Why was MH17 Flying Over The Conflict Region?

Gridlock

Senior Member.
One of the most telling aspects of all this is that BA (and others) routed around the area. Someone told them it wasn't safe. No-one told Malaysian Airlines, or they ignored the advice.

SA-11 (or -17) being active in an area where aircraft are being brought down should be a blanket closure. This is key, for me. The main point of failure was allowing these flights in the first place.

Responsibility, eh, that runs from DC to Moscow to Kuala Lumpur with plenty of stops in-between. "Who pressed the button" is far too simplistic.
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
One of the most telling aspects of all this is that BA (and others) routed around the area. Someone told them it wasn't safe. No-one told Malaysian Airlines, or they ignored the advice.

SA-11 (or -17) being active in an area where aircraft are being brought down should be a blanket closure. This is key, for me. The main point of failure was allowing these flights in the first place.

Responsibility, eh, that runs from DC to Moscow to Kuala Lumpur with plenty of stops in-between. "Who pressed the button" is far too simplistic.
This is hardly the first time a civilian aircraft has flown over a war zone.
 

Gridlock

Senior Member.
Last edited:

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
SA-11 or -17 is a gamechanger. Totally different. MANPADS proliferation is one thing, having these systems operational is different to simply 'overflying a war zone'.

How many airlines overflew the Balkans?

Ediy - the airspace over Kosovo was closed for 15 years, to FL620 - http://www.ainonline.com/aviation-n...ities-reopen-airspace-over-kosovo-overflights
That doesn't take away the fact that it isn't the first civilian plane to fly over a war zone.

MH was not the only carrier flying over that space on that day.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/travel/t...s-scheduled-fly-Ukraine-day-MH17-tragedy.html

 
Last edited:
This is hardly the first time a civilian aircraft has flown over a war zone.
the fact that others just got lucky doesn't change anything, if there is a 1/1000 chance that they misidentify and shoot down civilian plane that means the airspace should be closed period and no such thing like "ignoring advice", if any civilian aircraft comes even close to that airspace and doesn't obey ATC instructions you should scramble jets immediately to reroute it and file the protest note to the embassy of airlines country of origin

that's how serious and responsible country would do it
 

David

Member
the fact that others just got lucky doesn't change anything, if there is a 1/1000 chance that they misidentify and shoot down civilian plane that means the airspace should be closed period and no such thing like "ignoring advice", if any civilian aircraft comes even close to that airspace and doesn't obey ATC instructions you should scramble jets immediately to reroute it and file the protest note to the embassy of airlines country of origin

that's how serious and responsible country would do it
Because the seperatists don't have rules, they are free to do what they want?
What about being responsible rebels?

I think that when they are shooting at planes, they should also warn the world not to fly there.
 
Last edited:

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
the fact that others just got lucky doesn't change anything, if there is a 1/1000 chance that they misidentify and shoot down civilian plane that means the airspace should be closed period and no such thing like "ignoring advice", if any civilian aircraft comes even close to that airspace and doesn't obey ATC instructions you should scramble jets immediately to reroute it and file the protest note to the embassy of airlines country of origin

that's how serious and responsible country would do it
Except non-military aircraft have flown over war zones and they are not shot down (by accident) because the people operating the systems capable have the proper training.

If you give sophisticated weapons to rebels, you should train them properly. The mistake was made because of this irresponsibility. To lay blame with the airline is misguided.

No one can force them to not fly somewhere except ATC or their own government.
 

Jason

Senior Member
One of the most telling aspects of all this is that BA (and others) routed around the area. Someone told them it wasn't safe. No-one told Malaysian Airlines, or they ignored the advice.

SA-11 (or -17) being active in an area where aircraft are being brought down should be a blanket closure. This is key, for me. The main point of failure was allowing these flights in the first place.

Responsibility, eh, that runs from DC to Moscow to Kuala Lumpur with plenty of stops in-between. "Who pressed the button" is far too simplistic.
But its seems the US and FAA did warn American airline companies not fly to over the area back on April 25th. Well not this area specifically but other disputed areas in the Ukraine and Russia to avoid a mistake like this.
http://time.com/3001874/ukraine-crash-faa-crimea-airspace/
And I remember discussing that commercial flights had the airspace above 32000, and they were supposed to be safe in that corridor. But this plane was shot down at 33000 feet
 
Because the seperatists don't have rules, they are free to do what they want?
What about being responsible rebels?

I think that when they are shooting at planes, they should also warn the world not to fly there.
they aren't and they are also responsible, but not only them

and yes they have warned(and proved) many times before this flight that they have capability to shoot high-flying planes, in theory they could shoot down civilian aircraft even if they aimed military one because you never know how that old rocket will react and if it will re-lock on another target during the flight, that's why airspace is closed for commercial traffic when there is a SAM activity even if it was military practice

Except non-military aircraft have flown over war zones and they are not shot down (by accident) because the people operating the systems capable have the proper training.

If you give sophisticated weapons to rebels, you should train them properly. The mistake was made because of this irresponsibility. To lay blame with the airline is misguided.

No one can force them to not fly somewhere except ATC or their own government.
yes those who trained them are also guilty, the responsibility should be shared between those who shot down the plane, those who improperly trained them and those who allowed plane to fly that corridor because they sure were informed of aforementioned two facts
 

Jason

Senior Member
even if they aimed military one because you never know how that old rocket will react and if it will re-lock on another target during the flight
Those "old" rockets you speak of have a hit to kill rate of 90% - 95%. I would say they have an extremely high success rate of locking on and hitting their target. What some people also forgot too mention is the USA detected this missile system tracking the plane and locking onto the plane prior to impact with the plane. Our satellite capabilities in the area also detected the infrared heat source at the moment of impact and have been able to retrace it's trajectory. So the USA knows exactly where this missile originated from. These satellites are our defense against ICBM's as an early warning system against threats in that area of the world. So our systems over their are probably the most sophisticated in the world..
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
It is also good to note that American air carriers are a much more of a target than other countries planes. Higher risk, equals higher precautions taken.
 
Those "old" rockets you speak of have a hit to kill rate of 90% - 95%. I would say they have an extremely high success rate of locking on and hitting their target.
true, but there is a situation when you have more planes flying relatively close to each other (and above each other) so if one suddennly changes its trajectory there is a possibility the rocket will still continue following its path and hit another plane behind

during the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia there was a case when SAM hit yugoslav MIG-29 instead of NATO plane so it could happen
 

Jason

Senior Member
true, but there is a situation when you have more planes flying relatively close to each other (and above each other) so if one suddennly changes its trajectory there is a possibility the rocket will still continue following its path and hit another plane behind

during the NATO campaign against Yugoslavia there was a case when SAM hit yugoslav MIG-29 instead of NATO plane so it could happen

Only a Singapore Airlines flight was in the vacinity of MH 17, about 2 minutes behind, but otherwise the airspace in that area looks pretty clear
 
If I drive past the projects and get shot by a stray bullet, is it my fault I got shot?
the better parallel is street clashes with snipers AK47s etc.

if you walk among them(and you don't need to) and get shot it is partly your guilt, if 50 people before you survived because they got lucky that doesn't guarantee you the same luck

if police officer directed you there although he had information that it's very dangerous then he is guilty too
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
the better parallel is street clashes with snipers AK47s etc.

if you walk among them(and you don't need to) and get shot it is partly your guilt, if 50 people before you survived because they got lucky that doesn't guarantee you the same luck

if police officer directed you there although he had information that it's very dangerous then he is guilty too
Expect they didn't just fire a bunch of random missiles into the air, they took aim at one (mistaken) target

If I drive by a neighborhood that has a lot of gang shootings and someone mistakes my car for someone else (a gang member) and shoots me, it's not my fault. Or should the police close down all roads around that area?

It's easy to look back and say they shouldn't have been in that airspace.
 
Last edited:
I don't accuse pilots because they were probably not informed if not also the company as well, but it's the obligation of Ukraine to protect its airspace and be responsible for whatever happens there, that's why they shouldn't allow commercial traffic there, it's easy to accuse Putin and Medvedev and whoever now, do your job first
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I don't accuse pilots because they were probably not informed if not also the company as well, but it's the obligation of Ukraine to protect its airspace and be responsible for whatever happens there, that's why they shouldn't allow commercial traffic there, it's easy to accuse Putin and Medvedev and whoever now, do your job first
If I go for a walk in violent neighborhood and I get murdered by someone who mistakes me for a rival gang member, then that was perhaps rather unwise on my part, but it does not in any way absolve the murderer of blame.

Someone pulled the trigger here. Someone gave them the weapons. Any mistake on the part of the airline or ATC does not change that.
 

Bill

Senior Member.
Expect they didn't just fire a bunch of random missiles into the air, they took aim at one (mistaken) target

If I drive by a neighborhood that has a lot of gang shootings and someone mistakes my car for someone else (a gang member) and shoots me, it's not my fault. Or should the police close down all roads around that area?

It's easy to look back and say they shouldn't have been in that airspace.
If I knowingly drive through a gang war and get shot I may not be legally at fault but the first question I'm going to asked by friends and family is why I was dumb enough to go there in the first place. I don't know that I would assign the airlines fault (or anyone besides the shooter) but I would want to know why they couldn't foresee that flying through an area where people were actively shooting down aircraft had a higher than normal potential for disaster.
 

qed

Senior Member
I have been told, so correct me if I am wrong,

  1. that Ukraine has been bombing from the air,
  2. that planes were shot down last week.
It seems criminal that passenger planes were flying in this region.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I've changed the thread title from "... war zone" to the more neutral "region of conflict", as "war zone" seems to be an inaccurate designation being used to create a false perception.

It seems that at the time, nobody thought of the region as particularly unsafe. Obviously with hindsight this was wrong - but should people have known?

http://www.wired.com/2014/07/why-planes-fly-over-ukraine/
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I have been told, so correct me if I am wrong,

  1. that Ukraine has been bombing from the air,
  2. that planes were shot down last week.
It seems criminal that passenger planes were flying in this region.
Instead of asking people to correct you, why don't you start by providing the source of your claims? And detail exactly what happened.
 
It seems like there are two issues being raised here.

1. Who shot down the plane?
2. Was there negligence involved in the plane being at that location?

These are separate issues. This thread is about the first issue, not the second.
um I'm not sure, if reckless parents let their kids play in a pool with alligators sure it's not only alligators to blame if they eat the children?

If I go for a walk in violent neighborhood and I get murdered by someone who mistakes me for a rival gang member, then that was perhaps rather unwise on my part, but it does not in any way absolve the murderer of blame.

Someone pulled the trigger here. Someone gave them the weapons. Any mistake on the part of the airline or ATC does not change that.
I agree the shooting part is solely responsibility of the shooters, however that doesn't exclude responsibility of ATC/authorities as they have to make sure that airspace is safe for flying, if not they should simply close it. They have made the mistake too and they should be held responsible, if they closed that airspace those 300 people would be alive. If rebels didn't shoot that missile or somehow recognized civilian plane they would be alive. But both sides here (and 3rd one wrongly instructing the rebels) are guilty.

It's like taking a school bus through a sniper area with some of the marksmen being visually impaired and wrongly trained. They kill the kids without intention as they can't see if the bus is actually full of military personnel that is sent to kill them.

If that area could be closed and it was obligation of the party who could close it then that party must be held responsible together with shooters and those who gave them weapons/trained them.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
I agree the shooting part is solely responsibility of the shooters, however that doesn't exclude responsibility of ATC/authorities.
Nobody said it should. And I would not be at all surprised if people bring lawsuits against the airline. It's like the relatives of murder victims suing gun manufacturers.

But these are separate issues. They don't "share" the blame.

But let's look at it in detail before drawing conclusions. Who exactly are you saying should have known? When should they have known it?

Watch the traffic over that region on that day. Plenty of planes flying over.
 

qed

Senior Member
Instead of asking people to correct you, why don't you start by providing the source of your claims? And detail exactly what happened.
http://theaviationist.com/2014/06/06/an-30-shot-down-by-manpads/

http://www.businessinsider.com/sepa...adliest-incident-of-the-ukraine-crisis-2014-6

http://www.globalresearch.ca/ukrainian-air-force-bombing-villages-killing-civilians/5389816
 

Soulfly

Banned
Banned
um I'm not sure, if reckless parents let their kids play in a pool with alligators sure it's not only alligators to blame if they eat the children?



I agree the shooting part is solely responsibility of the shooters, however that doesn't exclude responsibility of ATC/authorities as they have to make sure that airspace is safe for flying, if not they should simply close it. They have made the mistake too and they should be held responsible, if they closed that airspace those 300 people would be alive. If rebels didn't shoot that missile or somehow recognized civilian plane they would be alive. But both sides here (and 3rd one wrongly instructing the rebels) are guilty.

It's like taking a school bus through a sniper area with some of the marksmen being visually impaired and wrongly trained. They kill the kids without intention as they can't see if the bus is actually full of military personnel that is sent to kill them.

If that area could be closed and it was obligation of the party who could close it then that party must be held responsible together with shooters and those who gave them weapons/trained them.
With this logic there should be sections of the United States closed down to traffic, or we need to start holding the government responsible every time someone is randomly murdered.

If I go into a bad neighborhood and get my butt kicked, I should be able to sue the police for not keeping me out.
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Manpads are shoulder mounted weapons that could not shoot down a commercial airliner at cruise altitude. They are limited to about 20,000 feet (most are significantly less, like 11,000). So their presence is no reason to not fly over at 33,000 feet.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Man-portable_air-defense_systems
 
Nobody said it should. And I would not be at all surprised if people bring lawsuits against the airline. It's like the relatives of murder victims suing gun manufacturers.

But these are separate issues. They don't "share" the blame.

But let's look at it in detail before drawing conclusions. Who exactly are you saying should have known? When should they have known it?

Watch the traffic over that region on that day. Plenty of planes flying over.
every country is responsible for protecting its airspace, that's why countries that don't have their own aviation (like Montenegro where I am for example) have to pay others to protect their skies

Ukrainians had informations that rebels possess BUK system capable of shooting down civilian planes(several of their planes went down from high altitude, it was actually all over the Internet, they didn't need intelligence service for that), and they sure knew rebels aren't really experienced with it and there is a chance they will mistake it for a military one, it's not rocket science just a basic logic to close that airspace.

Your parallel is wrong here as in that case relatives of MH17 victims would sue manufacturers of SAM system...

And I don't agree they are separate issues because if only one of them properly did their job the people would be alive, if that airspace was closed or if rebels knew how to operate the system it doesn't matter much, they both failed and we've got what we've got.

With this logic there should be sections of the United States closed down to traffic, or we need to start holding the government responsible every time someone is randomly murdered.

If I go into a bad neighborhood and get my butt kicked, I should be able to sue the police for not keeping me out.
if you directly pay them to protect you then yeah those areas should be closed for you, the thing is that all airliners pay some transit fees to all countries they overfly, and that money is used among other things for their military aviation/radars etc. to ensure their airspace is safe for the travel

it would be another thing if Russians have secretly brought BUK system from Russia and used it for the first time on this civilian plane, then Ukrainians could say they didn't know but if several of your planes go down at high altitude and you don't close that airspace for commercial traffic you are the responsible side too
 

qed

Senior Member
With this logic there should be sections of the United States closed down to traffic, or we need to start holding the government responsible every time someone is randomly murdered.

If I go into a bad neighborhood and get my butt kicked, I should be able to sue the police for not keeping me out.
If Ukraine continues to allow passenger planes in this airspace, could they then be held responsible?
 

Pete Tar

Senior Member.
They did alter the 'safe' flight area up from 26000 to 32000 on the 14th after the apparent attack using the BUK system, so some effort was made. Not enough obviously, but it could be reasonably said they weren't expecting what happened.
 

qed

Senior Member
They did alter the 'safe' flight area up from 26000 to 32000 on the 14th after the apparent attack using the BUK system, so some effort was made. Not enough obviously, but it could be reasonably said they wouldn't expect what happened.
Are you saying that the probability of danger to passenger planes was obviously low?
 

Jason

Senior Member
It also being reported that 2 crew members who were supposed to be on that flight refused to fly over that region of the world and swapped out their shifts with someone else as being reported by http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...agged-concerns-flight-path-weeks-tragedy.html
So if crew members feared flying over the region and there was internal discussion about this region of the world, why didn't the airline do anything about it?
 
They did alter the 'safe' flight area up from 26000 to 32000 on the 14th after the apparent attack using the BUK system, so some effort was made. Not enough obviously, but it could be reasonably said they weren't expecting what happened.
they could at least check wikipedia to find its limits if they didn't bother asking their military who also operate the same system, since it has the ceiling of around 50K feet it means only Concorde would be safe...
 

Mick West

Administrator
Staff member
Here's a good overview of the question:
http://www.cnbc.com/id/101848535#.
It's obviously very easy with hindsight to say the choice of route was a mistake.

But unless you are suggesting something other than simple negligence, I don't really see much point in discussing it.
 
"Two low-flying Ukrainian aircraft—a fighter jet and a military transport plane"

I don't agree as FL150+(confirmed by ukrainian authorities) isn't actually low-flying and whatever missile reaches that altitude will usually reach FL300+.

It was their denying that rebels possess BUK and their conspiracies that those planes were actually shot down by misterious russian stealth plane using air-to-air missile that endangered commercial traffic, maybe they thought if they closed airspace they would actually admit that rebels have BUK systems and it wouldn't do any good for the morale of their military.
 
Thread starter Related Articles Forum Replies Date
Josh Heuer MH17: Russia Claims Ukranian military plane flying nearby before incident Flight MH17 121
S Claim: Russian radar would have picked up MH17 missile Flight MH17 15
tadaaa MH17 Documentary from the BBC Flight MH17 81
U MH17 Missile/Plane Intersection Simulation Flight MH17 23
Mick West Almaz-Antey's Live BUK explosion tests Flight MH17 141
Bruce Lansberg Dutch Safety Board publish reports on MH17 crash, Tuesday Oct 13 Flight MH17 14
MikeC Dutch release draft report to involved parties Flight MH17 0
Herman Aven Confirmed Claim: disputed satelite imagery showing "changes in vegetation" Flight MH17 14
william wiley Does Damage to MH17 indicate or exclude a Particular Buk Launch Location? Flight MH17 662
M Claim: Robert Parry: Australian 60 Minutes fudged evidence to pin blame on Russia Flight MH17 21
Bruce Lansberg Claim: Jeroen Akkermans: Framents prove MH17 was shot down by a Russian made BUK Flight MH17 34
Bruce Lansberg Dutch Government discloses 245 official documents Flight MH17 0
M Debunked: this photo shows a Ukraine Mig-29 shot down MH17 Flight MH17 66
M Possible Shrapnel in MH17 Wreckage? Flight MH17 26
Bruce Lansberg Main prosecuter Westerbeke says metal particles have been found in the victims bodies and luggage Flight MH17 10
M Claim: Malaysian experts were shot at by Ukraine SU-25 and by GRAD Flight MH17 10
M Claim: MH17 was shot down by separatists using BUK stolen from Ukraine army Flight MH17 32
M What part of forward fuselage is this ? Flight MH17 1
R MH 370 Leroy Alexander? Flight MH17 1
M Solved: MH17: is this part of a missile? [Concrete Grinding Pads] Flight MH17 13
Ezswo Debunked: MH17 - 10 Previous Flightpaths Different From 17-7 Flight MH17 27
KAT MH17 - developments after a month - Aug 17 Flight MH17 4
Franckly Debunked: MH17 Air to air missile Assumption ? [Unrelated 35° angle] Flight MH17 25
Juha MH17 Hypotheses Flight MH17 159
WeeBee MH17: Pinpointing the precise location of the missile impact point Flight MH17 53
Jason Debunked: MH17: Supposed satellite video of missile launch [Fake] Flight MH17 14
Mick West Debunked: "Official Photoshopping" of MH17 photo [Window cover physically removed] Flight MH17 7
Brian Griffin Explained: MH17: Why Are There Expired "Pristine" Passports in the Wreckage? [Visa in Old Passport] Flight MH17 12
Mick West MH17: Video of flight activity before and after the crash Flight MH17 32
Mick West Debunked: MH17 Video Timestamped before the crash, and other timeline issues Flight MH17 8
TEEJ MH17: Evidence a Missile was Used. Shrapnel, etc. Flight MH17 448
Libertarian MH17 Evidence Video Time Stamped Before Crash Flight MH17 12
Mick West Flight MH17 News Flight MH17 79
Leifer MH17.....claiming responsibility ? Flight MH17 19
C MH17 Malaysian 777 Carrying 295 People Shot Down Over Ukraine Flight MH17 410
Mick West UFO Billboard in Montana Uses Photo of Identified Flying Object UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 4
Mick West Illusion of Contrail Asymmetry from Flying perpendicular to the Sun Images and Videos: Contrails, Skies, and Aviation 0
Marine0811 Unknown flying insect or object Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 19
Mick West Sideways Flying UFO Hawk Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 0
Mick West A Plane Flying Across the Face of the Sun, with Contrails [Virgin Flight 353] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Yolo fish Demonstrating the curvature of the Earth by Flying in a "Straight Line" Near the Poles Flat Earth 33
Mick West Explained: Exmouth UFO Flying Saucer - Sunlit Contrail and Motion Blur Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 70
Mick West Four Engines, Flying West over Sacramento Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 6
Trailspotter UFO with navigation lights, Drone or aircraft? [Low Flying FedEx 777] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 14
Provemewrong Explained: Why flying isn't impossible on a globe Flat Earth 106
Mick West Two Large Planes Flying Parallel, Chiloquin, OR. Is it Legal? Yes. Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Mick West Butterfly UFO - Things it Might Be, Like an EDF Flying Wing UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 17
Critical Thinker Debunked: Monsanto wants to replace the bees they are killing with genetically engineered flying ant General Discussion 5
Eyes_Open Debunked: Angels over Brazil [Hoax] Skydentify - What is that Thing in the Sky? 7
Joe 10 White "UFO" objects filmed flying over Japan UFOs, Aliens, Monsters, and the Paranormal 15
Related Articles


















































Related Articles

Top