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

MH17 Investigators Report

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 Investigators Report

Old 10th Feb 2023, 01:51
  #61 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by JanetFlight
IMHO Ukraine was always very weird and dubious regarding civil aviation and other stuff relating aviation. For example during many years before this sad war, Ukraine was the main booster regarding breaking and corrupting sanctions towards Iran, issued by US and UE...We could been taxing on some main Iranian airports, and we could watch outside a vast myriad of exotic Iranian airlines and half of them were painted on the registration field by the famous letters UR-.
Mainly were those famous Maddogs and oldie 737s.
Lots of new Ukrainian airlines created (let's say) last decade and an half, (and some of them ceased to exist after some months) , were exclusively dedicated to lease planes to Iran new airlines. Some basic plane spotting websites could confirm this. Peace 🙏
Your overall line of reasoning is certainly true (I won't discuss the details), though we need to recognize, Ukraine was moving from a state (including its originally more or less dictatorial political system) alike Russia into a Western democracy. This does not happen overnight (Europe developed this state system -on their own- in a couple of centuries), so fall-out and mistakes can be expected.

Though, it is obvious, the Ukraine people elected for the change towards a Western democracy. Which in turn frightened Russia (or better, the Russian rulers), since more and more of their historic Russian companion countries turned away from the Russian state-system, happily joining the Russian-enemy coalition. Mark, that this is not about the Russian state itself, or the Russian people, but specifically the Russian rulers seeing their power-base undermined.

Going back to the 2014 Donbas and the way the downing of the MH17 was treated by the local population (indifference and looting the passenger possessions !), it is clear, that Ukraine, especially the 2014 Donbas area, was certainly more Russian-barbarian alike, than Western civilized. Which in turn explains why the Donbas got its terrorist uprise to "separate" from Ukraine and joining Russia, given the better "match" in mentality.
WideScreen is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2023, 02:18
  #62 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
WideScreen :
That is subject to lot of controversy. Who knew what when and the motivation to keep the upper airspace open to get the revenue (in hard currency) of the overflying charges badly needed by Ukraine was there , bearing in mind it is the same Gvernement authority that both collect those charges and declare if the airspace is safe or not. .
Todays' Wikipedia is rather explicit emphasis on "today" )
Wikipedia is a great source, though unfortunately not really suitable for controversial subjects, since everybody can "edit", etc.
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
Did the Civil Ukrainian CAA knew ? They say no, But some Western airlines did had some info because they avoided all of the Ukrainian airspace from the beginning of June. ( one and half months before MH17) taking longer routings and additional costs.
But it is all hindsight and without proofs..
Yep, there were airlines already avoiding Ukraine overflight, though it never surfaces with factual information around the "why". Not to say, my impression is, this was more based on a general "be careful", avoid war zones, than practical information about real threats (the Ukraine Buks were out-of-order, so not relevant).

Correct me, when I am wrong, though my memory says, there were other reputable airlines (SQ ???), also overflying Ukraine, on the same day. QF/KE were already avoiding the Ukraine airspace. And, let us be realistic, how easy is it, to judge on your own, whether an airspace at the other side of the world is safe to use, when the local airspace "owner" gives a green ? This would be a lot easier to determine for airlines, hosted "around the corner".

Not to say, the JIT has investigated this whole and never did come up, that additional info was available for Ukraine or the airlines, that the airspace above FL250/320 would be unsafe. Given the "unsafe airspace" is one of Russians defenses, it can be expected, the JIT did focus on this subject. The general no-nonsense, no cover-up approach Dutch people tend to have, makes it also not likely, information around this subject is kept secret.
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher
For the second part of your post, I fully agree. They are going back in the early Soviet era.
Yeah ....
WideScreen is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2023, 08:20
  #63 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,681
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
@ WideScreen"
Not to say, the JIT has investigated this whole and never did come up, that additional info was available for Ukraine or the airlines, that the airspace above FL250/320 would be unsafe. Given the "unsafe airspace" is one of Russians defenses, it can be expected, the JIT did focus on this subject. The general no-nonsense, no cover-up approach Dutch people tend to have, makes it also not likely, information around this subject is kept secret.
The delacartion of Frank Brenner ,DG of Eurocontrol at the time to either the IT or to a commission of the Dutch paliament ,( I cannot recall which one ) as to what Network Manager knew , and when and to who it was passed on to ( the Dutch State represenative and not KLM , if my memory is correct, ) gives a clue.
I will PM you another clue.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2023, 08:31
  #64 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Budapest
Posts: 308
Received 202 Likes on 119 Posts
WidescrWide-screen
These paragraphs appear contradictory

Correct me, when I am wrong, though my memory says, there were other reputable airlines (SQ ???), also overflying Ukraine, on the same day. QF/KE were already avoiding the Ukraine airspace. And, let us be realistic, how easy is it, to judge on your own, whether an airspace at the other side of the world is safe to use, when the local airspace "owner" gives a green ? This would be a lot easier to determine for airlines, hosted "around the corner".

Not to say, the JIT has investigated this whole and never did come up, that additional info was available for Ukraine or the airlines, that the airspace above FL250/320 would be unsafe. Given the "unsafe airspace" is one of Russians defenses, it can be expected, the JIT did focus on this subject. The general no-nonsense, no cover-up approach Dutch people tend to have, makes it also not likely, information around this subject is kept secret.
UkSATSE should have closed the airspace to the top.
Expatrick is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2023, 09:03
  #65 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Expatrick
WidescrWide-screen
These paragraphs appear contradictory
....
.
It was not intended to be contradictory, can you elaborate on that ?
WideScreen is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2023, 09:13
  #66 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Budapest
Posts: 308
Received 202 Likes on 119 Posts
Originally Posted by WideScreen
It was not intended to be contradictory, can you elaborate on that ?
You seem, on the one hand to imply that airlines should have known (that the airspace was unsafe) while also implying that no one could know that was the case.

At least that's how it seems to read.

Ukraine airspace is "owned" by the military and released by them, at their discretion, for civil use, in conjunction with UkSATSE (Ukr AMC). Both the Ukrainian military & AMC are closest to the situation and should have the relevant awareness. If in doubt, close it down!
Expatrick is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2023, 11:26
  #67 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Originally Posted by Expatrick
You seem, on the one hand to imply that airlines should have known (that the airspace was unsafe) while also implying that no one could know that was the case.

At least that's how it seems to read.

Ukraine airspace is "owned" by the military and released by them, at their discretion, for civil use, in conjunction with UkSATSE (Ukr AMC). Both the Ukrainian military & AMC are closest to the situation and should have the relevant awareness. If in doubt, close it down!
Aha. OK, let me explain.

When deciding, one usually makes decisions based on "hard" facts. Unless the consequences are severe, then one starts to caution towards the safe side, especially in aviation. So, when there is a developing war zone, still not full scale, presumably partial safe, one can assume, the development towards a full-scale unsafe situation does continue, and some moment in time will reach the "unacceptable" qualification.

So, even when the airspace owner declares the airspace safe, the logic of continuity suggests a growing unsafe situation (until proven otherwise). Depending on one's judgement, a use/not-use switch comes sooner or later. So, some airlines started to avoid Ukraine earlier than others. Even when MH17 would not have been shot down, it could very well be, all airlines would have decided to avoid Ukraine airspace, within a week or so. Though, this is difficult to judge, 8+ years later.

Does this explain the perceived contradiction ?

In general, I don't think, there was operational knowledge, the Buk was in Ukraine. IIRC, when shooting down the MH17. On July 14/15 an armament convoy arrived in Luhansk/Donetsk, the Buk is reported to have arrived 2 days later in Donetsk around 9:00 (am) on July 17, presumably, direct from Russia along the same route from the border, subsequently departed Donetsk around 10:30 (am) and it got deployed immediately after it arrived from Donetsk in Snizhne.

Oh, the Buk is there to protect the armament against air-based attacks, against which the armament itself does not have protection.

So, the Buk was less than a day (maybe 12 hours) on occupied Ukraine territory, before MH17 was shot down. That's incredibly short, to get this kind of information spread through government organizations, military or not (the US took 3 days to realize and wake-up, there was a China Spy balloon overhead Montana).

See: Bellingcat about the MH17-Buk route

WideScreen is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2023, 12:49
  #68 (permalink)  
fdr
 
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: 3rd Rock, #29B
Posts: 2,956
Received 861 Likes on 257 Posts
Originally Posted by dixi188
A question re the current war in Ukraine.
If one of the western supplied weapons were to shoot down a civil airliner, would our western leaders be legally responsible and likely to be prosecuted for supplying the weapon?
Originally Posted by Lonewolf_50
If you drive drunk and hit a grandmother and her grand children, killing them, will someone sue Ford or BMW (or whomever built the car)?
If Ford or BMW sent their drivers to ensure that the car was driven by a suitably drunk person and was targeted to the grandmother and her grandchildren, then, I would think that is not merely a tort, it is a criminal conspiracy to conduct mass murder. IMHO. Willow Run can expand on the legal nicety, but that wouldn't be a tough decision for a member of the jury to come to a conclusion based on the evidence.
fdr is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2023, 15:14
  #69 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,197
Received 391 Likes on 242 Posts
Originally Posted by fdr
If Ford or BMW sent their drivers to ensure that the car was driven by a suitably drunk person and was targeted to the grandmother and her grandchildren, then, I would think that is not merely a tort, it is a criminal conspiracy to conduct mass murder. IMHO. Willow Run can expand on the legal nicety, but that wouldn't be a tough decision for a member of the jury to come to a conclusion based on the evidence.
You appear to have missed my point, which was a somewhat sarcastic response to this pile of horse apples.
If one of the western supplied weapons were to shoot down a civil airliner, would our western leaders be legally responsible and likely to be prosecuted for supplying the weapon?
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 10th Feb 2023, 15:51
  #70 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2015
Location: Budapest
Posts: 308
Received 202 Likes on 119 Posts
Originally Posted by WideScreen
Aha. OK, let me explain.

When deciding, one usually makes decisions based on "hard" facts. Unless the consequences are severe, then one starts to caution towards the safe side, especially in aviation. So, when there is a developing war zone, still not full scale, presumably partial safe, one can assume, the development towards a full-scale unsafe situation does continue, and some moment in time will reach the "unacceptable" qualification.

So, even when the airspace owner declares the airspace safe, the logic of continuity suggests a growing unsafe situation (until proven otherwise). Depending on one's judgement, a use/not-use switch comes sooner or later. So, some airlines started to avoid Ukraine earlier than others. Even when MH17 would not have been shot down, it could very well be, all airlines would have decided to avoid Ukraine airspace, within a week or so. Though, this is difficult to judge, 8+ years later.

Does this explain the perceived contradiction ?
Thank you, it does, a little - at least I understand better where you are coming from - however we have to remember that the Ukrainian authorities (both civil & military) had more information available than anyone and, in my opinion, exercised poor judgement, driven, no doubt, by the desire to secure the route charge.

Expatrick is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


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.