Another Malaysian Airline Crash

[kingfc22]

Plane down in Ukraine.

[PilotMan]

http://www.reuters.com/article/2014/07/17/us-ukraine-crash-airplane-idUSKBN0FM1TU20140717

(Reuters) - A Malaysian airliner was shot down over eastern Ukraine by militants on Thursday, killing all 295 people aboard, a Ukrainian interior ministry official was quoted as saying by Interfax-Ukraine news agency.

[SirFozzie]

Both sides in Ukraine are claiming the other side shot it down.

[chinaski]

Russian backed separatists? If so, things could get very ugly.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" lang="en"><p>Russian GRU officer Strelkov admitting that he ordered the missile strike against the Malaysian jet.</p>&mdash; Michael McFaul (@McFaul) <a href="https://twitter.com/McFaul/statuses/489811375770718210">July 17, 2014</a></blockquote>
<script async src="//platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Igor_Girkin

[bhlloy]

Not only Russian backed but assuming this was the separatists, Russian supplied as well. Needs some advanced tech to bring down a jet at that altitude

Read that it shouldn't take long to figure out where the missile actually came from from our intelligence. If it's Russian territory, this is going to get real ugly.

[Super Ugly]

Talking heads on the BBC News channel have been saying that it was probably an air-to-air missile that took it down.

[Butter]

Accidental or intentional? And if intentional, why?

[molson]

I think how ugly this gets depends on how many Europeans were on the plane. Is Kuala Lumpur a big vacation destination for Europeans this time of year?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Accidental or intentional? And if intentional, why?

One version/rumor making the rounds is that it was mistaken identity, that "Strelkov" (his pseudonym, not his real name) thought it was a Ukranian airliner.

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

Live Feed (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/ukraine/10974050/Malaysia-Airlines-plane-crashes-on-Ukraine-Russia-border-live.html)

Live Feed from the Telegraph. Throws cold water on the Strelkov/Separatist suspicions.

[molson]

One version/rumor making the rounds is that it was mistaken identity, that "Strelkov" (his pseudonym, not his real name) thought it was a Ukranian airliner.

I wonder how plausible that is - is it unusual for commercial airlines to fly over Eastern Ukraine? It's kind of right there on the way. If one flight from Amsterdam went over it, I'd imagine many flights from Europe do. Unless the plane was somewhere it wasn't supposed to be.

[flere-imsaho]

Lots of rampant speculation in the media. To be fair, though, rampant speculation is the only thing they do consistently well.

[kingfc22]

Lots of rampant speculation in the media. To be fair, though, rampant speculation is the only thing they do consistently well.

Unfortunately yes. We'll hear 95 different angles from "reliable sources" until something sticks. I just don't see how Russia would order this plane shot down other than trying to see how far they can truly push the line which I can't imagine would be possible.

[Thomkal]

I think how ugly this gets depends on how many Europeans were on the plane. Is Kuala Lumpur a big vacation destination for Europeans this time of year?

According to Richard Quest on CNN, this was a prime time for European vacations to areas in Asia.

[CraigSca]

Just heard this on the "Russia Today" feed - speculation that the plane was mistaken for Vladimir Putin's plane (which apparently was flying the same height either 40 mins before or 40 mins after) as they would have similar form and coloring. This is from a source in the Russian aviation industry.

[DaddyTorgo]

*Yawn*

I find the rampant unfounded speculation by the media in cases like this (and the other crash) to be so tiring.

Wake me up when they know something. Until then they're just trying to fill airtime.

[Lathum]

I bet Obama is happy about this, takes away all the discussion about immigration reform.

[Ryan S]

Unfortunately yes. We'll hear 95 different angles from "reliable sources" until something sticks. I just don't see how Russia would order this plane shot down other than trying to see how far they can truly push the line which I can't imagine would be possible.

I don't know if Kuala Lumpur is a popular destination, but I am sure plenty of people will be passing through on their way to Australia or New Zealand.

[Ryan S]

Just heard this on the "Russia Today" feed - speculation that the plane was mistaken for Vladimir Putin's plane (which apparently was flying the same height either 40 mins before or 40 mins after) as they would have similar form and coloring. This is from a source in the Russian aviation industry.

That sounds unlikely. Ukraine shooting down the Russian President could lead to World War 3.

I would be surprised if Russia or Ukraine shot down this plane. I can't see what would be in it for either of them.

[JPhillips]

I bet Obama is happy about this, takes away all the discussion about immigration reform.

Really?

259 people died and this is your take?

[digamma]

I bet Obama is happy about this, takes away all the discussion about immigration reform.

Good grief. Obama is happy that a civilian aircraft was shot down and 295 people were killed? You're better than that.

[stevew]

He was obviously joking I'd hope.

[Lathum]

He was obviously joking I'd hope.

Of course I was and my deepest apologies if I offended anyone.

Obviously it is a tragedy.

[DaddyTorgo]

Malaysian Airlines has gotta be done, right?

I mean like...this is TWA 800 x2 in the span of like 4 months.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I would be surprised if Russia or Ukraine shot down
this plane. I can't see what would be in it for either of them.

I'd be mildly surprised if anyone other than one of those two shot it down.
I'd be considerably more surprised if anyone from either of those two shot it down on purpose.

(Misidentified target would be my first guess in other words)

[flere-imsaho]

That sounds unlikely. Ukraine shooting down the Russian President could lead to World War 3.

I doubt it. More likely it would give Russia all the legitimacy they need to take over Ukraine and the rest of the world would sit around and say "well, you shouldn't have shot his plane down, dumbasses."

I would be surprised if Russia or Ukraine shot down this plane. I can't see what would be in it for either of them.

Same here.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Good grief. Obama is happy that a civilian aircraft was shot down and 295 people were killed? You're better than that.

That's why President's have staff, to think that way for them.

Lathum can apologize and that's fine ... but it's incredibly naive to think that one of the first thoughts that any administration would have in a situation like this would be anything other than "what advantages can we find/make of the situation at hand"

That's after "did we do it?", "does this have national security implications?" and larger concerns. But it's on the list, that's a given.

[flere-imsaho]

I'd be considerably more surprised if anyone from either of those two shot it down on purpose.

That's how I was taking Ryan's post.

But with modern technology misidentified targets shouldn't really happen, right?

[Neuqua]

Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 passenger joked on Facebook “If it disappears, this is what it looks like”

Twitter / BuzzFeed: Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 ... (https://twitter.com/buzzfeed/status/489850416625352705)

[JonInMiddleGA]

That's how I was taking Ryan's post.

But with modern technology misidentified targets shouldn't really happen, right?


As long as there are humans involved, human error can (and occasionally will) occur.

[flere-imsaho]

A guy at The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/malaysian-airlines-plane-buk-missile) is pointing out that while the normal SAMs the rebels use couldn't have taken down an airliner, as they can get as high as an airliner, there are some rebel groups who have possession of a system that can launch missiles as high as 22,000 meters, which would be sufficient.

[DanGarion]

I bet Obama is happy about this, takes away all the discussion about immigration reform.

We have another suspect!

[JonInMiddleGA]

there are some rebel groups who have possession of a system that can launch missiles as high as 22,000 meters, which would be sufficient.

Then again earlier today one of the rebel government (pick a phrase, you know what I mean) leaders pointed out that he didn't have anyone that knew how to use equipment like that even if it had been captured.

While likely an exaggeration to say literally "no one", I suspect that isn't entirely too far from the truth either.

[Chief Rum]

A guy at The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/malaysian-airlines-plane-buk-missile) is pointing out that while the normal SAMs the rebels use couldn't have taken down an airliner, as they can get as high as an airliner, there are some rebel groups who have possession of a system that can launch missiles as high as 22,000 meters, which would be sufficient.

I thought this plane was at cruising atitude (30000 ish)?

[flere-imsaho]

I think that's 30,000 feet. 22,000 meters > 30,000 feet.

In fact, 22,000 meters is about 72,800 feet, which makes sense given those missiles are built to take down military planes, which will go up to that height.

[Chief Rum]

I think that's 30,000 feet. 22,000 meters > 30,000 feet.

In fact, 22,000 meters is about 72,800 feet, which makes sense given those missiles are built to take down military planes, which will go up to that height.

Yeah I missed the "meters" part. Sorry lol :p

[MIJB#19]

According to Dutch media, Flightradar24 had the altitude at 33,000 feet.

[digamma]

That's why President's have staff, to think that way for them.

Lathum can apologize and that's fine ... but it's incredibly naive to think that one of the first thoughts that any administration would have in a situation like this would be anything other than "what advantages can we find/make of the situation at hand"

That's after "did we do it?", "does this have national security implications?" and larger concerns. But it's on the list, that's a given.

I obviously wasn't born yesterday. Post-scenario spin and strategy is different than happy.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I obviously wasn't born yesterday. Post-scenario spin and strategy is different than happy.

"Glad for the potential diversion" is also different than "happy" but at some point it's a matter of semantics.

{shrug}

[nol]

My uncle's over there right now with Ukraine's national team as they prepare for the basketball World Cup. He got into Kiev earlier this week and will be there a while for training camp, so he's definitely OK, but still hoping it doesn't get any crazier :(

[JonInMiddleGA]

But with modern technology misidentified targets shouldn't really happen, right?

From AP

Charles Heyman, a retired British military officer who edits the "Armed Forces of the EU" book, said ... "It's possible the rebels took over one or two," he said, referring to both the SA-11 and SA-17 Buk systems.

He also said the Buk's radar doesn't give its operator the same kind of information that air traffic radars provide, which could have led to rebels mistakenly targeting a civilian plane.

"The sophisticated air traffic radars that the Kiev government have got and that the Russian government have got would pick up these civilian aircraft squawking all the time saying 'I'm a civilian,'" he said. "But something like a Buk missile launcher with its own battlefield radar would probably only pick up an aircraft and not pick up the fact it was a civilian aircraft."

[gstelmack]

It would not be the first time the Russians have shot down a civilian airliner.

[DanGarion]

Why the fuck would anyone fly commercial passenger planes over a war zone?

[molson]

Why the fuck would anyone fly commercial passenger planes over a war zone?

As far as I tell playing around the flight tracking sites a little, dozens and dozens of planes going from Europe to Asia fly over this area every day. So while there's nothing really to gain from any of the major players here, it's just kind of weird that they'd mistake this one particular plane, out of dozens a day, for something else.

[Neon_Chaos]

What does the passenger manifest look like?

I'm hearing between 20 to 40 Americans on that plane.

[BishopMVP]

What does the passenger manifest look like?

I'm hearing between 20 to 40 Americans on that plane.Hmm... From where? Entirely possible, but unless there was some specific reason a group of Americans had business in Europe and then Asia, it'd be odd for a large number of Americans to be flying to SE Asia over land and not the Pacific.

[Neon_Chaos]

Reuters quoting an interior minister: https://mobile.twitter.com/Reuters/status/489824863725813760

[nol]

Hmm... From where? Entirely possible, but unless there was some specific reason a group of Americans had business in Europe and then Asia, it'd be odd for a large number of Americans to be flying to SE Asia over land and not the Pacific.

It doesn't state nationalities, but I've seen some reports that prominent HIV/AIDS researchers en route to a conference in Melbourne were among the passengers.

[DaddyTorgo]

It doesn't state nationalities, but I've seen some reports that prominent HIV/AIDS researchers en route to a conference in Melbourne were among the passengers.

:confused:

Last I heard the state department said there were "no confirmed Americans."

[NobodyHere]

I just heard on the radio that there were no Americans with 40 people who haven't been identified yet.

[nol]

:confused:

Last I heard the state department said there were "no confirmed Americans."

Medical researchers can come from countries other than America.

[Groundhog]

27 Aussies on board - the NL->KL->AU connection is a common route to and from the Netherlands for us in Australia. Working for a Dutch company, I've flown it myself a few times, with Malaysian Airlines, spookily enough.

Assuming the intercepted phone call is true (and I haven't had a chance to check the news the past few hours so I don't know if it's been refuted) it sounds like it was shot down by the Russian-backed insurgents in error. Well, error in so far as "oh we shot the wrong plane" rather than "whoops we launched a missle".

[bhlloy]

Given that a pretty decent size military plane was shot down and the intelligence that they had these military grade missiles I think it's a minor scandal that they were allowed to keep flying over rebel controlled airspace. In a world where we all have to prove our electronics are electronics or take out shoes off based on credible threat, don't think this was too out of the question that somebody should have thought about it

[PilotMan]

Assuming the intercepted phone call is true (and I haven't had a chance to check the news the past few hours so I don't know if it's been refuted) it sounds like it was shot down by the Russian-backed insurgents in error. Well, error in so far as "oh we shot the wrong plane" rather than "whoops we launched a missle".

To me, this is the most likely scenario.

Oh and in case anyone is wondering. This comes from my company:

Un***d flights do not travel through Ukrainian airspace. Our Sabre flight planning system routes our aircraft outside of Ukrainian airspace for the limited number of routes that are near the region. In April, the FAA issued a notice prohibiting U.S. airlines from transiting the region.

[SirFozzie]

'They shouldn't be f*****g flying. There is a war going on': Ukraine intelligence officials release phone calls which they claim PROVE Russia shot down Flight MH17 | Mail Online (http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2696847/They-shouldnt-f-g-flying-There-war-going-Ukraine-intelligence-officials-release-phone-calls-claim-PROVES-Russia-shot-Flight-MH17.html)

Take with a grain of salt, it's from the Daily Mail (from the Ukraine press conference)

[Ryan S]

What does the passenger manifest look like?

I'm hearing between 20 to 40 Americans on that plane.

According the the BBC

"Malaysia Airlines has listed the nationalities on board: 154 Dutch, 43 Malaysians, 27 Australians, 12 Indonesians, 9 Britons, 4 Germans, 4 Belgians, 3 Filipinos, 1 Canadian, and 41 people of unverified nationalities."

[Groundhog]

Our news is reporting 23 Americans, and they aren't sure why it isn't being announced.

[Easy Mac]

So if it turns out a Russian backed group brought down the plane, what are the chances this would start a multinational war? I can't think of an instance where a major country got away with killing a couple hundred people from other major countries without some serious repercussions.

[Grammaticus]

So if it turns out a Russian backed group brought down the plane, what are the chances this would start a multinational war? I can't think of an instance where a major country got away with killing a couple hundred people from other major countries without some serious repercussions.

The chances are about ZERO.

[Groundhog]

I don't know about that. We've got nearly 200 dead Europeans. Before Europe were reluctant to enter the US-Ukraine-Russia conflict. Now? I have no idea.

[flere-imsaho]

So, as of this morning, given where we stand on what we know, I think we can safely assume that Russian-backed separatists mistakenly targeted and shot down the plane using Russian-supplied BUK missiles.

There's plenty of evidence for this, starting with the fact that the same group shot down two Ukrainian military aircraft in the area in the past week. To say nothing of the mounting evidence from now-deleted social media, and intercepted phone calls that makes it quite clear (unless all of that evidence is doctored) that the above scenario happened.

The other thing I think we can safely assume is not only did Russia supply the missile system (there's no other way to get it, aside from stealing one from the Ukraine, which is not very likely), but specialists from the Russian military either volunteered or "volunteered" to help man the system or otherwise show how to use it while it was being operated. The platform isn't a simple piece of equipment, so trained specialists would have been needed.


At best (for Russia), Russia assumes indirect blame for providing the weapon and allowing specialists to go work with the separatists. In such a scenario the blame takes the form of "this is why you don't give advanced weapon platforms to insurgents operating outside of your sphere of command". Although it should be pointed out that in both the 1983 Air Korea crash and the 1988 Air Iran crash it was officers of the world's (then) two most sophisticated militaries who did the same thing.

At worst (for Russia) the blame is simply direct. Deliberate supply of the weapon, deliberate supply of the specialists, deliberate encouragement to take shots at planes in the area. Gross negligence, simply.

The diplomatic fallout, in either case, is tougher to guess. No one wants to get into a land war in the Ukraine, but NATO supplying the Ukraine with more and better equipment is a definite possibility. It should be noted that the separatists themselves had been starting to be overwhelmed by the Ukraine's superiority which is partly why Russia was providing them with these weapons.

If NATO does so, does Russia back off and leave the separatists to their fate? I guess that's the big question, and a lot will depend on how heavy the diplomatic pressure is. Putin already found out how much his initial foray into the Ukraine impacted his economy, this will be much worse. Although Russia has a significant lever with its natural resources, you still have to have a place to sell those resources, and the world's economic engine still revolves around places other than Russia.

My guess is that Putin continues to talk tough, but essentially drops support for the separatists, in part due to heavy backchannel diplomatic efforts that emphasize the fact that this incident has now made it much, much easier for Western governments to sell continued sanctions to their populations.

[Groundhog]

I tell you what, for a company that has had very recent experience in dealing with the press re: a similar incident, the company speaker is terrible... you don't know if the airline is going to fly the same route as the plane that just got shot out of the sky without prompting from the guy next to you? Seriously.

[MIJB#19]

I don't know about that. We've got nearly 200 dead Europeans. Before Europe were reluctant to enter the US-Ukraine-Russia conflict. Now? I have no idea.Europeans, yes, but the large majority are from the Netherlands. It has already been an 'interesting' year, politically, with Russia and the Netherlands, in a year that has been marked as one to strengthen the relations. Our government is strong in words about wanting the truth and expecting full cooperation from Russia.

[JonInMiddleGA]

So if it turns out a Russian backed group brought down the plane, what are the chances this would start a multinational war? I can't think of an instance where a major country got away with killing a couple hundred people from other major countries without some serious repercussions.

Rounded off, that's a zero percent chance.

September 1st, 1983 Korean Air Lines Flight 007 passengers had the following nationalities
105 South Korean
62 United States, including a Congressman
28 Japan
23 Taiwan
16 Phillipines
12 Hong Kong
8 Canada
5 Thailand
2 each Australia, United Kingdom
1 each from Dominican Republic, Indian, Iran, Malaysia, Sweden, Vietnam

[SackAttack]

Rounded off, that's a zero percent chance.

Pretty much. No matter how pissed off the rest of the world is about the plane being shot down, nobody's going to go to war with a nuclear power over this - and that's what it would amount to.

It wouldn't take a multinational force to take down just the separatists, if Russia backed off their support.

And if Russia didn't back off, you're talking about...war with a nuclear power.

[PilotMan]

Rounded off, that's a zero percent chance.

September 1st, 1983 Korean Air Lines Flight 007 passengers had the following nationalities
105 South Korean
62 United States, including a Congressman
28 Japan
23 Taiwan
16 Phillipines
12 Hong Kong
8 Canada
5 Thailand
2 each Australia, United Kingdom
1 each from Dominican Republic, Indian, Iran, Malaysia, Sweden, Vietnam

I'm not saying your wrong here, you're not, but the circumstances are somewhat different. 1983 was deep in the Cold War and nobody was going to war for anything. It was already decided that the Soviets were on one side and a whole lot of people were on the other.

In 2014 things are considerably more muddled. There is no cold war and there is already an active conflict in the area. Alliances aren't quite so defined as they were.

There is no way though that this will turn into a large scale war however.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Pretty much. No matter how pissed off the rest of the world is about the plane being shot down, nobody's going to go to war with a nuclear power over this - and that's what it would amount to.

It wouldn't take a multinational force to take down just the separatists, if Russia backed off their support.

And if Russia didn't back off, you're talking about...war with a nuclear power.

Which is why Russia would be, well, nuts to back off ... unless they decide they don't want the region anymore because it apparently has people who can't figure out which plane to shoot down.

[JonInMiddleGA]

I'm not saying your wrong here, you're not, but the circumstances are somewhat different. 1983 was deep in the Cold War and nobody was going to war for anything. It was already decided that the Soviets were on one side and a whole lot of people were on the other.

In 2014 things are considerably more muddled. There is no cold war and there is already an active conflict in the area. Alliances aren't quite so defined as they were.

There is no way though that this will turn into a large scale war however.

I don't see this even turning into another (50s style) Korean War. One side has shown too many instances of lacking the will to complete a fight, the other side knows that and therefore has no need to invest much into fighting a war by proxy. Whether Putin actually has the stomach for a fight doesn't matter much as long as he's willing to bluff and nobody is willing to call.

[GoldenEagle]

I would imagine that Russia will spin it as saying the equipment was acquired when the rebels took over Ukrainian military posts.

I think what most likely happened (and it may have already been discussed here) is that the rebels intended to shoot down a Ukrainian cargo plane in the area and instead the weaponry locked in on the commercial jet.

[JonInMiddleGA]

FTR, my personal analysis of the likely outcomes from this have nothing to do with the situation in the Ukraine itself. I'm not advocating -- even in light of this most recent event -- western involvement in the Ukraine in the slightest.

[SackAttack]

I would imagine that Russia will spin it as saying the equipment was acquired when the rebels took over Ukrainian military posts.

This is what Occam's Razor suggested to me. Now, whether or not they got assistance from Russian military advisers in how to use the thing is another question. But Ukraine uses a lot of the same military hardware as Russia does, and the specific missile system used is one of those points of overlap. In terms of acquisition, especially with the rumors(?) that Ukrainian military in the Crimea and the currently-contested zone were just laying down their arms, I think that's more likely than Comrade Claus dropping off an early Christmas present.

I think what most likely happened (and it may have already been discussed here) is that the rebels intended to shoot down a Ukrainian cargo plane in the area and instead the weaponry locked in on the commercial jet.

That, on the other hand, I think is less likely. Military hardware is designed to be something 18 year old kids can quickly and easily learn how to use, and it's likelier than not that the rebels have ex-military in their ranks who either would know how to use the Buk, or could read a friggin' manual. Now, they may have disabled safety warnings as a pain in the ass and that led to a colossal "oops," but I think the missile hit the target it was launched at.

[flere-imsaho]

Which is why Russia would be, well, nuts to back off ... unless they decide they don't want the region anymore because it apparently has people who can't figure out which plane to shoot down.

I think Putin wanted Crimea, which he got. Prior to the plane being shot down I'm willing to bet he saw continuing unrest in the Ukraine as a way to tweak NATO with little downside. That calculus may change now, however, especially as limited sanctions so far have already had an impact on Russia's GDP, and if more comprehensive sanctions go ahead (and they were gathering steam even before the plane was shot down), especially if they include the Eurozone, the results could be much tougher for Russia.

The main sticking point on sanctions so far has been a reluctance amongst the Europeans to go forward, given their dependence on Russian energy. But, like I said before, this may be enough to overcome that and convince people to live with higher energy prices for a while.

[JonInMiddleGA]

That, on the other hand, I think is less likely. Military hardware is designed to be something 18 year old kids can quickly and easily learn how to use, and it's likelier than not that the rebels have ex-military in their ranks who either would know how to use the Buk, or could read a friggin' manual. Now, they may have disabled safety warnings as a pain in the ass and that led to a colossal "oops," but I think the missile hit the target it was launched at.

But, based on the info from various Jane's-like sources I've seen, the system in question could very well have been as much as 30 years old (the nomenclature being used in the press is for a model that went into service 16 years ago but the maximum range being cited most frequently dates to a model first introduced in 1984)

In either case this isn't the most sophisticated piece of anti-air equipment in the world. It appears to have undergone more strengthening of it's anti-countermeasures capabilities during upgrades than of its targeting systems. (The Russians themselves were allegedly unable to defeat the anti-CM when the Georgians reportedly used the system against them successfully a few years ago, taking down as many as four planes). It basically seems to be an anti-air weapon best used in areas where only the opposition has aircraft in operation.

[Arles]

23 Americans aboard jet shot down from 33,000 feet over Ukraine | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2014/07/17/malaysian-passenger-plane-reportedly-crashes-in-ukraine/)

NY Post reporting that there were 23 Americans on board.

[bhlloy]

But, based on the info from various Jane's-like sources I've seen, the system in question could very well have been as much as 30 years old (the nomenclature being used in the press is for a model that went into service 16 years ago but the maximum range being cited most frequently dates to a model first introduced in 1984)

In either case this isn't the most sophisticated piece of anti-air equipment in the world. It appears to have undergone more strengthening of it's anti-countermeasures capabilities during upgrades than of its targeting systems. (The Russians themselves were allegedly unable to defeat the anti-CM when the Georgians reportedly used the system against them successfully a few years ago, taking down as many as four planes). It basically seems to be an anti-air weapon best used in areas where only the opposition has aircraft in operation.

Which points to one thing - the absolute insanity of choosing flight paths that go over active war zones

[Ronnie Dobbs3]

23 Americans aboard jet shot down from 33,000 feet over Ukraine | New York Post (http://nypost.com/2014/07/17/malaysian-passenger-plane-reportedly-crashes-in-ukraine/)

NY Post reporting that there were 23 Americans on board.

Article is over 24 hours old... I think it's uncertain at this point.

edit: Obama just spoke and confirmed at least one American died.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Which points to one thing - the absolute insanity of choosing flight paths that go over active war zones

Ding ding ding.

I have to think several hundred civil suits against an already all-but-gone-under airline are being prepared even as we speak.

[flere-imsaho]

I would imagine that Russia will spin it as saying the equipment was acquired when the rebels took over Ukrainian military posts.

They're spinning it this way already. But it seems unlikely, as these are important, capable, and large (4 vehicles per unit) units that you're not as likely to abandon as, say, an AK-47 or shoulder-mounted SAM.

[flere-imsaho]

Here, apparently, is a picture of the control panel for the BUK missile launcher:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bs0_MHOCYAAM1-q.jpg

Unsophisticated by today's standards, as Jon says, and likely to need people very much trained in its operation. Also, still probably likely to result in mistakes of target identification.

[SackAttack]

But, based on the info from various Jane's-like sources I've seen, the system in question could very well have been as much as 30 years old (the nomenclature being used in the press is for a model that went into service 16 years ago but the maximum range being cited most frequently dates to a model first introduced in 1984)

Sure. But all that means is that maybe contemporary IFF tech doesn't work as well with 30-year-old tech. Maybe they didn't recognize that it was a civilian flight. I still think the missile was launched at the flight, and hit what it was aimed at.

Whether they would have fired that missile knowing it was a civilian flight may be a different question.

In either case this isn't the most sophisticated piece of anti-air equipment in the world. It appears to have undergone more strengthening of it's anti-countermeasures capabilities during upgrades than of its targeting systems. (The Russians themselves were allegedly unable to defeat the anti-CM when the Georgians reportedly used the system against them successfully a few years ago, taking down as many as four planes). It basically seems to be an anti-air weapon best used in areas where only the opposition has aircraft in operation.

Well, again, that depends on where the rebels got it from. If it's captured Ukrainian hardware, it may or may not have those upgrades. If it's a loan from the Russians, that's, again, another question.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Unsophisticated by today's standards, as Jon says, and likely to need people very much trained in its operation. Also, still probably likely to result in mistakes of target identification.

The easy-to-read explanation I saw yesterday was that this is essentially a "dumb radar" weapon. Feedback to the operator no more sophisticated than the old-fashioned "blip-on-the-screen, if it's this size then that must be an XYZ aircraft" (newer models did allow for blips to be manually given Friend-or-Foe tags minus IFF info to help avoid shooting down friendlies).

I can't confirm or deny the accuracy of that, but it's what turned up in my reading yesterday.

Take that level of tech, add the adrenaline of being able to shoot a missile at a live target, add operators who were inexperienced with live fire ... yeah, I'm not having a lot of trouble seeing how a targeting error could occur.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, again, that depends on where the rebels got it from. If it's captured Ukrainian hardware, it may or may not have those upgrades. If it's a loan from the Russians, that's, again, another question.

I'd say if it was a loan from the Russians then it's at least as likely to be old hardware as if it were captured. Russians are not always in the practice of giving out their best hardware to their proxies, something from the bottom of the inventory list seems like a distinct possibility.

(Although maybe that's what you were saying by "another question" too, I honestly wasn't 100% which direction you were suggesting there)

[MIJB#19]

Ding ding ding.

I have to think several hundred civil suits against an already all-but-gone-under airline are being prepared even as we speak.All the airlines together have decided that until yesterday's event, Ukraine is safe. The blame can't be just on Malaysian Airlines. Besides that, the one responsible is the one that fired the missile.

[SackAttack]

I'd say if it was a loan from the Russians then it's at least as likely to be old hardware as if it were captured. Russians are not always in the practice of giving out their best hardware to their proxies, something from the bottom of the inventory list seems like a distinct possibility.

(Although maybe that's what you were saying by "another question" too, I honestly wasn't 100% which direction you were suggesting there)

Pretty much that it could go either way. If they got the tech from the Russians, there's a chance it has the upgrades, but it's not a certainty. If they captured Ukrainian hardware, well, it's worth pointing out that Ukraine spends something like $1.4 billion annually on their armed forces. Russia spends $40 billion/year.

So you can make the argument either way: that with fewer resources, they would be more likely to invest in training than in equipment upgrades, or that with fewer resources, it would be more cost-effective to upgrade older systems than to invest in new platforms.

[JonInMiddleGA]

All the airlines together have decided that until yesterday's event, Ukraine is safe. The blame can't be just on Malaysian Airlines. Besides that, the one responsible is the one that fired the missile.


Umm, not really. U.S. airlines were told to stay away, and so was pretty much everyone else "International aviation agencies in April also had warned pilots and airlines to avoid the Ukranian airspace. "

That some (many?) continued to use it has nothing to do with safety, it has to do with risk assessment and profitability.

I have no problem with anyone suing the airline to death.

[DanGarion]

Here, apparently, is a picture of the control panel for the BUK missile launcher:

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bs0_MHOCYAAM1-q.jpg

Unsophisticated by today's standards, as Jon says, and likely to need people very much trained in its operation. Also, still probably likely to result in mistakes of target identification.

If Sandra Bullock can play a medical doctor that is for whatever reason repairing a satellite in space and then pilot both and Russian and Chinese Soyuz capsule anything is possible.

[MIJB#19]

Umm, not really. U.S. airlines were told to stay away, and so was pretty much everyone else "International aviation agencies in April also had warned pilots and airlines to avoid the Ukranian airspace. "

That some (many?) continued to use it has nothing to do with safety, it has to do with risk assessment and profitability.

I have no problem with anyone suing the airline to death.Then the media over here are either misinformed or are misinforming. All we hear here is that Ukraine was never tagged as unsafe.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Then the media over here are either misinformed or are misinforming. All we hear here is that Ukraine was never tagged as unsafe.

It's a mixed bag, depending upon how you choose to interpret common sense AND the advisories that were issued between April and June. The exact area was technically not under an advisory at this point (near, but not this exact area) but seems to me that simple common sense -- especially since multiple aircraft had been fired upon in the days leading up to this -- would have dictated giving it a wider berth than they did. I stand by my previous comment: it's a matter of cost/benefit analysis, not a matter of safety. How much money do we save with that route versus the odds of us being the ones who get hit.

This article (one of quite a few available) describes it better than I can.

Downed Malaysia Airlines plane: how did it go wrong for flight MH17? | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/malaysia-airlines-mh17-flying-just-above-restricted-airspace)

[MIJB#19]

Then the media over here are either misinformed or are misinforming. All we hear here is that Ukraine was never tagged as unsafe.IATA's reaction: http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/statement-MH17-2014-07-18.aspx

[MIJB#19]

It's a mixed bag, depending upon how you choose to interpret common sense AND the advisories that were issued between April and June. The exact area was technically not under an advisory at this point (near, but not this exact area) but seems to me that simple common sense -- especially since multiple aircraft had been fired upon in the days leading up to this -- would have dictated giving it a wider berth than they did. I stand by my previous comment: it's a matter of cost/benefit analysis, not a matter of safety. How much money do we save with that route versus the odds of us being the ones who get hit.

This article (one of quite a few available) describes it better than I can.

Downed Malaysia Airlines plane: how did it go wrong for flight MH17? | World news | The Guardian (http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/malaysia-airlines-mh17-flying-just-above-restricted-airspace)Oh, I agree that flying there was risky, but responsibility for the drama should be taken by those that attacked the airplane, not the ones flying it.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Oh, I agree that flying there was risky, but responsibility for the drama should be taken by those that attacked the airplane, not the ones flying it.

Good luck suing them and actually getting anything from it
(remember, I specifically mentioned civil liability in the comment you replied to)

FTR, I'm not absolving whoever pushed the button from their role in things but in this instance I don't see whomever put a plane in that location as being at the very least negligent in the civil (if not criminal) sense either.

[bhlloy]

IATA's reaction: http://www.iata.org/pressroom/pr/Pages/statement-MH17-2014-07-18.aspx

"If the road is open, you drive on it"

What if the road is open but you know there are missile launchers trained on it with jumpy poorly trained operators and at least two cars have been blown the fuck up in the past couple of weeks?

The other thing I can't get past looking at the map is how small this rebel held area is. Should have been a no brainer just to go around it. Like Jon I'm not acquitting the responsibility of the idiots who pushed the button or the idiots who have untrained idiots this tech, but the airline and authorities are nowhere near blameless in this

[Ryan S]

Umm, not really. U.S. airlines were told to stay away, and so was pretty much everyone else "International aviation agencies in April also had warned pilots and airlines to avoid the Ukranian airspace. "

From what I have heard, and the release from the FAA seems to back this up, is that the FAA prohibited US carriers in April from flying over Crimea and the adjacent waters. They did not prohibit carriers from flying over Eastern Ukraine, though no US carriers have been flying that route recently.

[CraigSca]

Also, on CNN last night, they mentioned that the flight was flying much further north than previous MH17 flights due to thunderstorms in the Crimean area. To a Ukranian rebel, therefore, they may not be used to seeing planes like that flying overhead in that area and think it's a transport, not a commercial flight.

[21C]

I flew from Amsterdam to Guangzhou, China, a week ago and Google Maps shows that the direct route would have gone right over the problem areas of Ukraine. I have no idea if my flight (China Southern) took this route or not but the thought of it is quite chilling.

BTW I spent a week on a tour through Russia. Loved the people and the place.

[molson]

I read that commercial flights flew over Iraq and Afghanistan during the height of those wars. And really, when was the last time a commercial flight was shot down from the ground at cruising altitude? I think everybody just assumed that at that altitude, you're safe from all but established governments with their sophisticated weaponry.

The whole Russia/Ukraine thing has always been scary because it blurs those very lines between what is established government and what is not, and who has access to those weapons (including nuclear weapons).

[Dutch]

I flew from Amsterdam to Guangzhou, China, a week ago and Google Maps shows that the direct route would have gone right over the problem areas of Ukraine. I have no idea if my flight (China Southern) took this route or not but the thought of it is quite chilling.

BTW I spent a week on a tour through Russia. Loved the people and the place.

Yikes, pretty crazy.

IRT Russians: I'll bet the vast majority of Russians are good folks. It's their government that's pretty jacked up.

[PilotMan]

We also happened to have total air superiority in both of those wars.

[molson]

We also happened to have total air superiority in both of those wars.

True, but this attack came from the ground. If it were easy for rogue terrorist groups to shoot down commercial airlines at cruising altitude, they would have done it, at least once, at some point.

[flere-imsaho]

Well, and back to your original point, molson, it's been generally safe to assume that rogue terrorist groups didn't have access to this kind of weaponry, to say nothing of being able to actually use it (both in the sense of having the knowledge, but also in the sense of not having someone else target it).

Which means PilotMan has a point too. Even if the Taliban or Al Qaeda got their hands on one of these in Afghanistan or Iraq, our total air superiority would have seen it destroyed in short order. After all, if there's one thing the U.S. military does exceptionally well, it's blow stuff up.

[JPhillips]

Apparently we knew the minute the radar locked on the plane. In a country where we have air superiority that would have been the end of that AA.

[Edward64]

Not giving easy access to international recovery teams is going to mess up the separatists. Not sure if Putin has the power to force the issue now but he will have to pull back his support if it doesn't happen.

[Neon_Chaos]

Three events in a year. Achievement unlocked.

http://worldnewsdailyreport.com/malaysia-airline-flight-forced-into-emergency-landing-after-flying-over-icelandic-volcano/

[Qwikshot]

As the regional senior VP said in the article ,"they were never really at risk" save that time their plane disappeared somewhere in the ocean, or the one that got shot down...this plane landed /safely/ so they weren't at risk...really, I promise.

I'll be avoiding this airline and whatever it will be named in the future.

[Butter]

Why does the word "really" make that statement so much worse? I don't know why, but it does.

[BillJasper]

As the regional senior VP said in the article ,"they were never really at risk" save that time their plane disappeared somewhere in the ocean, or the one that got shot down...this plane landed /safely/ so they weren't at risk...really, I promise.

I'll be avoiding this airline and whatever it will be named in the future.

My wife said they should rebrand as "DumbFuck Airlines". :lol:

[Fonzie]

"Combined with an already poor financial situation, some aviation and economic experts believed these tragic events could spell the end for Malaysia Airlines. An ill-conceived promotional campaign asking passengers to nominate what they wanted to do before they died, did not help..."

You don't say?

[BillJasper]

"Combined with an already poor financial situation, some aviation and economic experts believed these tragic events could spell the end for Malaysia Airlines. An ill-conceived promotional campaign asking passengers to nominate what they wanted to do before they died, did not help..."

You don't say?

I think "WOW!", just about covers it. :lol:

[Marc Vaughan]

:confused:
Last I heard the state department said there were "no confirmed Americans."

I'm presuming those researchers may not have been American then?

[PilotMan]

Alright people; chill the fuck out:


MAS wants website blocked for spoof piece on plane’s ‘emergency landing’


http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/mas-wants-website-blocked-for-spoof-piece-on-planes-emergency-landing