Ukrainian Aircraft down in Iran
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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...
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...
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Between security and gate...
Age: 46
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It appears that Iran released further information from the black boxes.
https://www.euronews.com/2020/08/23/...ne-jet-in-iran
https://www.euronews.com/2020/08/23/...ne-jet-in-iran
The 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.
"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.
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
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
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?
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?
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?
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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)
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.
- 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.
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!
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!
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.
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.
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.
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
lomapaseo:
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 .
I really do feel that ICAO needs to address the shortfalls here for the future and not just action on this one event.
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 .
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
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
ICAO Matters
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).
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).
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!
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!
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?
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: Within AM radio broadcast range of downtown Chicago
Age: 71
Posts: 842
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
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.
Join Date: Nov 2013
Location: apogee
Age: 69
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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
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
Pegase Driver
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 74
Posts: 3,684
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
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.
I Have Control
Join Date: May 2004
Location: North-West England
Posts: 49
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hmmm
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.
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.