday, Canada, the Kingdom of Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland filed a joint application instituting proceedings against the Islamic Republic of Iran before the International Court of Justice (ICJ), the principal judicial organ of the United Nations, concerning a dispute under the Convention for the Suppression of Unlawful Acts against the Safety of Civil Aviation (the “Montreal Convention”).

In their Application, Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom claim that Iran has violated a series of obligations under the Montreal Convention as a result of the shooting down on 8 January 2020 of a civil aircraft in service, Ukraine International Airlines Flight PS752, by military personnel of Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. All 176 passengers and crew aboard the flight, many of whom were nationals and residents of the applicant States, were killed in the crash.

According to the Applicants, Iran “failed to take all practicable measures to prevent the unlawful and intentional commission of an offence described in Article 1 of the Montreal Convention, including the destruction of Flight PS752. It also subsequently failed to conduct an impartial, transparent, and fair criminal investigation and prosecution consistent with international law.”

Canada, Sweden, Ukraine and the United Kingdom seek to found the Court’s jurisdiction on Article 36, paragraph 1, of the Statute of the Court and on Article 14, paragraph 1, of the Montreal Convention, to which all four Applicants and Iran are parties.
___________
The Application instituting proceedings is available on the Court’s website.

fdr

8th Jul 2023, 09:03