After warhead detonation the missile engine section would go straight, too - at least for a moment. There is no reason for it to turn so sharply.

"Some energy from detonated warhead spent on axis destruction and freeze moment for engine part. It 30kg of RDX."

The warhead is in axis of the missile, the engine is massive and going Mach3. No reason to turn so sharply as if the warhead detonation was to the side of the engine, and not in axis.
On your picture the front part of the missile (seeker, electronics) went straight. Why didn't you draw it turning, too ?

In any video from practice missile interception the remains of the missile are continuing straight after warhead detonation, at least for hundred meters.

blackbird69: TWA 800 and Hughes Airwest 709 remained in one piece while the cockpit was gone.

Neither TWA 800 nor Hughes Airwest 706 were at cruising altitude. TWA 800's center fuel tank exploded around 13,000 feet and Hughes Airwest 706 collided with a F-4 Phantom at about 15,000 feet. MH 17 was cruising at FL330, so the pressure differential between the cabin and outside was higher and sudden decompression would be more destructive.

Also, TWA 800 lost most of its fuselage ahead of the wing, and the rest of the aircraft progressively broke up as it descended.

"explosive decompression" myth
 

While it is true the British comet suffered from decompression via fatigue failure of window cutouts, since that time every passenger jet has been designed to avoid that kind of failure as to major structural damage tearing the plane apart due to large holes such as doors, windows, cargo doors , etc coming apart.

For example Aloha Airlines Flight 243 (AQ 243, AAH 243) was a scheduled Aloha Airlines flight between Hilo and Honolulu in Hawaii. On April 28, 1988, a Boeing 737-297 serving the flight suffered extensive damage after an explosive decompression in flight, but was able to land safely at Kahului Airport on Maui. There was one fatality, flight attendant Clarabelle "C.B." Lansing, who was swept overboard from the airplane. Another 65 passengers and crew were injured.
The safe landing of the aircraft despite the substantial damage inflicted by the decompression established Aloha Airlines Flight 243 as a significant event in the history of aviation, with far-reaching effects on aviation safety policies and procedures. look at the photos !!

Look at United Airlines Flight 811 cargo door failure for another example


Turkish Airlines Flight 981 cargo door faiied- but the plane crashed because the differential pressure between cabin and cargo failed the floor which cut or damaged or fouled up the control cables . Since that time, major vents in the floor to cargo area have been standard design practice.


MH 17 was hit by a missile- in the cockpit- and no doubt started a decompression process- but it was unlikely that the decompression did much structural damage in itself. Loss of control at 400 mph with a badly messed up aerodynamic shape most likely resulted in major climb, turn,yaw, spin, dive, roll flight path at many g's above design ultimate loads of around 3 gs or so.

Lets stay focused on who fired the missle, why, rather than bucu speculation as to the details of just what the final seconds of ' flight" were like - especially
without a detailed part analyis available only by investigators.

It was NOT pilot error, mechanical failure, design flaw, or any other unk unk failure affecting other aircraft or that model.

These measures are, at best, somewhat effective in dealing with a isolated attack using a first and second generation MANPADS. Third and fourth generation systems now in military use are limited only by warhead size as far as killing a large non-maneuvering target like an airliner.

Larger missile systems like the Buk/SA-11, Patriot, or SM-2 have a Pk greater than 0.5 against small military jets with chaff, flares, RWR, ECM, EECM, etc. that can maneuver at or above human G limits. Current military doctrine combines careful route planning, terrain masking, stealth and mutual support to avoid highly capable systems whenever possible. Any airliner operating within the engagement zone survives only if the missile operator chooses NOT to fire.

Questions about how to design aircraft to survive missile attacks have resulted in the A-10 and SU-25 designs. The economics of operating either the single A-10B or the few remaining Su-25UBs as a single passenger aircraft are intuitively obvious.

First reponder report
 

Here's a short piece by a Canadian (of Ukrainian descent) who was the senior OSCE person onsite in those first few days.

First responder: What I saw at MH17 crash site - CNN.com

Posted this question a day or so back but it was deleted for no apparent reason. Very soon after the shoot down, the US reported that the had incontravertable imagery that proved the rebels were responsible.

Why are there still qestions being asked about method and responsibility if this evedence exists ?

nothing very curious about it, by releasing such 'raw data' you reveal your capabilities.

Then why release a story that you know exactly how and from whence came the missile in the first place ??

And why not?? Apart from people on this forum there are actually governments around the world that want to know what US intelligence thinks in this matter.

Please read the original Text which is postet here: (Dutch Safety Board)
Dutch Safety Board | Investigations & Publication | Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014

This report is worth reading in its entirety to understand how the investigation is being carried out.
Dutch Safety Board | Investigations & Publication | Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014

The feedback is usually included in the final report. Sometimes a report may be modified to take relevant feedback into account. They wilol not be allowed to get any ofit classfied. They are not planning to release the whole CVR or FDR contents.

This is a crash investigation only. Any country in any way involved may undertake their own criminal investigations and lay charges. ATC records would be relevant therefore probably handed over. USA supposed satellite images would not be relevant, so probably not even asked for.

I believe that in the interests of political stability in the region, there will be no criminal investigation. After all an outcast/outlaw group is already publicly blamed for it, and it is also widely believed to have been accidental, ie mistaken identity. No individual can be identified, nor a chain of command (which given the situation probably didn't exist). Shocking and sad as the downing of MH17 was, it is not worth starting a world war about.

Governments may be told. The public is the peanut gallery. We have no claims to "need to know".

Dutch Safety Board | Investigations & Publication | Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014

ATC recordings seem to play no role in the preliminary report?

They mentioned "and radar information".

I can imagine that Dutch Safety Board may more trust CVR than voice records from Ukrainian ATC.

Well, you'd think so. They would have to match, of course.

Significant in the report is that the say Ukrainian crash investigators did spend a few hours at the site in the first days. Unknown to anyone. Maybe the didn't tell the "guards" who they are.
So they probably would have obtained the ATC tapes. Ukraine is part of the investigation team, so they wold have taken the ATC tapes with them, I assume. It is not likely to show anything relevant, except perhaps settle the conspiracy about MH17 being deliberately vectored into a trap.

Under Dutch law they won't be publishing the whole CVR transcript, unlike American investigations.

Grif, You really are looking hard for a reason to be critical. Perhaps too hard.
Perhaps the intel was not imagery, but other sorts of intel on missile systems/launches. ;) We shall see, in due course. Over time, a lot of stuff gets released as its classification level is decreased. The point that needs to be raised again and again, when the question of "how do you prevent this" gets asked.
Modern missile systems versus passenger plane yields one shot down passenger plane, unless the missile system operator screws up, or there is a technical glitch/malfunction with the weapon. The uncomfortable truth: what they can do is limited by the practicalities of power and politics. :p Same is true for Malaysia.

These entities are not typically informed via public announcements :=. Public opinion, though, is ;).

Sad but true. Then again. maybe these 'individuals', if identified, could then claim their 'Legion of Merit' medal as such errors are excusable after all ...

Sorry, what I can read is stating something slightly different...
This does not mean they were searching the wreakage, they may have just looked at the ATC recording etc. and may have just took a first glance at the crash site. It is not surprising, that Ukranian investigators did their job.

On the contrary, parallel to the safety board investigation, a criminal investigation was launched by the dutch prosecutors office.
For any accident on dutch soil that would be the standard proceeding.
Considering the circumstances and the majority of the casualties being Dutch I understand international law gives the Netherlands the possibility here as well.

I doubt if it will have any practical value or anyone will ever be brought before
court but last week the prosecutors office announced the investigation is the biggest ever in its kind in the Netherlands.
Currently there are 10 prosecutors and 200 investigators in all kinds of fields on the case.

Unfortunately only in dutch:
strafrechtelijk onderzoek mh17 ramp grootste ooit

prosecutors office

BTW under dutch law I believe a CVR can not be used for a criminal investigation

Yes, absolutely no need to withhold it from public knowledge.

golfyankeesierra:


That is probably limited to the crew, not third parties.

The public prosecution in NL is very actively looking for possible criminal prosecution in aeronautical incidents and accidents (ask Turkish airlines..) and I believe there is a strong understanding that they absolutely cannot use any cockpit recordings for any criminal prosecution (which they really, really would like to do).
And when they cannot indict the crew they go for the manufacturer, ATC or even the AMT who released the aircraft for flight. We have had several examples..

You can find some information about how they tried to prosecute in the Turkish accident here:
Criminal investigation into the crash of Turkish Airlines completed
The frustration is clearly present:

The public prosecution in NL is very actively looking for possible criminal prosecution in aeronautical incidents and accidents

Sometimes too much. Criminal prosecution of a controller at Schiphol for a runway incursion resulted in a decrease of incident reports of no less than 50 %.

The chairman of dutch safety board didn't want to share the FDR/CVR data because:

'only when there is murder, manslaughter, hostage or terrorism invloved, the dutch safety board is obliged to share this with the OM (public prosecution service). This is not yet the case'



'To prevent accidents and improve safety, it is important that everyone can contribute to the investigation without fear of persecution. So it is regulated by law. The Research Council believes that cooperating in a criminal investigation undermines the independence of the board.'

Based on Annex 13.

see:
http://vorige.nrc.nl/binnenland/arti..._dozen_niet_af

Just for completeness

Dear 007,

Our apologies for this late answer.

The first expected publication will be the release of the preliminary report in a few weeks. We think it is in the best interest of the investigation to bring out investigative information from various sources (like the black boxes, radar and satellites) in a coherent report, and not to bring out fragmented pieces of information. So we have to ask you for your patience a little while longer.

Yours sincerely,
Dutch Safety Board

The Dutch Minister of Foreign Affairs Frans Timmermans has replied to parliamentary questions stating that there was no horizontal deviation from the route of MH017. The only change to the flight plan was a descent from 11 km (FL350) to 10 km (FL330) ordered by Dnepropetrovsk ATC in order to avoid a conflict with another aircraft at 11km (FL350).

Original text in Dutch (question 7e) is to be found:

Lijst van vragen, brieven ?Repatriëringsmissie MH17? en ?Stand van Zaken vliegramp MH17? | Kamerstuk | Rijksoverheid.nl

One element of conspiracy theories countered indeed.

On the other hand, the full CVR conversation may not be published, which will undoubtedly give room to other conspriracy theories.

Another document from the Dutch Ministry of Foreign Affairs with images of the MH017 crash site:

Beelden bij beantwoording feitelijke vragen n.a.v. RBZ en brieven inzake MH17 | Kamerstuk | Rijksoverheid.nl

It is not uncommon that CVR tapes are not published completely. Do you really want all the smalltalk about last skivacation in the report?:eek:

If it is not worth it, it is not put into the report. Also for privacy.

Not that my confidence in dutch safety board is absolute - certainly not after the Faro court case.

I might add the Tenerife case of the seventies where the Dutch report gave maximum protection to the captain of the home fleet aircraft. Team Resource Management was introduced after the Tenerife accident but not as a follow-up on the Dutch investigation report. The American NTSB had a more constructive role.

Also the Hercules crash at Eindhoven (1996) where the (military) ATCO got nearly all the blame. The accusation against him was that he had not informed the fire brigade of the number of pax as stated in the FPL - as if the first thing an ATCO does in an emergency is leafing through a heap of administrative papers at the Flight Information Office. Poor fellow, next to the victims his life was ruined as well. I think he was not well defended by his superiors, one of whom was later on tacitly removed from his job, by the way. IMHO, thinking about it, his case should be reconsidered, as a judicial error.

I agree it is too early to judge, but I hope that the MH017 report on CVR conversation will contain enough details to prevent or in any case to counter conspiracy theories.

Dutch Safety Board | Investigations & Publication | Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014 :
The Dutch Safety Board will issue the preliminary report on the investigation into the crash of MH17 on Tuesday 9 September 2014. The preliminary report will be available at Dutch Safety Board at 10:00 AM local time Amsterdam (08:00 hours UTC).

Radarsignals recorded by NATO-Awacs
 

German government has for the first time released information about radar-records related to MH17, that is according to a press release by the German Public Broadcasting Company WDR:
https://presse.wdr.de/plounge/wdr/pr...0906_mh17.html - in German only.

It basically says:
In answering a parliamentary inquiry by the German Left Party ('Die Linke'), the German government has for the first time released information about radar-recordings concerning the crash of MH17. The information is based on data, that was recorded by Awacs-Airplanes conducting an operation for NATO.

The NATO-Aircrafts, that were flying in Polish and Romanian airspace, detected radar-signals of an Anti-aircraft, which was automatically classified as ‚Surface to Air-Missile’ SA-3.

The answer to the parliamentary inquiry however does not say, whether MH17 was shot down by a SA3 or a missile of another typ. Experts say, it could also have been brought down by a BUK-missile, for example, if it was fired without external radar guidance.

The answer also indicates, that the german government also obtained information on possible recordings of the air-ground communication. However referring to the Chicago Convention, the german government does not want to publish any such information.

Data from NATO AWACS
 

German media - the weekly news magazine "Der Spiegel" and the public broadcasting corporation "WDR" - are reporting on data recorded by NATO AWACS operating in Polish and Romanian airspace.

Spiegel

WDR

Both reports are citing a statement by the German government in reply to a parliamentary inquiry by the German Left Party ("Die Linke"). Since they are only available in German here is a short synopsis:

NATO AWACS operating in Polish and Romanian airspace did detect radar-signals of an anti-aircraft-missile-system and another radar-signal, that could not be identified. The anti-aircraft-missile-system has automatically been classified as SA-3 "Surface to Air-Missile". The report said this would be a "signal recorded as as a matter of routine in the whole region."
The government statement to the parliamentary inquiry however does not say, whether MH17 was shot down by a SA3-system or a missile of another typ. Experts say, the signal could also belong to a BUK-missile, for example, if it has been fired without external radar guidance.
The statement concludes that concerning the use of anti-aircraft-missile-systems there was "no reliable evidence" from the Awacs.

The statement also says that the Awacs did not track MH17 during the decisive moments. The Awacs have recorded the Boeing 777 on their radar, however the tracking of MH17 stops at 14.52 CET, "as MH17 left the zone of reconnaissance of the Awacs-aircraft." MH17 was shot down some 30 Minutes later.

The statement also indicates, that the german government obtained information on recordings of the air-ground communication. However referring to the Chicago Convention, the German government does not want to publish any such information.

official German statement re MH17
 

The German government was forced to issue an official statement after an official inquiry by one fraction in the German parliament about any factual insights of German services or government entities into the crash of MH17. The German government stated, that they have "no confirmed information" whatsoever ("keine gesicherten Erkenntnisse") about who or what brought down MH17.
Flug MH17: Regierung hat keine sicheren Erkenntnisse über Abschuss - SPIEGEL ONLINE

So the Germans thankfully do not want play "Curveball" anymore...

Malaysia said Saturday intelligence reports on the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 are "pretty conclusive" and investigators are now working on assembling physical evidence that can be presented to court.
"First of all, we do have the intelligence reports [on] what happened to MH17 and the reports are pretty conclusive," Prime Minister Najib Razak said at a joint news conference with Australia Prime Minister Tony Abbott on his first official visit to Malaysia.
Both prime ministers reiterated their call for justice against perpetrators of the downing of the Boeing 777 in eastern Ukraine that killed 298 people on board, most of them Dutch.
The comments come ahead of Tuesday's release of a preliminary report by the Dutch Safety Board on Fight 17's crash. The board plans to conduct further investigations and expects to publish the final report within a year of the crash on July 17.
Investigators have said they believe the plane was brought down by a surface-to-air missile from an area controlled by pro-Russian separatists.
"What we need to do next is to assemble physical evidence that can be brought to court when the time comes so that it can be proven beyond any doubt that the plane was shot down by a missile," Mr. Najib said.
Mr. Najib added that investigators will need at least a few weeks to search the crash site in the volatile Donetsk region for remains and evidence before those responsible in the "atrocious crime" can be brought to court.



Malaysia Says Intelligence Reports on Flight 17 Crash 'Pretty Conclusive' - WSJ

These reports don't make much sense to me.

The incident occurred 400 nm from the border of Romania and 580 nm from the border of Poland. Standard NATO AWACS aircraft (E-3 Sentry) has radar range of 400 nm at high altitude. It might have seen the moment of impact if it were, by extreme stroke of luck, located at the closest point along the Romania/Ukraine border at that moment. If they were any further, they would not see even that, because even MH17 itself would have been below the horizon for E-3's. As the Spiegel article points out, MH17 went out of range of AWACS 30 minutes before the crash.

Given all this, I'm puzzled by the statement about a missile "that was tagged as SA-3". Where was it observed, and by whom? If it was observed by AWACS, it wouldt follow that it's a totally unrelated missile that was launched somewhere far from the incident, e.g. by the Polish military (they do have some SA-3's left). If it was observed near Donetsk, then the German military is omitting some crucial facts.

Hamster,

No one has suggested that an SA3 was launched or observed.

The EW suite on the AWACS simply observed signals that were consistent with SA3, this could be acquisition or targeting, most probably the former. . That is all.

Strange is that a SA-3 is mentioned. I would expect the tracking radar type or guidance radar type to be mentioned. And these were/are also used with other type of SAM missiles, none of them in Ukraine.

Most likely upgraded polish or so. I believe NATO mentioned already some time ago that AWACS weren't in the area at the time of the attack, so nothing news here.

This week RTLnieuws found the Head of the Ukraine recovery mission that searched and packed the bodies of the victims after the crash. In short they say that they covered 160 km2, and searched with hundreds of men, one afternoon even with 800 men. Area's were bodies had been found were searched 3 - 4 times, by different people. Recovery was completed on July 21st, 13:00 hours. They recovered 282 bodies and these were loaded in train in Torez (back section) and in the Mortuartium in Donetsk (nose section, about 40 people)

His opninion is that all body parts have been removed, and that a new mission to recover human remains is pointless.

Strangely enough they never got in contact with the dutch mission when these came to Ukraine to recover human remains.

Unfortunately in dutch:
Fouten bij Nederlandse zoektocht slachtoffers MH17 | RTL Nieuws
Hulpdiensten Oekraïne: Geen lichaamsresten meer op rampplek | RTL Nieuws

Jeroen Akkermans (known from his pictures) visited the firemen that did the recovery work and interviewed their bosses. He also made some new pictures of de debris field.
One noticeable thing is that somebody tampered with the left wing tip. It looked like some areas have been cut open, and an access panel has been openend. Check for yourself.
https://www.flickr.com/photos/jeroen...s/15083315846/



From the 3 people I knew on this flight, 2 have been identified.:(

The only thing relatively certain is that MH17 was the victim of an error or carelessness by a missile crew. The lesson to be learnt? Don't overfly a war zone, where missile crews have itchy fingers. But then ever since the USS Vincennes misidentified Iran Air flight 655, in spite of flight plan and squawk, one would have assumed this lesson should have been internalized by flight planners.

preliminary report
 

The preliminary report will be published at 10AM this morning (UTC+1) on this site:

Onderzoeksraad voor Veiligheid

Malaysian Airliner Downed by ‘High-Energy Objects From Outside the Aircraft,’ Dutch I
 

Good euphemism. From the NY Times:

http://nyti.ms/1qIB119

Here's the report link: http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads...nteractief.pdf