MH17: Ukraine Had Reason To Close Airspace Before Crash, Investigators Say
Source: CNN
(CNN)Ukrainian authorities had "sufficient reason" to close the airspace over conflict-stricken eastern Ukraine before the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, according to the findings of a Dutch investigation into the crash.
The Boeing 777 was heading from Amsterdam to Malaysia when it was shot down on July 17, 2014, over Ukrainian territory controlled by pro-Russian separatists. All 298 people aboard the aircraft died in the crash.
The Dutch Safety Board (DSB) said whatever happened to the plane happened quickly, leaving the passengers dazed or unconscious. And while it's not clear if anyone died in midair, no one could have survived the plane's impact with the ground, the DSB said.
The DSB took the lead in the crash investigation at the request of Ukraine, which remains locked in conflict with pro-Russian separatists in its eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions.
Read more: http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/europe/mh17-ukraine-dutch-report/
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
msongs
(67,347 posts)LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)I don't think what "we" do or do not do is directly relevant to the investigation. No doubt though, many people are compelled to advertise their bias, regardless of how 'civilized' they themselves may or may not be.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)country's sins--a kind of inverted collectivist narcissism
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)Might as well wrap up the investigation and go home
Baitball Blogger
(46,682 posts)When, exactly, was this revealed, and who revealed it?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)It confirms that the plane was shot down by a Buk SAM.
It also mentions that while the area had not met the criteria for closing the airspace, it probably would have been a good idea for Ukraine to do so anyway. Which, for some reason, is the focus of this CNN story instead of the part about confirming it was shot down by a SAM.
daleo
(21,317 posts)In a U.S. court, the non-closure of the airspace could easily be ruled as contributory negligence.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)And that isn't the case. And the Dutch report says as much. They present it as an additional layer of caution that Ukraine could have taken.
daleo
(21,317 posts)There is no hard and fast rule, though an "abundance of caution" is usually an excellent defence. So, the Ukraine would have been smart to divert planes from the area. And the rebels would have been smart to have better aircraft identification protocols in place. From a legal point of view, I would say both sides were at fault, thus contributory negligence.
By the way, I wonder if the Ukrainian rebels are moderate or immoderate, according to recent rebel labelling standards?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)The Ukrainians okayed them to fly over that area.
the rebels actually killed them.
Ukrainians were guilty of negligence perhaps.
Rebels were guilty of either murder or extreme recklessness.
daleo
(21,317 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)No reason that they can't talk about the other aspects of the investigation separately.
at the end of the day, Putin's stooges shot down the plane and it's approaching David Irving-levels of dishonesty to pretend otherwise.
At the same time, 160 flights per day over an area known to include SAM activity certainly suggests lessons to be learned.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Shoulder-fired ones can't reach 30,000 feet, for example.
The arrival of the Buks probably should have closed the airspace, but I don't remember what Ukraine knew about them, and when.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)They were able to tap into cell phone conversations, very likely they knew the rebels had Buks.
Comrade Grumpy
(13,184 posts)geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)route.
From page 11 of the report:
Xolodno
(6,383 posts)..fact it was a shot down by a Russian missile.
I agree the airspace should have been closed and should be routine in a war zone, and you could make a case for gross negligence on part of Ukraine, but still doesn't undo the gross negligence of Russia did in handing an advanced weapons system to a bunch or Ukrainian rebels.
But it appears the media is now moving the focus away from Russia and fanning Russia Rage. Read somewhere that a sort of "Ukrainian government in exile" was being set up in case things go south for Poroshenko. Looks like were being set up for something.
And things in Kiev haven't been going smoothly. On one hand you have a group trying to abide by the Minsk agreement and put in reforms, on another, you have corrupt officials trying to keep much of the status quo as possible, and another nationalistic group that wants to shred the Minsk agreement and impose their vision of a de-Russiafied Ukraine whether the populace is compliant or not.
With the Syria refugee crisis and Greece being on constant watch, doubt the EU has a stomach for more issues with Ukraine and will want to take the easy way out.
uawchild
(2,208 posts)Seriously, the report said BUK missile, which all sides, Ukraine, the "Rebels" and Russia all have in there arsenals. Did the report specifically say WHO fired the missile? I mean, personally, I think it was the half assed rebels not qualified to operate such a weapon system, but what does the Dutch report say?
OK... I just read thru the Dutch Report's press release and did not see where it said WHO fired the missile. Interesting. They did talk at length about issues related to closing the air space.
http://mh17.onderzoeksraad.nl
"Final report MH17
Buk missile system
The investigation has shown that flight MH17 progressed normally up to the moment when the aeroplane was flying over the eastern part of Ukraine. At 13.20 UTC (Coordinated Universal Time) a 9N314M warhead, launched by a Buk surface-to-air missile system from a 320-square-kilometre area in the eastern part of Ukraine, detonated to the left and above the cockpit. The forward section of the aircraft was penetrated by hundreds of high-energy objects coming from the warhead. As a result of the impact and the subsequent blast, the three crew members in the cockpit were killed immediately and the aeroplane broke up in the air. Wreckage from the aeroplane was distributed over various sites within an area of 50 square kilometres. All 298 occupants were killed.
The Dutch Safety Board has established the cause of the crash on the basis of several sources. For example, the weapon system used was identified on the basis of, among other things, the damage pattern on the wreckage, the fragments found in the wreckage and in the bodies of crew members, and the way in which the aircraft broke up. The findings are supported by the data on the flight recorders; the Cockpit Voice Recorder picked up a sound peak during the final milliseconds. In addition, traces of paint on a number of missile fragments found match the paint on parts of a missile recovered from the area by Dutch Safety Board. Other potential causes, such as an explosion inside the aeroplane or an air-to-air missile, have been investigated and excluded. No scenario other than a Buk surface-to-air missile can explain this combination of facts. The 320-square-kilometre area from which the missile was launched has been determined on the basis of various simulations. Additional forensic investigation will be needed to establish the exact launching location; however, such an investigation lies outside the scope of the Dutch Safety Board’s mandate.
The airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine
The airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine was much in use: between 14 and 17 July 2014, 61 operators from 32 countries routed their flights through this airspace. On the day of the crash, until the airspace was closed, 160 commercial airliners flew over the area. Malaysia Airlines prepared and operated flight MH17 in accordance with regulations. As the state of departure, the Netherlands had no responsibility to advise Malaysia Airlines (or KLM, as its code share partner) with regard to the chosen flight route.
On 17 July 2014 an armed conflict was taking place in the eastern part of Ukraine. In the preceding months, the conflict had expanded into the airspace: from late April the number of military aircraft downed increased. According to statements by the Ukrainian authorities, in two cases long-range weapons were used. In the Dutch Safety Board’s opinion, Ukraine had sufficient reason to close the entire airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine as a precaution. Instead, on military grounds flying at lower altitudes was restricted. The same turns out to apply to conflict areas elsewhere in the world: it is rare for a state to close its airspace because of an armed conflict.
Flying over conflict areas
The Dutch Safety Board has noticed that the current system of responsibilities with respect to flying over conflict areas is inadequate. Operators assume that unrestricted airspaces are safe. When assessing the risk, the operators do usually take into account the safety of departure and arrival locations, but not the safety of the countries they fly over. When flying over a conflict area, an additional risk assessment is necessary. Therefore, the Dutch Safety Board considers it extremely important that parties involved in aviation – including states, international organisations such as ICAO and IATA, and operators – exchange more information about conflict areas and potential threats to civil aviation. When processing and interpreting this information, more attention should be paid to the development of the conflict, including any increase of military activity and shootings from the ground. States involved in an armed conflict should receive more incentives and better support to safeguard the safety of their airspace. In addition, the Dutch Safety Board is of the opinion that operators should give public account for their flight route"
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)But, when considering:
1) Only Ukraine had planes in the sky;
2) the plane was coming from Ukrainian-controlled airspace
3) the plane was flying over rebel-controlled airspace; and
4) the plane was fired from rebel-controlled airspace (the missile exploded at the front of the plane--meaning if the plane was flying east, the missile had to have been fired from the east)
one really has to engage in a number of mental gymnastics to concoct a scenario wherein it wasn't the rebels
uawchild
(2,208 posts)As I said in my post, I personally believe it was the half-assed rebel yahoos. But based on your points about only the Ukrainians having military planes in the area and the passenger jet coming from Ukrainian airspace why the report focused so much on the issue of when and why the air space could have or should have been closed.
Xolodno
(6,383 posts)..but you just made a compelling argument as to why they may have mistook a commercial airliner as a military target.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)rather than "let's massacre an airliner full of people"
ColesCountyDem
(6,943 posts)Occam's Theorem would dictate that it was the rebels, and I see no credible evidence to the contrary.
daleo
(21,317 posts)We are air dropping arms to rebels in Syria right now. Some of those are advanced weapons, by any reasonable interpretation of the phrase. And who really knows how moderate our favoured rebels actually are. After all, for decades, we armed and trained the rebels who eventually did 911. When might the most recent batch turn on us?
Xolodno
(6,383 posts)This is a fight that's been going on since the year 632 and is sure as hell not going to be solved by anyone else but them.
The US actually backed the Shites in Persia (Iran) until they gave the puppet leader the boot. Then the US exchanged gifts.
Where do you draw the line? What are the risks. A kid picks up an exploded munition canister that says "made in the USA". And his friends, family, home are destroyed by that? Whats going to happen.
Syria and Ukraine are related ironically. Its all about energy and money. A pipeline from Saudi Arabia and Iraq to Europe to undercut the near de-facto energy monopoly by Russia. A "western" Ukraine, that further inhibits Russia's capabilities of supplying Europe. The US tried to do this with Georgia and it backfired. Should have learned from that.
Why circumvent Russia? Influence. That want for "influence" and dictating the world is going to cost lives in the short term in the affected nations....and lives in the long term in form of terrorist acts.
The day we advance and can ban money...is the day when all the wars end.
daleo
(21,317 posts)The Saudis blew the oil price out of the water, when they flooded the market with cheap oil, as far as Russia is concerned. It seems like Syria is likely some proxy payback for that. The U.S. may well have played a role in Saudi Arabia's decision to flood the market.
Throw in religious and nationalistic extremists and you have a major international flare-up.
