No, I'll read final DSB report myself.

We can postulate all we like.. but bottom line is Malaysian or any other commercial operator had no business being in (high/low) or even close to this area.

They are ultimately responsible for the safety of their own flights and as such (in my opinion) should shoulder much of the blame.

In reality, this probably strikes to the heart of their respective safety cultures.

Indeed, but unfortunately, "biased approach" can't be eliminated by blaming all sides equally. :ugh:
Just like you can't establish which is correct - a religious text or Special Relativity theory by offering them both equal chances of being correct.

1. Ukrainians knew that there was no WORKING BUK that the separatists could have used based on the fact that they obtained a BROKEN piece of the system that was incapable of firing. Subsequent analysis of videos and images showed that that BUK that shot down the plane, was transported FROM Russia and then towed back immediately after the shot down. Ukraine didn't have that information at that time.

In short, there was no data back then, indicating that "separatists" did obtain capabilities for shooting down planes at or above 12000 feet.
This logic of yours is flawed. Lets say Putin decides to add to that "separatists" arsenal several C400 which have range of 400 km and then something gets shot down with that over Moldova. Would you still blame Moldova for not closing airspace or would you blame those who offered, obtained and used the weapon?

Your logic reminds me of one that people (which KGB called useful idiots) demonstrate... :ugh:

Harshest possible manner? Really? How about just cooperating with investigators and not lie through their teeth or fabricating "proofs" of their innocence? Very 'harsh' indeed.

blaming ukranians for separatists shooting aircraft out of the sky
 

Why is anyone blaming the Ukranians for the downing of MH17? The rebels had previously only used MANPADS missiles to down Ukranian aircraft. They ensured that none of the BUK missiles in their inventory were either unusable or did not fall into the hands of rebel forces. Really if the separatists were going to start shooting aircraft out of the sky with Russian BUK missile batteries and no attempt to identify targets it was their duty of care to notify the Ukranians & aviation authorities who would have closed the airspace down immediately. The issue here is illegitimate forces obtaining SAM technology that usually is never in the hands of insurgents. The only country that can be blamed for that is the Russians.

Suggestiions that the Ukranians used airliners as "human shields" is nonsense - Sukhoi attack aircraft cannot reach the altitudes commercial airliners use and do not attack ground targets from altitude in any case. MANPADS missiles were more than sufficient to defend against Sukhoi ground attacks against rebel tank forces. By closing airspace up until 32,000 feet Ukranian ATC guaranteed 100% protection against exactly these sorts of missiles.

The lesson learned here is that advanced SAM missile systems should NEVER be put in the hands of unofficial rebel forces who lack proper command structures.

I hope the lesson is learned. Sadly,so many innocent people had to die for the message to get through. It wasn`t their choice.

As an SLF I view the airline that I pay a ticket to, and their employees as the people primarily responsible for my flight safety, not the "government" or "rebels" in a civil war.

Siberia Airlines Flight 1812 demonstrated that Ukraine had high-altitude missiles systems and little discernment about how it used them; as such it should have been avoided during a well-publicized conflict.

Political trolls here can claim as much as they want that it was Putin's fault for providing the missile or Ukraine's for not closing the airspace, in the end it was Malaysia Airlines who chose to send their plane straight over a civil war zone, and the pilot chose to accept the route.

Edmund

No, everybody else was sending their planes this way, it was an operational route at the time. Yes, whoever fired the missile takes the primary blame but at this point it is actually those who hinder investigation (Putin and his cronies) that deserve strongest condemnation.

Porterhouse,

If one reads up on the 2001 Siberian Air shootdown of a Tu-154 with 78 souls of whom many russian citizens, one sees the same Ukrainian/Russian cast of characters and refusal to take the responsibility and cooperate with any inquiry.

And also if one is to believe -really?- that a missile exercise at the time allowed a missile to go 250km off range- then one would also believe at the very least be led to believe that the missile operators in that part of the world are criminally careless and ill-trained. Which should certainly influence any later day conflict overflight plans.

Edmund

No. everyone else was not sending their planes that way.

Yes, there were other civilian airplanes on or close parallel track so yes, it was a valid route. The subject who exactly was nearby and how close had been discussed here before.

It is less important how trained they are, it is more important the whole chain of command could be 'criminal'.

Sibair 1812
 

Couple of major differences with Sibair 1812:

Ukranian forces target a drone with a S-300 missile. It was supposed to detonate once the target drone was destroyed but did not, kept going out to sea and ended up acquiring Sibair 1812. Big difference to deliberately targeting an aircraft with no attempt to identify it or contact it via radio before shooting it down. Ukraine didn't invent stories about phantom fighter aircraft either and took responsibility for the incident.

Also, it was the USA who detected the missile launch through their DSP satellites and it was the USA who informed the Russians that the aircraft was downed by an Ukranian missile. Russia were happy to accept their verdict then and should do so now.

I see little parallels between MH17 & SibAir1812.

There were two planes at that time using the same Way
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hh06SqVx_1Q

It appears there is a version that started gaining momentum about 2001 shoot down of tu 154 which is - Ukrainians were using SAM system that didn't have at that moment a radar in the active mode that would have been needed in order to guide their missile to the target. Essentially - the target was supposed to be "lit" by the radar all the way from launch of a missile up until the moment of hitting the target.
On top of that the speed of that Ukrainian missile wasn't enough to reach Tu154 in time that was reported and found in the investigation.

However, there was another system that was used by Russian forces (it was a joint military exercise) with C300 and that system WAS capable of reaching the target in time. And on top of that, missiles of C300 don't require additional ground radar support.

It seems that back then the Ukrainian president took blame for Putin who was president of Russian Federation, since Putin didn't want trouble from Israel and whose citizens died in the crash.

I am not sure if there is version of the page that I came across in English - the original one was just thoughts of some blogger in Russian. Nonetheless if three of those things that he mentioned are true ( speed of SAM missiles, the need for the radar support, non-working Ukranian radar), then it is a legitimate version.

in Russian (unfortunately, can't translate it properly since it will take way too much time - try to use google translate instead)
http://magelanin.livejournal.com/3937025.html

In 2001 two missiles were launched at a drone. One of them shot down the drone, another had to self-destruct, but didn't. A witness wrote that in order to not put the blame on the missile designer+manufacturer in Russia (it had sales orders), presidents of Ukraine and Russia during 2 days negotiated that Russia would reimburse Ukraine the money paid to victim families.

When the Russian airline attorney planned to appeal to an international court, he was beaten.

From Wiki

A few airlines started to avoid eastern Ukrainian airspace in early March in the wake of the 2014 Crimean crisis, including Korean Air, Asiana Airlines and British Airways.[59][60] In April, the International Civil Aviation Organization warned governments that there was a risk to commercial passenger flights over Ukraine.[61] The American Federal Aviation Administration issued restrictions on flights over Crimea, to the south of MH17's route, and advised airlines flying over some other parts of Ukraine to "exercise extreme caution". This warning did not include the MH17 crash region.[62][63] 37 airlines continued overflying eastern Ukraine and about 900 flights crossed the Donetsk region in the seven days until the Boeing 777 was shot down, with Aeroflot, Singapore Airlines, Ukraine International Airlines, Lufthansa and Malaysia Airlines being the most active carriers.
_________________________________________________________

I didn't say ... "no" other airlines were on or close to this track/region. I was simply implying only the cavalier ones were.

Clearly many here are not familiar with flight planning. Especially long-haul flight planning.

Over and out.

April warning
 

slamer quotes an excerpt which in turn refers to an advisory that had been issued by ICAO back in April, about three months prior to the incident. April of 2015, ICAO went live with a repository of information about conflict zones (one of the recommendations which grew out of ICAO's conflict zones task force, established in the wake and aftermath of the MH17 shoot-down, and more particularly, out of ICAO's 2d High-Level Safety Conference in February of this year). Point is, rhetoric about assigning a major or substantial portion of blame to the Ukraine governmental authorities responsible for its national airspace assumes that their information about missile firing risks was a lot more complete than was the case (at least, based on what is known from fairly legitimate sources to date).

My memory goes back to the problems in Yugoslavia. From what i understood they did not shut their airspace, some airlines decided not to overfly (their own assessment) but certainly routeing eastbound was forbidden (i think after an assessment by NATO in conjunction with eurocontrol) very quickly.
If my memory serves me correctly, again after assessment by NATO, we were able to overfly westbound above 370.
Why were these types of assessments not made for Ukraine?

According to all accounts, The event here seems to have involved some old but powerful weaponry (nothing to do with manpads), and some sort of local initiative. Even the Ukrainian narrative confirms the strange absence of the usual survey radar and command-and-control vehicle in this limited missile deployment.

If anything, this tragedy should teach every airline manager that a sudden military action on the ground will not occur according to a schedule.

Maybe hight-tech conflict areas should simply be avoided, as generals and bureaucrats get blindsided by the field commanders or "rebels".

This lesson should be taken to heart if any sort of conflict develops near Iran, where similar anti-aircraft weapons are said to be deployed.

Edmund

Did a jumpseat ride during that period for a late evening flight into a clear, stary night. You could see the flashing from the explosions of the fighting going on down there. The only precaution taken was to fly with all external lights switched off... Not exactly the safest way to fly, but most probably an economic one.