keeping it very simple.

MH17 heading approx 100deg
Missile fired from ahead of it

Now going to the missile site

if manned by rebels they could erroneously think the target was a threat to them coming from that direction.

If manned by Ukraine forces why would they image anything from that direction (basically Kiev) would/could be a threat to them and therefore fire at it.

Sorry for all the technical details and fog on here, it was fired by rebel forces (BTW russians aren't that dull to have made that mistake)

Hello,

I dont know why my (first :ok:) post was not published. So here is a second try. Very briefly:

Have the crew of the Air India and Air Singapore been interviewed. Especially the Singapore was quite close (some 25km) behind the MH17 according to the radar replay (by the Russians).

To my experience the event would be well observable from both flights if someone looked out of the front window. Especially the uprising missle contrail, the exploding and the debris. I think some 60 seconds later the Singapore passed very close to the falling MH.

No one seen anything? Or not published so far?

At acquisition distance, for accurate altitude calculation the radar+launcher Buk vehicle must be adjusted precisely level. The launch site was in plough-land.

@anonymousdefender

You constantly claim that the TELAR was in the autonomous mode pointing to the lack of mentions about the acquisition radar 9S18 in the Russian MoD's briefing. And that briefing is anything but convincing. It's purpose is to show we know something unpleasant for you. That is why all that 'hoolabulling' in the western media subsided. It is a political thing so any conclusions inferring from that briefing are fragile.

FYI Russia since Soviet times has at area ATC centers 2(two) parts called sectors. The civilian one and the military one. What the military sector can see the civilian one may not. The video was from the screen of civilian sector of Rostov center. And it was clearly stated on the briefing (in Russian... i didn't follow for the English translator) 'Rostov area center of United System of Air Traffic Control'. This 'United System' is NOT the air defense (though they are integrated).

But it can acquire and track military ones. Something contradictory in you view about TELAR. I think you missed the word 'exercise' in my statement you answered to.

The Buk's operator sees the speed in exact numbers not as a bar in some computer games.

The trained crew would wait because they must have a notion about civilian air traffic.

GSOB is correct - a TRAINED crew would wait - hand this sort of thing over to a bunch of red-necks and what do you expect??

so excited at having REAL kit they just couldn't wait to use it

would have been the same in the UK, the USA and just about anywhere else

on July 17 we detected increased activity of Ukrainian radars 9S18 Kupol-M1 of the Buk missile system - briefing of MoD
Do you see on this map 9S18 radar which detected near launch site?
Then TELAR used autonomous mode, if MoD dont detected ukrainian 9S18.
Also MoD can prefer dont show separatists 9S18 working radar.
Choose one of variant.
FYI in 1998 General Staff ordered to Air Defense troops accept information Air Traffic radar posts.
Please provide SHEDULE OF EXERCISE for SA-11! I wanna see how good you know about it and what parts and how used during exercises.
If you REALLY know SA-11 then you can do it. Common!
FYI BUK operator see RADIAL SPEED of target which differ from TRUE AIRSPEED. Another point against your knowledge in radars.
FYI trained crew dont open fire without CONFIRMATION from Command Vehicle (which connected to 9S18 radar). Can you provide information how SA-11 record all operations manned by personnel?
P.S. Im still wait how operator can change target during missile flight - button on panel pls or whatever! Your friends on forum which used SA-11 easy can show it for you. And i have much more question about plane crossing MH17. I will fired it after button lol.

@GSOB

one thing which is so far a total mystery to most of people accustomed to using own brain, instead of taking for granted anything what the talking heads on tellie (or its modern day equivalent of RT channel in Youtube) care to say -

if Russia was indeed no party to this tragic incident specifically (to the extent that MAK, which nominally had the jurisdiction for this accident investigation, refused to do so (ICAO at least at the time did not list Ukraine as having own 'accredited accident investigation body')), or to all the turmoil in Eastern Ukraine in general, why was that hastily arranged 'MoD briefing' staged at all?

All it seems to have achieved is the direct opposite of its apparent intent - an implicit admission of own guilt, in fact..
And why so - a true 'no party' (with a clear conscience) would not have seen any need for such a briefing.

Russia is until now denying it's involment in Ukraine, let alone in July...

Possibly I misunderstand you and I'm lost in your edited messages. Please can you repeat why do you believe in the autonomous mode of the Russian Buk? What the part in the Russian MoD's briefing is essential for that?

How my sentence contradicts with your one?

I'm not REALLY know and never pretended. I leave the true knowledge to the one drawing 2D pictures for actually 3D process.

sitting in the missile seeker?

Mysterious $30m reward offered for MH17 evidence
 

In the Netherlands we think this is a hoax. The guy that is supposed to be the spokesman has not a very credible background. Sorry no link

@Normunds_k

Putin yielding to the mounting press asked his MoD to 'say something'.
This something can have any meaning or even can have no meaning at all (just to report to Putin 'done'). The part relating to Ukrainian air defense looks pretty solid. The other parts don't convince. There is the failed attempt of video geolocating which looks like they introduced social networks's version into the briefing intact at the moment when it is not yet completed(verified). The part about the deviation from the planned route is true in general despite the strange picture. All that can be just an instinctive reply to the western media narrative 'there-was-the-one-with-a-thing-he-is-guilty-in-the-rape' with 'there-was-another-guy-with-a-thing'.

The most crucial part is about Su-25 in which i'm not sure because they possibly tried to reflect the known as existed at that moment ground observers's accounts and nothing more (as in the geolocating part). But if it was a meaningful message based on known but yet not unveiled facts then the question arises. What do they mean?
If it is an air-to-air attack then why they selected the least fitted type of Ukrainian Air forces? If they hint on something else then what can it be?
I see only one fitting scenario which implies that the Russian Buk fires at a military aircraft and missile retargets of which Buk is known as able. There were accounts from rebels that Ukraine adopted this tactic to fly below civilian planes. This case implicates BOTH parties as guilty.

I have nothing to say about ICAO instead MAK. May be they are already sure that it will give nothing decisive.

Not releasing on public some info would be perceived as hiding. There are accusations against Ukraine for not releasing their data though they aren't bound to do so formally.

any reference to a credible/reputable source (outside the 'BATA' domain) would be most appreciated

Falling speeed for Su25 is 170 km/h. Much easier show falling debris as barraging Su-25.
MoD now full of loyal but stupid officers which must agree with bloody politic, it all. That started fron 2nd Checnya and continue in 08.08.08.
SA-11 cannot retarget from Su-25 to Boeing.
1. Signal (shape, length, reverbations, envelope and videosignal) from both is very different and selection of targets very easy for Argon-15.
2. 9S35M1 very accurate radar so Su-25 must follow Boeing close to 180m and speed varies on 30m/s. Su-25 cannot have so much speed on alt=10000m.
3. Argon-15 dont give to crew ability for change target, commander must choose target on stage Search, then Argon-15 calculate algorithm Meet Zone, then indicate Target in zone, commander open fire it all. Please show me BUTTON on commander place which can change target.
4. If you know SA-11 then you know what to do 2 soldiers - first and second. They sit on right from commander and both tune frequency (if enemy use ECM) and control alt/range of target and missile. It impossible for Su-25 or Boeing invade on both screen at same time and on same level.
5. Missile seeker after first 2.6 seconds of flight look only on target - it how proportional navigation work, and on-board computer of 9E50M1 receive commands from TELAR but compare data from 9S35M1 (relative position of target and firing radar) and data from seeker (relative position of target and missile) for calculate correction signals to missile. If angle of view TELAR on Boeing on range 30km change with time on a few degree, at same time missile have NO CHANGE angle of view. So impossible for another target take a place of Su-25 by Boeing in both systems of measure - TELAR and seeker.
All who whine about "targeting Su-25 but hit Boeing" are idiots and liers.

On Russian radar video the alleged Su25 appears a minute and a half after Boeing was hit, when it already dropped its speed to 200km/h. Before the hit, during the targeting and first stages of missile flight, this Su must have been miles and miles away and below 5000m. I just don't see how the missile could have been accidentally retargeted from that alleged Su to the Boeing, they were never close.

@anonymousdefender

Thankyou very much for sharing your knowledge. Your posts are much appreciated!

@BATHIK
"then there was a huge drop to 563 or something"

Until the speed 893 or so the flight was normal.
Then the destruction happened between radar display frame refresh.
Missile explosion did it's damage in 0.01s, after that the broken front of the plane twisted to right and I assume the nose broke off in less than one second. For a small periode of time the plane was banana shaped, therefore it made the 20g turn to east/north and broke down more.
The turn took away big part of the kinetic energy of the plane and as it's speed decreases, also the slowing force from air friction become smaller, slowing slows down and the speed angle starts to be more towards ground and radar does not show that.

To me the radar jumping is caused by the plane body and nose separating from each other.

Germany: "Kiev should have closed their airspace" says lawyer of German MH17 victims' families

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cLUj9V46aUg

With hindsight that is very obviously true

Are Out:

A question that is as pertinent, if not more so: How can you safely fly over a war zone where the airspace is indeed closed below FL 320? What about an engine failure or a loss of pressurization?

e.g Iraq. Let's face it some factions in the Middle East would love to shoot down a western airliner.

What reason for close airspace over Ukraine?

I beg to differ.. The said statement is a position of a civil-case lawyer, it would appear, rather than that of a state (as the movie title implies).

Please help identify this MH17 part
 

I am working on research on the MH17 shot down. Can you please identify the part of the aircraft shown on this photo with three arrows? Is this the backrest of one of the pilots seats?
http://aviaforum.ru/attachment.php?a...7&d=1406975116

@ Aterpster
How can you safely fly over a war zone where the airspace is indeed closed below FL 320? What about an engine failure or a loss of pressurization?

A closed airspace is not automatically the same as an airspace where you are shot down automatically if you enter it. It could simply be closed to prevent interference between military and commercial planes in this zone - these are controlled by different ATCs. In case a plane had to go down below 32k for emergency reasons a call from civil to military ATC might be enough.

Apparently the airspace between 15k and 32k was closed after an AN-26 was shot down flying at 21k. The reasoning behind closing up to 32k and not closing completely for ComAir is very interesting and maybe this court case might shed some light on this. Or maybe the DSB final report. The fact that the airspace was closed up to 32k on itself is no proof that Ukraine was aware of the risks MH-17 was running.

In principle I agree with the german reasoning, because it is Ukraine who decides wether the airspace is safe or not and is responsible for this. To keep flying safe, pilots are trained to avoid even small risks with slim chances for accidents. One should expect that countries threat their airspace with equal care.

An-26 altitude is disputed - rebels claim that it was flying within the range of their weapons when it was shot down. Ukrainians insisted on 6500m so that they could accuse Russians and pin it on them. It was a political tussle.


Rebels captured the pilot and even put his interrogation video up on youtube, there was no talk about missiles at all. He probably has long been released in POW exchange. Ukraine just stopped talking about it even though after MH17 it would be very advantageous for them to prove Russian involvement beyond any doubt.


Debris were also photographed by locals and I guess anybody can still go there and take more pictures, especially Russians.

Backrest
 

Indeed, should be a pilot seat. You can see the nodge in the seat cushion to allow the control column to be pulled toward the pilot. Therefore, yes, must be the backrest.

The seat from another site
https://www.flickr.com/photos/337057...57646326477044

The different parts of the co pilot's seat.


https://www.flickr.com/photos/128147...9675/lightbox/

Another video footage

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rt-QIsgjQkg#t=2816

It not the correct arrangement of a fragment of a frame of a window!

https://lh4.googleusercontent.com/-0...Windowpane.jpg

It is necessary to change an arrangement of this fragment of a window,
in the top part of a fragment we see black paint a covering,
it has to be below:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BtJZ75iIIAA6Ry-.jpg:large

Here we see that the covering is located black paint below, this fragment has to be on the left side of MH17:

https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-g...Windowpane.jpg

A sobering development?
 

Multiple news agencies are reporting that one of the passengers was found to be wearing an oxygen mask, according to the Dutch Foreign Minister.

Malaysia Airlines MH17 passenger had oxygen mask on ? Dutch Foreign Minister

Can someone advise how rapidly the passenger O2 masks deploy after cabin depressurisation?

Grim stuff....

Dean

immediately

Perhaps I could have phrased my question more precisely.

Does passenger cabin mask deployment happen within 0.1, 0.5, 1.0, 2.0, 5.0 etc. seconds after cabin pressurisation reaches a specific setting (and what is that apparent-altitude value)?

Dean

People had about two minutes between the missile hit and the crash.



That Australian article states as a matter of fact that Boeing was shot down by rebels, clearly getting ahead of the investigation itself.

deanm

The cabin altitude during the cruise would have been about 6000 feet. The masks will deploy when the cabin altitude reaches 14000 feet. Within a few seconds of the missile strike the cabin altitude would have increased to the aircraft altitude of 33000 feet and the masks would drop. So within 5 seconds of the cabin being pierced the masks would have dropped, probably more like a couple of seconds.

Rapid depressurisation is extremely painful on the ears and a shock. The noise from airflow and engines and the force of the airflow itself would be a massive shock and the deceleration very debilitating, possible broken necks etc. Negative panic would probably ensure that most people did nothing and just froze. They would be unconscious in about 30 seconds. If someone did have the presence of mind to grab a whirling mask and put it over their mouth and nose it might keep them conscious. However if the aircraft had broken up there is a good chance the ring main would have been severed from the passenger oxygen bottle which is towards the rear of the aircraft so they would not get any oxygen anyway and would become unconscious within 30 seconds or so. So to me if someone had put a mask on it does not necessarily mean they were conscious all the way down, it just means they had the presence of mind to put a mask on within 30 seconds of the depressurisation.

Without invoking any conspiracy theories, finding one body that was wearing an oxygen mask doesn't necessarily mean much. We know the wreckage was "messed with" in the days before any independent investigating personnel made it there. Finding a body with an oxygen mask on does not prove unequivocally that this person actually put it on himself shortly after the plane was hit.

no clarification on O2 mask, was it an overhead mask or did the passenger have an inflight problem , so using portable O2 already ?

@BB69,

In 1988/89 I spent some time area cleaning parts of SW Scotland and NE England of the wreckage of PA103, which was spread over hundreds of miles.

The crater at Sherwood Crescent in Lockerbie was caused by the explosion of the fuel in the relatively intact wings and not by the kinetic impact. The second thing to realise is that shrapnel from an exploded projectile is very hot.

So to your summary points I would say that, by comparison with PA103, the wreckage came down in a very tight pattern. The lack of a substantial crater means that most of the fuel was burnt before impact. In my mind this is corroborated by the heavy sooting on the fan blades, which I do not recollect on the PA103 engines that broke off the wing before impact.

So in my view:

Hot shrapnel penetrated the port wing fuel tanks igniting the fuel and starting at least one engine fire.

The plane lost forward movement very quickly, but broke up at a lower altitude than PA103 (which was around 19,000 ft for the major break up IIRC - but, admittedly, the stormy weather on 21 Dec 1988 will have been a factor in the wider spread of PA103 wreckage)

EG