MAS

[tanjm]

With hindsight, one might say that airlines should not be flying over the Ukraine.

The fact is that, the only missiles that could strike an aircraft at that altitude are "high end" missiles, the like of which, only major military powers would possess, and which are usually book ended with sophisticated sensing technologies like radar/early warning systems, and with proper training. These missiles, as I understand, were provided to the pro Russian separatists (if we assume they were responsible) only shortly before this incident.

This is like providing an air pistol to a kid at a playground fight - they won't know what is safe or not safe, how to use it, and the consequences of an error. The blame would then fall on the supplier of the air pistol.

[corydorus]

Is not "pistol".

See link. http://www.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/world/....html?_r=0

"The American official who briefed reporters on the new sanctions said the Ukrainian transport plane had been flying at an altitude of 21,000 feet. “Only very sophisticated weapons systems would be able to reach this height,” the official said."

[swakoo]

ICAO's present rules assume that high end missiles will not be abused in areas of conflict like east Ukraine. They assume only potential use of shoulder launched rockets. Hence the restriction below 32K ft only. However, during an emergency, pilots may have to descend to a vulnerable level from a "safe" level of above 32K ft (present rules).

So, even if high end missiles do not fall into the wrong hands in future, present ICAO rules do NOT preclude the risk of pilots descending during an emergency down to their so-called danger height levels below 32K ft in areas of conflict.

[tanjm]

well how about rules like :
1. Never take off during heavy rain.
2. Always fuel up assuming you will need to circle 5 hours before landing.
3. Always only have one plane landing/taking off at one time.
4. Strip search all passengers and their luggage at all times.
5. Never have a pilot fly more than 20 hours in a week and 5 hours in a 24 hour cycle.
6. Always fly a plane at 3/4 capacity.
7. Equip all planes with anti-missile defences.
8. All planes must have 6 engines.
9. Do a full maintenance after every 10 hours of flying.
10. have 2 armed air marshals on every international flight.

All safety rules involve an element of risk assessment versus cost. The fact that a risk has happened (missile attack) doesn't mean it wasn't a low risk - that's the behavioral element talking. Generally, from my read of the media, no-fly notices are generally issued when it becomes known that high flying missiles or launches from military aircraft are possibilities (such as North Korea - which has a habit of launching missiles without notice).

[tanjm]

I just googled this link.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_air..._incidents

Seems shockingly common doesn't it? Until you realize that there are tens of thousands of flights a day around the world.

Surprisingly, it is not always over a conflict zone - e.g. Korea Air 007 was shot down for straying over Russian airspace in 1983. Another one in 2001 saw the Ukranian military accidently shooting down a plane during a military exercise for crissakes!

I also see a US warship shooting down of a Airbus 300 during the Iran-iraq conflict over the ocean when it mistook the plane for a Iranian F14, so it can occur with (presumably) highly trained people as well.

[swakoo]

http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/ju...space-mh17

Many of the world's best-known airlines – including British Airways, Qantas and Cathay Pacific – had been avoiding Ukrainian airspace due to safety fears for months before the downing of flight MH17.

As air traffic control authorities banned all aircraft from flying through eastern Ukrainian airspace – which is likely to increase flight costs and journey times – it has emerged that several airlines had already chosen to avoid the area.

A spokesman for Qantas said the Australian flag carrier had not used the route for months. Hong Kong-based Cathay Pacific said it had been taking a detour for "quite some time". British Airways, Korean Air Lines, Air Berlin, Asiana Airlines and Taiwan's China Airlines had also been avoiding the east Ukraine route - which is the most commonly used between Europe and Asia - for months. British Airways declined to comment on its previous flight routes.

[swakoo]

PARIS, July 21 ― The head of one of the world's largest airlines has called for an international meeting of carriers to agree a response to the downing of a Malaysian airliner, including a potential rethink of the threats posed by regional conflicts.
.
.
.
..... said IATA and a United Nations body, the International Civil Aviation Organization, could take action.
.
.
.
"..... I think there will have to be new protocols and it will be up to ICAO and IATA and the aviation community to sort out what the protocols have to be.”

- See more at: http://www.themalaymailonline.com/world/...Wz6Bn.dpuf

[BlueKelah]

With hindsight, one might say that airlines should not be flying over the Ukraine.

The fact is that, the only missiles that could strike an aircraft at that altitude are "high end" missiles, the like of which, only major military powers would possess, and which are usually book ended with sophisticated sensing technologies like radar/early warning systems, and with proper training. These missiles, as I understand, were provided to the pro Russian separatists (if we assume they were responsible) only shortly before this incident.

This is like providing an air pistol to a kid at a playground fight - they won't know what is safe or not safe, how to use it, and the consequences of an error. The blame would then fall on the supplier of the air pistol.

Ukraine has the required BUK missile systems as well lah, even indonesia has this common BUK SAM System. It's not really high end, most national ground forces should have quite a few around.

Russia Says Has Photos Of Ukraine Deploying BUK Missiles In East, Radar Proof Of Warplanes In MH17 Vicinity

[tanjm]

With hindsight, one might say that airlines should not be flying over the Ukraine.

The fact is that, the only missiles that could strike an aircraft at that altitude are "high end" missiles, the like of which, only major military powers would possess, and which are usually book ended with sophisticated sensing technologies like radar/early warning systems, and with proper training. These missiles, as I understand, were provided to the pro Russian separatists (if we assume they were responsible) only shortly before this incident.

This is like providing an air pistol to a kid at a playground fight - they won't know what is safe or not safe, how to use it, and the consequences of an error. The blame would then fall on the supplier of the air pistol.

Ukraine has the required BUK missile systems as well lah, even indonesia has this common BUK SAM System. It's not really high end, most national ground forces should have quite a few around.

Russia Says Has Photos Of Ukraine Deploying BUK Missiles In East, Radar Proof Of Warplanes In MH17 Vicinity

High end relative to a non national military organization.

But as you see from the Wikipedia article I posted, even a properly trained military organization can make mistakes.

[specuvestor]

my point is that this a not a simple point and shoot device like the stinger that an isolated errant soldier can commit. Likely a few people across the hierarchy is involved in deciding to deploy.