Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

MH17 down near Donetsk

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

MH17 down near Donetsk

Old 17th Feb 2015, 13:03
  #1541 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Age: 62
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The possible Point of the BUK Launcher is 47°58'29.44"N 38°45'36.38"E

about 15km in south

The Point of the "Military" Objekt is in this region 47°50'51.93"N 38°51'14.56"E

Here you can find a Heli Landing Place 47°48'46.24"N 38°51'23.74"E
zoom in and wondering how much Miltary you can see. Best view with GE.
triumph61 is offline  
Old 20th Feb 2015, 07:01
  #1542 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I did not mean the BUK that destroyed MH17. But another setup on Russian soil. (IIRC, ukraineatwar geolocated it)

(I think we might see a helicopter attacking towards the Ukrainian border crossing / checkpoint 5980m north from the helipad.)
sotilaspassi is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 10:57
  #1543 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2015
Location: Germany
Posts: 1
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Russians said, that the PSR could only detect objects above 5000m. That would be way too high for an attacking heli!
Bernd78 is offline  
Old 23rd Feb 2015, 18:24
  #1544 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Age: 62
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The Russian telling a lot of Think about the Su Theory..

I don´t think that this possible Heli was attacking. The MH17 was shot down by a BUK.
(But it is possible that the shot was planned? ATC Rostov changed the Route directly over the Buk(s) in Snizhe; if the Missile don´t hit, the Heli is on Stand By and MH17 gets down on RU Area. )

Edit: I get an Info via PM that Russia is able to see Targets about 1000m at UA/Russian Border. At the Crash site it is about 1500m.

Last edited by triumph61; 28th Feb 2015 at 10:10.
triumph61 is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2015, 09:45
  #1545 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>...Russia is able to see Targets about 1000m at UA/Russian Border. At the Crash site it is about 1500m.

Sounds reasonable. The ground there does not have huge elevations, so I was thinking that closer to the primary radar, they should see items also below 5000m altitude.

Further debunks other than the BUK theories.

btw. What are the coordinates to the nearest (Rostov?) primary radar?
sotilaspassi is offline  
Old 2nd Mar 2015, 09:48
  #1546 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The crash zone was covered by two radars in Russia:
near Baturinskaja
http://wikimapia.org/#lang=ru&lat=45...39.460187&z=18
and near Ust-Donetskij
http://wikimapia.org/#lang=ru&lat=47...40.682395&z=18
http://www.panoramio.com/photo/36980319

Last edited by Lena.Kiev; 2nd Mar 2015 at 10:48.
Lena.Kiev is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2015, 07:42
  #1547 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sydney (Aust)
Age: 78
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
wreckage display

Families have been allowed in to a Dutch air base to see most of the wreckage. Important parts like cockpit are not on display.

BBC News - MH17 families view plane wreckage at Dutch base
MH17 next of kin finally view wreckage of downed flight | Daily Mail Online
KatSLF is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2015, 08:29
  #1548 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
http://nos.nl/artikel/2022540-aivd-h...team-mh17.html
Translation to English:
https://twitter.com/Erkie999/status/...016897/photo/1
Lena.Kiev is offline  
Old 4th Mar 2015, 12:16
  #1549 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
According to Tjibbe Joustra, chairman of the DSB, the story about AIVD (dutch intelligence) not cooperating with the DSB is a hoax. See his reply here:
'AIVD werkt onderzoek naar MH17 tegen' - AD.nl

He also said that the DSB has a wish list of components still needed to be recovered. On a TV interview he stated that the collection of debris of last november was a 'grab what you can' effort, and that the top of the forward fuselage is still in Ukraine, in the northern debris area that has not yet been searched. A wish-list has been sent to Ukraine and now fighting has been calmed in that area, it is likely that some new shipments of MH-17 parts will go to the Netherlands.

It will take until the end of the year before reconstruction is complete, so I guess that the final report of the DSB will not be ready before 2016.
blackbird69 is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 10:30
  #1550 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Sweden
Age: 48
Posts: 443
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I just got a PM with a link to a youtube video; garbage from front to end. Conspiracy theorists that pick and choose their information, distort it to unrecognisable format and present it as Truth.

MH17 is a tragic tragic accident with missile involvement most likely by Russian troops and even more likely by mistake. This makes it almost unbearable to comprehend.

So please spare me your Truth. It sure must feel nice to cover up the hard reality in a blanket of fairy tales but leave me out of that. I will report you.
MrSnuggles is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 15:38
  #1551 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: California
Age: 55
Posts: 203
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@blackbird69
Nico claims that if airlines had known that air-to-air engagements were carried out over Eastern Ukraine, many airlines would have diverted outside Eastern Ukraine.
Some national regulators did issue a ban on flights e.g. FAA banned all US flights over Ukraine. Some airlines decided to avoid without waiting for regulator e.g. BA. Did Kiev keep commercial flights running to provide a human shield to their military operations as they already lost some a/c to SAMs? The notion that a commercial a/c would be safe above a certain FL but a target 1000' feet lower hardly instills confidence that it is a good short cut.
xcitation is offline  
Old 5th Mar 2015, 17:21
  #1552 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Finland
Age: 57
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by MrSnuggles
I just got a PM with a link to a youtube video; garbage from front to end. Conspiracy theorists that pick and choose their information, distort it to unrecognisable format and present it as Truth.

MH17 is a tragic tragic accident with missile involvement most likely by Russian troops and even more likely by mistake. This makes it almost unbearable to comprehend.

So please spare me your Truth. It sure must feel nice to cover up the hard reality in a blanket of fairy tales but leave me out of that. I will report you.
Thank you for a valuable input and all the new information you provided to this thread. Alleged information warfare is a real core issue in aviation accident investigation.
Caygill is offline  
Old 6th Mar 2015, 07:45
  #1553 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
> Did Kiev keep commercial flights running to provide a human shield to their military operations as they already lost some a/c to SAMs?

I think the "human shield" theory is nonsense. Every day UA planes were shot down even when tens of passenger planes flew over the area.
To my understanding all a/c losses (except one) were cause of light SAMs/manpads that can reach only 5km of altitude. And the only one higher than that was close to border and suspected to be shot from russian side of the border.
So, to me it seems Ukraine wanted to get the money from companies using their airspace. And to keep their "pride" by hinting that they control their country airspace. Perhaps they also trusted Russia to not to shoot at passenger planes.
But in the morning of 17.Jul they had the intelligence info that BUK system came over the border. At that point they should have closed the airspace immediately, even if the intelligence info was not 100% concrete.

IMHO, it's also interesting that almost 100 Russian civilian aircrafts flew over donbass area, within one week after MH17 was downed.
sotilaspassi is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 14:59
  #1554 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Quote:
Some national regulators did issue a ban on flights e.g. FAA banned all US flights over Ukraine. Some airlines decided to avoid without waiting for regulator e.g. BA.

True, but the Dutch and Malaysian regulators didn't see this as their task. And there is no system in place in the Netherlands that governmental intelligence information would flow to the airlines or regulators. Airlines could do the risk analysis themselves, but in current cost-cutting environment there is probably not that much capacity available.

Lets wait for the DSB report concerning this.

@sotilaspassi
I agree that the human shield theory is nonsense, because:

1. you still needed to go down for ground attack, so point defence missiles would still do their job.
2. the main ground attack aircraft (SU-25) would not benefit from this because its ceiling is much too low for this.

But the indicents on july 14th and 16th Kiev always stated these were not shot down by manpads, but Pantsir or Air to Air missile. That should have been a warning for everybody flying in that area, even if Kiev didn't close the airspace.

The rebels could also have given warning that civilian air traffic wasn't safe above their territory. They actually claimed that they only used manpads. Probably to lure some Ukraine transport in unsuspecting danger.

And don't forget this: the BUK missile was driven on a truck, and on that truck you can't fire missiles. It was deliberately rolled off that truck, and driven to a field for a specific mission.

After shooting down MH-17 the mission was either forfilled or abandonned and the BUK went back on the truck for voyage home.

That mission was unlikely to protect some armour. If that was the case, it would probably be deployed in the field and driving around without a truck.

The mission was most likely to shoot down the transport plane that dropped supplies for the Ukraine soldiers near the Russian border south of the launch site. This way they could deny supplies to the soldiers there and as a bonus the plane would be shot down over rebel territory before dropping supplies, yielding some goodies for the rebel force.

How they could mix up MH17 with an Ukraine transport is still unclear, and
was already discussed in this thread. Even more so if these were Russian regular soldiers.
blackbird69 is offline  
Old 9th Mar 2015, 17:06
  #1555 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by blackbird69
How they could mix up MH17 with an Ukraine transport is still unclear, and was already discussed in this thread. Even more so if these were Russian regular soldiers.
The Russian soldiers (Buk TELAR crew) were told (in Russian) via cellphone: "bird flew to you". The phone tap (0:22) was published by an Ukrainian law enforcement agency on July 25. On October 27 an interview with Westerbeke (JIT) was published mentioning phone taps:
außerdem liegen uns diverse Aufnahmen von Telefongesprächen vor, die die ukrainische Polizei mitgeschnitten hat. Einiges davon ist bereits online verfügbar, wir haben allerdings umfangreicheres Material bekommen.
Google translation:
we also several recordings of telephone conversations before, which has recorded the Ukrainian police. Some of this is already available online, but we did get richer material.
On March 4 Westerbeke said:
We are looking at forensic evidence, phone tap analyses from the time around the crash, witness accounts and many different scenarios
The fact that Westerbeke still talks about phone taps after 4 months evidences that the taps weren't dismissed as fake despite widespread distrust of them when they were published.
Lena.Kiev is offline  
Old 10th Mar 2015, 18:27
  #1556 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Germany
Age: 62
Posts: 50
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RU SU-25 chief engineer: no way SU25 could have downed MH17 (in german)
Russischer Chefentwickler der Su-25: "MH17 nicht von Kampfjet abgeschossen" | tagesschau.de
Krieg in der Ukraine - Abschussort der Rakete könnte gefunden sein - Politik - Süddeutsche.de
triumph61 is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2015, 19:55
  #1557 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Finland
Age: 57
Posts: 66
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
An accident investigation simply doesn't work along these lines. No one is at this point interested in who-said-what. The investigation will focus solely on undisputable facts and in any lesson learned in avoiding a similar tragedy. It might become a fact that a missile downed the airliner, but the report will certainly not start guess who shot it and how. Same goes with any XXXX fighter doing this or that.
Caygill is offline  
Old 11th Mar 2015, 23:10
  #1558 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@Caygill
You're right, but Westerbeke is the leader of the criminal investigation, not of the DSB investigation. So he is very interested in who shot down MH17. He will not publish a report, but will try to put the responsibles on trial.

@Lena.kiev
Is the SA-11 TELAR not able to do some IFF on itself? And it doesn't answer the question why they got the message 'bird flew to you'. So who decided and why that MH17 suddenly was a valid target?

This apart from the fact that I would only have needed a smartphone with flightradar 24 (and internet connection) on it to see that it was a civilian airline that was coming towards me.
blackbird69 is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2015, 07:25
  #1559 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Neither Ukrainian military transport Il-76 nor MH17 have Russian military IFF transponder. They both look as a foe for Buk-M1 (or Buk-M1-2) TELAR. Without IFF, the TELAR can distinguish only between three classes of targets: airplane (fast target with rotating parts - in engines), cruise missile (fast target without rotating parts) or helicopter (slow target).

Two versions who decided and why that a plane was a valid target:

1. The Russian troops with the rebels (trained on Russian military base near Ukrainian border) had intel about Ukrainian military transport Il-76 scheduled for that day (indeed scheduled, but canceled) to drop (from altitude to avoid MANPADS, with varying success) ammunition and food for Ukrainian troops surrounded then near Russian border. A spotter in a quiet rural area heard a plane invisible over clouds. This seems incredibly unprofessional, but nothing unheard of for Soviet/Russian army.

2. http://www.sbu.gov.ua/sbu/control/en...0&cat_id=35317

In both versions the Russian TELAR crew assumed Il-76.

On July 21 Russian Ministry of Defense gave a briefing (presented by Chief of Staff of the Main Operations Directorate). On it a picture was shown with alleged MH17 path - with a diversion from Donetsk towards North-East. This contrived path proves that Russian military didn't know about FlightRadar24.
Lena.Kiev is offline  
Old 12th Mar 2015, 07:33
  #1560 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Finland
Posts: 26
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
>Is the SA-11 TELAR not able to do some IFF on itself?

IMO, the TELAR never does that. On the same second the TELAR radar is activated, the enemy a/c knows it's targetted, so the missile must be launched immediately. Otherwise the target has too much time to do evasive maneuvers and potentially launch a radar homing missile at BUK TELAR.
sotilaspassi is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.