MH17 down near Donetsk
What were the 3 aircraft in the area?
SIA351 B772 CPH-SIN (to the NW of MH17)
EVA88 B77W CDG-TPE (to the SW)
The target identified as "A330" is a mystery. It may be significant that there is no target shown that corresponds to AIC113 B788 DEL-BHX, so they may be one and the same.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Some where anywhere
Posts: 71
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
For example:
What were the 3 aircraft in the area?
What more was on the ATC transcipts
The Dutch were under massive pressure to produce a report, but what has been published today is limited information in extremis.
What were the 3 aircraft in the area?
What more was on the ATC transcipts
The Dutch were under massive pressure to produce a report, but what has been published today is limited information in extremis.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Very interesting that report omits official Russian primary radar plot with Ukraine military plane very near of MH17 in the moment of accident. Not a word in article about another traffic!
I don't believe in story of SAM Buk. When launching and climbing the sound is extremely loud, everyone in radius 15 km should hear it. In war zone, everyone is aware of sounds like this. On both sides. In such high populated area, it should be hundreds or thousands of witnesses. But there is no one. I believe that no side launched any SAM, regardless if deliberately or by mistake.
I don't believe in story of SAM Buk. When launching and climbing the sound is extremely loud, everyone in radius 15 km should hear it. In war zone, everyone is aware of sounds like this. On both sides. In such high populated area, it should be hundreds or thousands of witnesses. But there is no one. I believe that no side launched any SAM, regardless if deliberately or by mistake.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago, IL, US
Age: 73
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"Wonder if we will ever really know the truth."
In war, truth has always been the first casualty. These days there is no truth, just points of view, based on politics, not logic, for the general public. All governments lie to both their own people and to other nations to advance the careers of politicians and the wealth of those who back them. The average person, be they a passenger on the plane, a civilian on the ground, or a third party in another country are pawns in a game were only the Kings matter.
I'm of the opinion that the US, the EU, NATO, and Russia all know exactly what happened and why (Russian provided system, provided to blunt Ukrainian air power, mistakenly targeted MH17). They all agree that the unvarnished truth about the cause of dead of these 298 people, as well as thousands of other in Ukraine, isn't a truth their public will meekly accept. The mutual economic benefits of minimizing and obscuring this event are all too obvious to all parties.
The only lesson to be learned from this tragedy is that civilian aircraft must stay out of the engagement envelope of modern missile systems. However, I fully expect this too will be soon forgotten in the name of economic benefits. This will happen again.
In war, truth has always been the first casualty. These days there is no truth, just points of view, based on politics, not logic, for the general public. All governments lie to both their own people and to other nations to advance the careers of politicians and the wealth of those who back them. The average person, be they a passenger on the plane, a civilian on the ground, or a third party in another country are pawns in a game were only the Kings matter.
I'm of the opinion that the US, the EU, NATO, and Russia all know exactly what happened and why (Russian provided system, provided to blunt Ukrainian air power, mistakenly targeted MH17). They all agree that the unvarnished truth about the cause of dead of these 298 people, as well as thousands of other in Ukraine, isn't a truth their public will meekly accept. The mutual economic benefits of minimizing and obscuring this event are all too obvious to all parties.
The only lesson to be learned from this tragedy is that civilian aircraft must stay out of the engagement envelope of modern missile systems. However, I fully expect this too will be soon forgotten in the name of economic benefits. This will happen again.
Last edited by jmmilner; 9th Sep 2014 at 19:58.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago, IL, US
Age: 73
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
"In such high populated area, it should be hundreds or thousands of witnesses. But there is no one."
There have been witnesses who reported the presence of the BUK system in the area at the time. You choose to ignore them. There are pictures of BUKs with their numbers painted over in both Russia and eastern Ukraine. Why would the rebels and/or the Russians hide the identity of such military equipment? There are fighters on both sides who have killed civilians. Why would large numbers of civilians report what they have seen, knowing the wrong story could get them killed by either side?
There have been witnesses who reported the presence of the BUK system in the area at the time. You choose to ignore them. There are pictures of BUKs with their numbers painted over in both Russia and eastern Ukraine. Why would the rebels and/or the Russians hide the identity of such military equipment? There are fighters on both sides who have killed civilians. Why would large numbers of civilians report what they have seen, knowing the wrong story could get them killed by either side?
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Russian plot of primary radar:
http://avherald.com/img/malaysia_b77...k_140717_9.jpg
2 a/c west, 1 a/c east and fourth military a/c north-east. Target 3505. Map of Ministery of Defence RF.
http://avherald.com/img/malaysia_b77...k_140717_9.jpg
2 a/c west, 1 a/c east and fourth military a/c north-east. Target 3505. Map of Ministery of Defence RF.
Join Date: Jun 2010
Location: Czech Republic
Posts: 185
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There have been witnesses who reported the presence of the BUK system in the area at the time. You choose to ignore them. There are pictures of BUKs with their numbers painted over in both Russia and eastern Ukraine. Why would the rebels and/or the Russians hide the identity of such military equipment? There are fighters on both sides who have killed civilians. Why would large numbers of civilians report what they have seen, knowing the wrong story could get them killed by either side?
I can read Russian and I may declare, that Russian facebook (v kontakte) is FULL of photoshop FAKES at both side. The similar war like on the ground goes in the internet.
Guest
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: In the shadow of R101
Posts: 259
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This video shows several Buk-M2 launches:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0
The sound is not particularly quiet, but it's very short-lived because the missile heads for altitude very rapidly.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DDXScnEKaP0
The sound is not particularly quiet, but it's very short-lived because the missile heads for altitude very rapidly.
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Eastern Europe
Age: 61
Posts: 106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Karel_x
Does it show another aircraft near MH17? Does it simply show the break-up of the Boeing 777 which has produced the radar returns? Has Russian military
intelligence messed up just the same as they did with the claim in the same brief of the Buk on the trailer video? Not Krasnoarmeisk as the Russians claim but Lugansk.
Transcription of the Russian Military brief at following UK Russian Embassy link.
Special Briefing by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the Ukrainian air space, July 21, 2014
If they can't even geo-locate a video and have to spin a story then think what they have misinterpreted with the radar picture?
Does it show another aircraft near MH17? Does it simply show the break-up of the Boeing 777 which has produced the radar returns? Has Russian military
intelligence messed up just the same as they did with the claim in the same brief of the Buk on the trailer video? Not Krasnoarmeisk as the Russians claim but Lugansk.
Transcription of the Russian Military brief at following UK Russian Embassy link.
Special Briefing by the Ministry of Defence of the Russian Federation on the crash of the Malaysian Boeing 777 in the Ukrainian air space, July 21, 2014
We can clearly see that its frame-up. These pictures were made in the city of Krasnoarmeisk that is confirmed by a banner situated close to the road. This banner has an address of the car shop situated at the Dnepropetrovskaya, 34. Since May 11 the Krasnoarmeysk city is under control of the Ukrainian Armed Forces
Last edited by TEEEJ; 9th Sep 2014 at 21:41. Reason: Added quote from Russian mil brief
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dutch preliminary report
The dutch preliminary report did end some of the controversial theories that went around:
1. The claim that Ukraine ATC deliberately had MH-17 descend to FL330. The report states that Ukraine ATC wanted MH-17 to climb to FL350, but that the MH-17 crew reported that they were unable to comply.
2. The claim that there CVR/FDR was tampered with: The report found no eveidence of tampering.
3. The claim that Ukraine ATC deliberately changed the route of MH-17. MH-17 requested the reroute themselves, not on initiative of Ukraine ATC.
4. The 'gun-down' theory is now even more unlikely, as both FDR/CVR ended their recording at the same time without indication of trouble. This means that both systems were damaged simultaneously, a very unlikely event in case of canon fire, but fitting the case of a missile hit.
5. The claim that the holes were both entry as well as exit holes: the holes were caused by high speed objects entering the plane from the outside.
Probably some other theories went bust that were both too bizar and too unimportant to remember.
Despite the earlier DSB claim they could carry out the investigation in their offices using satelite images and using the internet, I sense a strong urgency to go to the crash site and do some field work. With the present cease-fire, what are they waiting for?
The most interesting news came from the chairman of the Dutch safety board. He explained to the press that metal fragments (using the word 'sharpnel' would imply missile parts) were recovered from the bodies of the pilots and these fragments were now being investigated wether these are parts of the airplanes or something else.
Last week, a Belgian dentists working on the identification process also explained that every body/bodypart is scanned for metal fragments as part of the identification process.
1. The claim that Ukraine ATC deliberately had MH-17 descend to FL330. The report states that Ukraine ATC wanted MH-17 to climb to FL350, but that the MH-17 crew reported that they were unable to comply.
2. The claim that there CVR/FDR was tampered with: The report found no eveidence of tampering.
3. The claim that Ukraine ATC deliberately changed the route of MH-17. MH-17 requested the reroute themselves, not on initiative of Ukraine ATC.
4. The 'gun-down' theory is now even more unlikely, as both FDR/CVR ended their recording at the same time without indication of trouble. This means that both systems were damaged simultaneously, a very unlikely event in case of canon fire, but fitting the case of a missile hit.
5. The claim that the holes were both entry as well as exit holes: the holes were caused by high speed objects entering the plane from the outside.
Probably some other theories went bust that were both too bizar and too unimportant to remember.
Despite the earlier DSB claim they could carry out the investigation in their offices using satelite images and using the internet, I sense a strong urgency to go to the crash site and do some field work. With the present cease-fire, what are they waiting for?
The most interesting news came from the chairman of the Dutch safety board. He explained to the press that metal fragments (using the word 'sharpnel' would imply missile parts) were recovered from the bodies of the pilots and these fragments were now being investigated wether these are parts of the airplanes or something else.
Last week, a Belgian dentists working on the identification process also explained that every body/bodypart is scanned for metal fragments as part of the identification process.
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Sydney (Aust)
Age: 78
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
silverstrata says
When quoting some outside analysts please put the link so we can take deeper look. I find it hard to believe you did that analysis, based on that single piece of wreckage, and managed to miss the thousands of other pieces of evidence giving a different picture.
a) damage on the cockpit areas is soot and blistering from a nearby high heat source eg detonating missile, NOT FROM FIRE
b) there is NO fire or even heat damage on any other parts of the plane, apart from the centre section containing the fuel, which caught fire only on impact
c) the video purporting to be MH17 falling and spinning on fire was proven to be of an Antonov transport downed 2 days earlier. This has been known since about July 20.
No other air crash in history has ever been this thoroughly photographed for public consumption. Grabbing .001% to build theories on is conspiracy theory stuff, not an attempt to seek truth.
Sadly, all operators in the area use identical equipment, so finding pieces of shrapnel etc won't answer WHO???
SLF305 asks
yes MIG29s look them up in Wikipedia for all the armament possibilities.
EARLY ON all parties tried to use whatever partial data they had, to blame others with. Since then they have more recent propaganda incidents, and have stopped promoting the MH17 theories.
It is time people interested in how aircraft break up drop the odd theories, too. The solution to who shot MH17 and why is geopolitical. Dragging up debunked "evidences" won't get you there.
Regards burning, the forward fuselage section in my previous post shows evidence of inflight fire/smoke damage. The smoke staining is directionally streaked, demonstrating this was inflight. ...........
........So yes, much of the fuselage would have been on fire, after this intense heat-explosion. There is a video on line showing a burning aircraft descending from great altitude, but I have no idea if this video is genuine. The truth was the first casualty of this incident.
........So yes, much of the fuselage would have been on fire, after this intense heat-explosion. There is a video on line showing a burning aircraft descending from great altitude, but I have no idea if this video is genuine. The truth was the first casualty of this incident.
a) damage on the cockpit areas is soot and blistering from a nearby high heat source eg detonating missile, NOT FROM FIRE
b) there is NO fire or even heat damage on any other parts of the plane, apart from the centre section containing the fuel, which caught fire only on impact
c) the video purporting to be MH17 falling and spinning on fire was proven to be of an Antonov transport downed 2 days earlier. This has been known since about July 20.
No other air crash in history has ever been this thoroughly photographed for public consumption. Grabbing .001% to build theories on is conspiracy theory stuff, not an attempt to seek truth.
Sadly, all operators in the area use identical equipment, so finding pieces of shrapnel etc won't answer WHO???
SLF305 asks
Is there a Ukrainian military aircraft that fires high energy fragmentation air to air missiles???
EARLY ON all parties tried to use whatever partial data they had, to blame others with. Since then they have more recent propaganda incidents, and have stopped promoting the MH17 theories.
It is time people interested in how aircraft break up drop the odd theories, too. The solution to who shot MH17 and why is geopolitical. Dragging up debunked "evidences" won't get you there.
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Antipodes Islands
Posts: 94
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
both FDR/CVR ended their recording at the same time without indication of trouble. This means that both systems were damaged simultaneously, a very unlikely event in case of canon fire, but fitting the case of a missile hit.
Power to the recorders comes via the Main Equipment Bay which is located below and behind the flight-deck. MEB remnants were seen in the same wreckage cluster as the flight-deck indicating they separated at the same time.
I totally disagree with the theory it was cannon fire, but at the same time, you can't claim simultaneous cutoff of recorders proves this. All that's required is the MEB is catastrophically damaged. This can (did) result from in-flight breakup of the front section from whatever cause.
I read somewhere else that high energy SAM fragmentation particles have such a high velocity/energy that an aircraft will start burning when being hit. Looks like MH17 parts started to burn on the ground and not in the air. Any experts
In other cases the aircraft seemingly survived the warhead detonation (which by itself produced a pretty good sized fireball) and remained essentially intact, or at least in one large piece without any fire other than the result of the missile warhead. Some pilots subsequently ejected and some did not. Sometimes the aircraft impacted the ground and burned. Others either didn't burn or perhaps I didn't notice. It's usually a busy time when the air is filled with SAMs, some of which seem to have your name on them.
In one case, I saw the aircraft main fuel cell rupture producing a big ball of white fuel vapor which did not ignite.
I would say that a large and very noticeable in-flight fuel fire might be expected when any aircraft is shot down by a large SAM, but that outcome is certainly not guaranteed. The fact that MH 17 apparently burst into flames only after impact with the ground is not all that surprising, at least to me.
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Ukraine
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left side - actual path of MAS017.
Right side - path of MAS017 according to russian ministry of defence.
Why did they lie about it? As truth could be find out from black boxes and ukrainian radar recordings.
Last edited by TC_Ukraine; 11th Sep 2014 at 06:19.
Join Date: Sep 2014
Location: Bangkok
Posts: 15
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Left side - actual path of MAS017.
Right side - path of MAS017 according to russian ministry of defence.
Why did they lie about it? As truth could be find out from black boxes and ukrainian radar recordings.
Right side - path of MAS017 according to russian ministry of defence.
Why did they lie about it? As truth could be find out from black boxes and ukrainian radar recordings.
The scale of two maps is completely different. Russians probably reflect MAS017 request to avoid the weather, a maneuver too small to be shown on Ukrainian map.
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: Netherlands
Age: 54
Posts: 42
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The two recorders stopped because of lack of power, not because of other damage.
I didn't write it proved it, only mentioned it is even more unlikely. This is because the recorders didn't record impact or other noises/data associated with shelling. It would mean that the first hit severed the recorders.
From other accidents (silkair 1997), we know that the CVR keeps recording about 250 msecond after power is severed (yes different CVR, but lets assume not different in this aspect), and some impact noise could have been recorded, even if power was severed at first hit.
I didn't write it proved it, only mentioned it is even more unlikely. This is because the recorders didn't record impact or other noises/data associated with shelling. It would mean that the first hit severed the recorders.
From other accidents (silkair 1997), we know that the CVR keeps recording about 250 msecond after power is severed (yes different CVR, but lets assume not different in this aspect), and some impact noise could have been recorded, even if power was severed at first hit.
http://avherald.com/img/malaysia_b77...k_140717_9.jpg
That is quite some relevant information. The SU-25 at 10.000 meters with a speed of 400 km/h against the MH17 at 10.000 meters with 900 km/h.
Whoever likes to believe that, , i don't.
That is quite some relevant information. The SU-25 at 10.000 meters with a speed of 400 km/h against the MH17 at 10.000 meters with 900 km/h.
Whoever likes to believe that, , i don't.
