MH17 Investigators Report
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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 🙏
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 🙏
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.
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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" )
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" )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..
But it is all hindsight and without proofs..
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 73
Posts: 3,669
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
@ WideScreen"
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.
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.
I will PM you another clue.
WidescrWide-screen
These paragraphs appear contradictory
UkSATSE should have closed the airspace to the top.
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.
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.
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!
Join Date: Dec 2019
Location: OnScreen
Posts: 415
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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!
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!
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
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.
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?
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 ?
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 ?
