Hi All,

The previous thread became quite long so Part 4 has been created to continue the conversation. The previous thread can be found here Malaysian Airlines MH17 Crashes In Ukraine Part 3 (by bnatraveler Jul 17 2014 in Civil Aviation)

We ask that you please be respectful to the victim's families. In addition do NOT post pictures of the crash site if they contain victims. We ask that you link to them with a warning.

Additionally, this is a charged environment so please refrain from political, polarizing or likely flame-baiting comments in your replies.

Thank you for your cooperation.

Regards,
Pat

I would be highly suspicious of any posters making definitive comments on which side is responsible at this point. They are just here to spit out their prejudices and/or agendas.

I'm shocked that the notam said FL320 if weapons able to shoot down an airplane at a higher level were available in the war zone below. If this is true, I would point that as the first cause of the crash. It would be stupid and inexcusable.

[Edited 2014-07-17 19:49:54]

From thread 3:

"FWIW I just looked at the flight aware tracks for the past MH17 flights (are they accurate on flight aware? ) and noticed that this MH17 flight was just a bit farther North... "

They were routinely flying 200 miles South, approximately over Crimea. Today they were further North due to storms over their more Southern "normal" route.

After the shoot-downs in the past week to ten days, I don't understand the rationale of flying over Donetsk or Luhansk regions. It can't be that big a deal to divert to one of the airways that go to the north of the eastern region of Ukraine.

I agree that MH was within the operational restrictions for the region by being over flight level 320 and there were other international carriers (SIA and AI) in the area but horrid luck for MH and the 298 souls aboard.

Quoting ComeAndGo (Reply 165):
A Russian helicopter discovered a massive gas explosion that created a huge crater in Siberia the other day. You would think that our super "sensitive" BS system would've picked it up.

Who says it didnt. We dont generally broadcast our surveillance capabilities.

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 256):
The fact that US and UK airlines received separate warnings to avoid this restricted zone, makes this look like there could have been some premeditation and planning involved

The FAA took the extra step above Ukrainian warnings. This may have been without todays incident haopening purely out of an abundance of caution.

People keep asking why would MH fly that route. FUEL SAVINGS!!!!! It probably costs easily 5k more to fly around Ukraine than over it. In hindsight a bad decision but before today it was likely unthinkable.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 1): I would be highly suspicious of any posters making definitive comments on which side is responsible at this point. They are just here to spit out their prejudices and/or agendas.

There could not be less ambiguity about what side is responsible for this.

The pro-Russian side had weapons capable of doing this, Ukraine did not (in this region)
They've been shooting airplanes down all week...
They're recorded in phone conversations talking about exactly what they did...
Why would Ukraine shoot down an aircraft traveling that direction through that area? Because it had LEFT their controlled airspace?


Sorry, I will be highly suspicious of anyone who cannot see the light of day shining down upon them.

I'm just here to spit the truth.

Way back in the day, post 911, 2003 or so, the US government sponsored a state-funded research and development program for an autonomous belly-mounted MANPAD jammer. This came about as the Northrop Grumman Guardian.

Northrop Grumman Guardian - Wikipedia

The system costs $1,000,000 USD to install on most given aircraft, and Northrop Grumman estimates that it would add a cost of approximately $1 to every ticket price. FX mostly uses it nowadays. You can see it behind the mains here:


View Large View Medium

Photo © Chris Heaton


Could this technology have saved the aircraft?

-LPDAL

Quoting lpdal (Reply 8): FX mostly uses it nowadays.

I'd be interested to know what % of the FX fleet uses it? And, if the planes fitted with it are dedicated to flying the routes over areas were it would be most useful?

Quoting lpdal (Reply 8): Could this technology have saved the aircraft?

I believe that even a F16 will had serious issues trying to avoid an SA-11. And to my knoledge this technology is to avoid manpads so no way to help avoiding a radar seeking missile.

Quoting lpdal (Reply 8): Could this technology have saved the aircraft?

If the Wikipedia article is to be believed, it was 100% successful in simulator testing, so it seems like the answer to your question is a yes.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 11): If the Wikipedia article is to be believed, it was 100% successful in simulator testing, so it seems like the answer to your question is a yes.

Against a Buk SA-11?

I highly doubt it.

Civilian aircraft aren't designed to avoid radar-guided missiles that can shoot up to 75,000 ft.

Quoting lpdal (Reply 8): Could this technology have saved the aircraft?

I wouldn't count on it. MANPADS are one thing, but a full SAM system with a launcher and a radar and all is something else.

-Mir

The pods are used to defeat heat seeking missiles which are most often encountered after take-off and before landing. They aren't designed to defeat radar guided main battery anti-air missiles such as what was employed here.

Would TCAS have alerted the crew of the incoming missile?

Quoting flydeltajets (Reply 15): Would TCAS have alerted the crew of the incoming missile?

No..... SAMS don't have transponders...

Cal   

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 3):

This is why whoever approved the NOTAM has blood on their hands. It implies that FL330 was a safe level when in reality there was no safe level for a commercial aircraft because the SAM capabilities were for spy plane FLs. Not closing the airspace entirely cost 300 lives. And it's not 20/20 hindsight here. It's a tragic miscalculation from an organization trusted not to make such mistakes.

Not the sophisticated radar guided missile here. IR missile guidance can be defeated with lasers (along with the tried and true flares) The Buk system is easily enough to take a 777 with its nice fat radar signature. To defeat all military systems you would have to pack not only the Guardian system, but advanced threat-detection systems that modern air forces put on their front-line equipment. We are talking big bucks here. And, really, should we be paying to deploy a modern threat detection, chaff, flare and laser system on all passenger carrying civil airliners? The cost would be insane.

This was a case of sheer stupidity on the side that either a) captured an advanced SAM system and didn't know WTF to do with it or b) the side that supplied the SAM to irregular forces ill equipped to use such a system.

Someone in the last thread said UTA was hit by libyan missile, but it was bombs placed on board and on purpose. KAL, IRAN Air and possibly this flight were mistaken identity by the jet fighter/SAM operator

[Edited 2014-07-17 20:49:38]

First - this is truly a sad and powerfully emotional day. My thoughts and prayers to all involved, from the families, friends and passengers on MH17 to the employees at MH - who must be feeling whipsawed. today.

Quotes from thread 3.

Quoting AT (Reply 86): I'm curious as to how useful the black boxes could serve in this case (unlike for the MH 370 flight), especially given that the cause of the crash isn't really being debated, and the reasons for it will not be answered by the data recorders.

Confirmation that no aircraft related issues occurred. It is also quite possible that audio and or digital data will be captured that help confirm it. This could be important if the perpetrators ever face any kind of legal justice.

Quoting bluesky9 (Reply 230): The question is why was MH170 flying over a war zone when US & UK A/C were warned not to fly over that area. Apparently Australian airlines had also stopped flying over this region.

That is "a" question, but not "the" question. "the" question is who shot down a civilian airliner without positive ID that it was a military target.

Quoting antskip (Reply 248): To reduce the responsibility of the killing of so many utterly innocent people by suggesting it was a an act of stupidity rather than malice is itself of questionable humanity.

Stupid acts do not absolve people of the responsibility of the act they performed. It is stupid to get in a car after drinking or taking drugs. If you then crash and kill somebody - your stupid act does not absolve you of responsibility. That can be the difference between manslaughter and murder.
Now - we don't know that this act of shooting down an airliner (if that is what happened) was the result of stupidity or malice. It could be either. Halon's Razor is just a statement that, typically, more damage is caused by stupidity than malice - it does not absolve responsibility, it just speaks to motive.

Now - this could be stupidity, or malice. We do not know. Halon's Razor would propose stupidity -but it is simply a statement based on history.

The people who did this (if they did) are responsible. Whether they did so in stupidity, negligence or malice (evil purpose), may impact the 'sentence (punishment)', but not the 'responsibility'.

Quoting antskip (Reply 248): The missile used was a weapon of mass destruction; the act itself an act of terrorism.

While there is no completely authoritative definition of a WMD (many variants), a SAM is not typically considered one (though one definition may include it.)

As for this being an act of terrorism - it is indeed a terrible act and I'm sure many feel 'terror' as a result - but it may or may not be an act of terrorism. We need to be careful about such terms. Terrorism is an act intended to cause political change by causing widespread 'terror' among a civilian populace - terror caused by threats that can be repeated and that they cannot defend against or prevent. Even if those who shot down MH17 did so on purpose - it does not fit terrorism, if for no other reason that it is easy to prevent - simply do not fly there. A small inconvenience (changing routes) - not a political change. Now - it can impact the people who live there, and possibly bring about political change, but not through terror.
Using the word "terrorism" can have unintended consequences. For instance, if this were deemed a terrorist action - it is likely the life insurance policies of those on board will not pay out. We, sadly, learned that on 9/11 when the many of the fire fighters and victims life insurance policies did not pay.

Quoting A380900 (Reply 1): 'm shocked that the notam said FL320 if weapons able to shoot down an airplane at a higher level were available in the war zone below. If this is true, I would point that as the first cause of the crash. It would be stupid and inexcusable

No - in the parlance of an air crash investigation. The cause of the crash would be damage to the aircraft rendering it unable to fly as the result of a damage caused by a missile. Not closing the airspace is a contributing factor. MH not changing their routes may be a contributing factor.
In terms of a criminal act - which is what I care about - the actions of those who shot the weapon may be criminal (likely would be) - but sadly - they could also be viewed as negligent (maybe grossly negligent) - which is not criminal, but civil.

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 7): The pro-Russian side had weapons capable of doing this, Ukraine did not (in this region) They've been shooting airplanes down all week... They're recorded in phone conversations talking about exactly what they did... Why would Ukraine shoot down an aircraft traveling that direction through that area? Because it had LEFT their controlled airspace?

You forgot to mention the twitter messages from the separatist rebels initially gloating over their shooting down of what they thought was an Ukrainian military transport, right before the disappearance of MH17 came to light, then hastily retracting them shortly after.

KarelXWB posted one of them on an earlier thread. The screenshots can still be found on the internet.

It is all very confused, and there is room for doubt, but it's wiggle room only.
This Malaysian 777 tragedy will be much less of a mystery than the previous one.

I expect, and hope, that the Netherlands and the rest of the EU will start taking a stronger stance in this conflict.
That's little to comfort the families, of course.

Quoting lpdal (Reply 8): Could this technology have saved the aircraft?

No.

ManPad SAMs are all heat seeking or IR seeking.

This missile would have been under active radar control to bring it to the target. I'm not sure if the system has an on-board radar tracking system, or more likely is controlled by a ground based radar.

Quoting AA94 (Reply 11): If the Wikipedia article is to be believed, it was 100% successful in simulator testing, so it seems like the answer to your question is a yes.

The system, according to the Wiki article is an IR countermeasures system. So it has no capability of countermeasures against the type of missile apparently used today.

That type countermeasures system is still very useful for civilian aircraft.

Just on sheer numbers and cost - there are likely a few thousand ManPad shoulder fired short range SAMs scattered across the world.

The system apparently used to down this aircraft is a multi-million dollar complex of several vehicles which require a high level of training to operate.

It could easily be that the people operating the system today didn't have the level of training to be able to distinguish a civilian airliner from a military transport.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 17): This is why whoever approved the NOTAM has blood on their hands. It implies that FL330 was a safe level when in reality there was no safe level for a commercial aircraft because the SAM capabilities were for spy plane FLs.

Expecting airspace regulators to have the latest military intelligence seems unrealistic. While I would hope to fly on airlines wise enough to have avoided this airspace on their own, I think it's more accurate to say that the decision makers who launched the SAM have the blood on their hands.

Quoting FlightShadow (Reply 23): While I would hope to fly on airlines wise enough to have avoided this airspace on their own, I think it's more accurate to say that the decision makers who launched the SAM have the blood on their hands.

Likewise. It would also be fair to lay some of the blame with those who provided the equipment to the separatist rebels... I just wonder how differently this would be unfolding if it was an Aeroflot flight that got shot down...

Quoting sonomaflyer (Reply 3): After the shoot-downs in the past week to ten days, I don't understand the rationale of flying over Donetsk or Luhansk regions. It can't be that big a deal to divert to one of the airways that go to the north of the eastern region of Ukraine.

$$$ and time is the rationale. But you also have to keep in mind that if the NOTAM says you are safe you take it at face value. You shouldn't have to question whether or not the NOTAM is garbage. Pilot encounter those military NOTAMs daily. Sure this one is a little different. But who before yesterday truly believed a group of separatists could shoot down an aircraft with a radar guided missile?

Quoting lpdal (Reply 8): Could this technology have saved the aircraft?

From my understanding FedEx didn't equip their whole fleet with the system. It was only 9 test aircraft. But in this case no, I doubt it would have made a difference.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 17): This is why whoever approved the NOTAM has blood on their hands.

I disagree. If there was a need for a no fly zone there would have been one. But the original belief was they only had low level take down capability. Now we know that wasn't true.

It's sad that we have to even discuss whether or not civil aircraft should have anti missile capabilities. These thugs should be apprehended and tried in a fair court.
Pat

About IFF (from the tail end of the Part 3 thread), some people are going back and forth over whether the SAM battery had the ability to read IFF, and that IFF has been around since WW2.

Yes the SAM battery probably does have IFF reading capability, so why couldn't it tell it was a civilian plane not military?

A military transponder is different from a civilian aircraft transponder.

A military transponder has Modes 1, 2, 3/A, 4 and C (and maybe S).
A civilian transponder only has Modes 3/A, C, and S.

*************************
The Malaysian 777 today and every civilian aircraft in the world would have failed an IFF interrogation check as there is no equipment aboard a civilian aircraft to identify it as a "friendly" one.
*************************

All an IFF aboard a military aircraft can do is positively identify it as a "friendly military" if it passes the IFF check when interrogated.

If an aircraft fails an IFF check, it could mean that it could be a friendly military aircraft that didn't have the right codes loaded or it could be a civilian aircraft that doesn't have IFF equipment, or its not a friendly - a bogey (but not a bandit). But there are lots of times that US miliary aircraft fail the IFF check for various reasons, so IFF is not a fail safe or 100% proof positive means of identifying friendly aircraft.

And a military aircraft can turn off modes 1, 2, and 4 to make it look like a civilian aircraft on ATC radar.

[Edited 2014-07-17 21:41:25]

Re: IFF...

Why would the separatists have used the IFF function anyway?
They don't have an airforce, hence no 'friends'. It would have been of absolutely no use to them.
They could have suspected any of the Ukrainian military transport they were supposedly targeting to disguise themselves as civilian aircraft.

Methinks they just used seat-of-the-pants targeting...

The sad morale of the story here might very well be: Don't give sophisticated military hardware to untrained and uneducated weekend soldiers.

[Edited 2014-07-17 22:00:30]

Quoting 777Jet (Reply 24): I just wonder how differently this would be unfolding if it was an Aeroflot flight that got shot down...

Ironically, it would be a lesser PR disaster for comrade Putin with far more options for damage control than the present scenario of Kremlin supplied and supported "Donetsk Republic" trigger happy wannabes shooting down a third-party airliner full of foreign nationals.

Quoting ikramerica (Reply 17): This is why whoever approved the NOTAM has blood on their hands. It implies that FL330 was a safe level when in reality there was no safe level for a commercial aircraft because the SAM capabilities were for spy plane FLs.

If it says the airspace is shut down up to FL320 does it legally speaking imply that the war raging below magically ceases at FL321 or is there a also requirement for factoring in pilot's best judgment?

Quoting L410Turbolet (Reply 31): is there a also requirement for factoring in pilot's best judgment?

I don't think the pilot would have had much choice, Turbojet. Any sort of detour would cost fuel - a 'mortal sin' as far as airline accountants are concerned. Anyway, in this case the problem was the opposite one - the captain apparently flew 200 miles north of the normal flight path, to avoid storms that might have bothered the passengers.

Looks as if, in a perfect world, ALL civil aviation would have been told to steer well clear of what is now known to be a 'war zone.' I'll bet that all flights have been diverted well clear of said 'zone' now. Once experienced something like it back in the army in Germany in the fifties, occasionally being assigned to helping the radar guys (because I was just about the only guy on base who knew one end of a triangle from the other).......... We found 'suspected Russian intruders' at least twice a week - none of them ever turned out to be genuine........

I'll lay bets that ALL civil flights have now been re-routed well clear of the problem area. All one can say is that that decision should have been taken days or even weeks ago?

[Edited 2014-07-17 22:26:42]

Mistaken ID?


View Large View Medium

Photo © Mitch Getson

View Large View Medium

Photo © Dmitry Batov

Polish mass media is reporting that putin (pun intended) is already blaming Ukraine for the crash. No surprise there...

Those unaware of the recent conflict, please be advised that there are Russian GRU and military officers among so-called "separatists" and it is very likely those people supported the Buk system which launched the missile.

It is also known that some unmarked Russian heavy military equipment infiltrated eastern Ukraine to support "separatists".

Some food for thought to those objecting the obvious.

First, my sincerest condolences to all crew, passengers, colleagues and family for all affected in the MH17 tragedy.

For those who have asked about the transcript(s) between the Russian Separatists and their commander(s) after the plane was shot down, they are playing a rather explicit video of it on CCTV/America (English subtitles for the conversation) - if you go to their web site, you can find the video there.

It is nothing short of incriminating, a long video (2-3 minutes).

Here in Houston, we get CCTV/America over-the-air on DTV Channel 55.6 UHF, so if you live around these parts, you can try tuning to it. Or as I said, try their web site.

On a slightly different note, can anyone guess as to what will become of Malaysian Airlines after this latest tragedy?
Pan AM's downing over Lockerbie was the death-knell for that carrier - will this put such a black mark on MH that people will be just too wary of flying them again?
If so, are the vultures -- err, the other airlines already contemplating putting in bids for Malaysian's gate slots?

It's probably too soon to tell, I know, but the thought did cross my mind.

Also, from the RSOE/EDIS (worldwide disaster monitor web site): http://hisz.rsoe.hu/alertmap/index2.php
The last sentence of the details monograph below sort of hints toward a case of mistaken identity...

"A Malaysian airliner was shot down over eastern Ukraine by pro-Russian militants on Thursday, killing all 295 people aboard, a Ukrainian interior ministry official said. Raising the stakes in the East-West showdown between Kiev and Moscow, the official blamed "terrorists" using a ground-to-air missile and Ukraine's prime minister called the downing of the flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur a "catastrophe". A Reuters correspondent saw burning wreckage and bodies on the ground at the village of Grabovo, about 40 km (25 miles) from the Russian border in an area where pro-Russian rebels have been active and have claimed to have shot down other aircraft. The Boeing 777 came down near the city of Donetsk, stronghold of pro-Russian rebels, interior ministry official Anton Gerashchenko said on Facebook, adding it was "shot down with a Buk anti-aircraft system by terrorists" - the term the Kiev government uses for militants seeking to unite eastern Ukraine with Russia. The dead were 280 passengers and 15 crew. Malaysia Airlines said on its Twitter feed it had lost contact with its flight MH-17 from Amsterdam. "The last known position was over Ukrainian air space," it said. A rebel leader said Ukrainian forces shot the airliner down. Ukrainian official said their military was not involved. Interfax-Ukraine quoted another Ukrainian official as saying the plane disappeared from radar when it was flying at 10,000 metres (33,000 feet), a typical cruising altitude for airliners. Ukraine has accused Russia of taking an active role in the four-month-old conflict in recent days and accused it earlier on Thursday of shooting down a Ukrainian Sukhoi Su-25 fighter jet - an accusation that Moscow denied. The military commander of the rebels, a Russian named Igor Strelkov, had written on his social media page shortly before the report of the airliner being downed that his forces had brought down an Antonov An-26 in the same area. It is a turboprop transport plane of a type used by Ukraine's forces. "

-Nick

Quoting KirkSeattle (Reply 39): I was wondering if TCAS would have warned MH17 of the missle but I believe it was already answered that TCAS only talks to TCAS. Right?

TCAS is a system where 2 transponders (mode S) detect each other. TCAS wouldn't see a missle, nor would it see an aircraft without Mode S or where the transponder is off (see Gol 1907).

I don't really blame MH for flying over that area. There are a lot of conflict areas around the world that still have airliners flying over them. And, seeing as there was a NOTAM that banned flying up to FL320 due to conflict, one would think that this already has a margin of safety. ICAO is all about safety, so as a pilot and airline, complying with these would be considered safe.

Now, no one really imagined a flight so high would be targeted, or even mistaken for military aircraft, as planes have been flying at those heights in that area every day.

-CXfirst

Quoting pylon101 (Reply 38): Even to imagine that our Russian military could have made such an action appeared absolutely impossible to me.

Russian military did make such action. Does KAL007 ring a bell?

They even fired at Ukrainian ground attack plane, flying over Ukraine, from within Russian borders few days ago. Clear act of war.

I will not be surprised at all if Russian military infiltrators turn out to be responsible for this one.

[Edited 2014-07-17 23:17:55]

I feel sorry for all the passengers and crew, may they rest in peace.

I also feel sorry for Malaysian Airlines, as if they haven't had troulble enough.

Peter

[Edited 2014-07-17 23:16:10]

[Edited 2014-07-17 23:42:08]

Quoting aryonoco (Reply 12): Against a Buk SA-11? I highly doubt it.

The Russians made their ECCM systems on board their radar guided missiles so good that they can´t even jam them themselves, very doubtful that any system available to civilians could do the trick.

best regards
Thomas

I understand there is a strong political presence about this, and there are some very emotional feelings about this. However, I really think we need to restrain ourselves from creating a war of words on these forums. The moderators have already asked us to refrain from political jabs, and we do have members from all over the world including Russia and Ukraine. We will find ourselves bickering more about the president's and world leaders, and lose our focus on the tragedy at hand. We do not have to like the leaders, but we have to all find a way to get along here.

Anyways, perhaps it's best to take the world leader talk to the "off topic" forum? I can already see some emotional responses that are not helping anyone here.

Anyways, can anyone confirm that the loss of life is now 298?

Edit!!! Found a post that seems more appropriate regarding political ramifications.
Political Ramifications Of MH17 (by RomeoBravo Jul 17 2014 in Non Aviation)

[Edited 2014-07-17 23:24:37]

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 49): However, I really think we need to restrain ourselves from creating a war of words on these forums.

Cool heads will prevail. Read your post again before you post.

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 49): Anyways, can anyone confirm that the loss of life is now 298?

Reports coming in that there were 3 babies without tickets.

All sides have the means to be responsible for the case. So it is impossible to say who did it.

Quoting Agill (Reply 48): I'm kindof leaning in one direction, considering one part already have bragged about doing it.

This is a speculation. Just as easily someone observing the crash from afar might have jumped on the bandwagon and claimed to have done it to get scoring points, later realizing just how stupid that was - the tweeting, not the actual shooting. Trust me hitting that plane with Buk missile system is not possible by these rebels. Only a well trained army unit can with sophisticated logistical support can.

Don't just buy any easily explainable suggestion because it is never that simple as normal people usually accept.

---

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 32): Mistaken ID?

No... look how cloudy and overcast of a day it was. This was radar seeking and radar driven.

The NYT has an interesting analysis of the flight paths of various airlines flights (Thai, BA, AF, MH, LH) to the Far East that could route over Ukrainian airspace. It shows that of the sampled flights only BA and AF routed around Ukraine. The others followed the NOTAM but overflew the conflict zone. I don't think anyone can blame the MH crew at all, although I do question the advice given to airlines and am interested in why some took different action. See here: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2...nes-flight-mh17.html?_r=0#diverted

"The former head of safety at Qantas has questioned whether Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 should have been flying over the eastern Ukraine given the heightened state of the conflict with Russia. Ron Bartsch, who now heads international aviation consultancy AvLaw International, said airline network planners had a choice over whether they wanted to fly over dangerous areas or to go around them, even if it would require more fuel"...interesting article - including an understandably evasive response by SQ on their flights paths over the Ukraine (smile)!
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviat...-20140718-zuilw.html#ixzz37ndPC7VP

Quoting YVRLTN (Reply 35): Mistaken ID?

It was PRO Russian seperatists that murdered these people, why would they try to shoot down Putin's plane?!

Quoting CXfirst (Reply 37): Quoting KirkSeattle (Reply 39): I was wondering if TCAS would have warned MH17 of the missle but I believe it was already answered that TCAS only talks to TCAS. Right? TCAS is a system where 2 transponders (mode S) detect each other. TCAS wouldn't see a missle, nor would it see an aircraft without Mode S or where the transponder is off (see Gol 1907).

Thank you CXfirst!

Also, there are still a number of nationalities unidentified, including those from the USA. Why is that taking so long?
An only an observation, there were no passengers from Ukraine or Russia on the flight.

Also, as with MH370, do we have any indication of stolen passports? Just posing the question. I've been through AMS and it's pretty efficient and seems like a pretty thorough and high tech operation, security wise.

As tragic as it is, it was bound to happen some time.

It doesn't matter who shot it down, we have a civil war going on for four months, aircraft being shot down weekly for the last two months and the airspace is only NOTAMed to FL320? It was a recipe for disaster. Why Kiev, which is reponsible for aerial navigation over Ukraine didn't NOTAM close that part of the country is completely beyond me. In my opinion, when you have two parties shooting at each other with weapons more sophisticated than AK's and shooting down aircraft on a regular basis, that is more than enough to constitute a "risk to aircraft".
Take a look at some more facts: We (Russia) NOTAM closed the airspace near the border on our side because of an unlikely chance that something like this may happen and either the seperatists or Kiev risk something like this further from the conflict zone over our territory, and in the meantime Kiev doesn't do the same directly over the conflict zone...

Quoting sofianec (Reply 46): Trust me hitting that plane with Buk missile system is not possible by these rebels. Only a well trained army unit can with sophisticated logistical support can.

http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1741703
In Russian: Long story short, a couple weeks ago an entire Ukrainian Air Defence unit switched sides. Meaning that not just the equipment was captured, but the men and women manning them went along. So theoretically, the seperatists do have the equipment and the skilled persons to operate it.
Also lets not forget that a significant portion of the Ukrainian Military has switched sides.

[Edited 2014-07-18 00:21:27]

Just came in the german news ARD, video of MH17 falling out of the sky like a rock, nose down eng#2 on fire. Will try to get a link but it is embedded in the "ARD Morgenmagazin" Maybe somebody is faster, the video is out there.

edited for spelling

Quoting jpetekyxmd80 (Reply 58): I can think of few things as hypocritical and self-serving as "it doesn't matter who shot it down". Crazy.

You're focusing on a single part of a sentence not the message. (tu204 is not a native speaker). I believe he meant that there are other questions besides focusing solely on the blame game. Of course who shot must be established. But having said that we should also look into other mistakes. He is making valid points and you're ignoring them by choosing to attack a less than perfect-worded sentence.

Stay objective. We are all aircraft/airline enthusiasts - not politicians.

---

Quoting galleypower (Reply 59): Just came in the german news ARD, video of MH17 falling out of the sky like a rock, nose down eng#2 on fire. Will try to get a link but it is embedded in the "ARD Morgenmagazin" Maybe somebody is faster, the video is out there.

That sounds like the video of the An-24/26 being shot down.

Quoting F9Animal (Reply 41): Anyways, can anyone confirm that the loss of life is now 298?

That is the figure confirmed by Malaysia Airlines, and the discrepancy was, as others have said, 3 infants that were ticketed on their guardians ticket.

Quoting KirkSeattle (Reply 56): Also, there are still a number of nationalities unidentified, including those from the USA. Why is that taking so long? An only an observation, there were no passengers from Ukraine or Russia on the flight.

Could it be passengers with dual citizenship? Often, when booking a ticket, passengers need to enter passport details, but then check-in with a different passport, and the airline wants to confirm this discrepancy before announcing these details.

Although, they should have had more than enough time to solve this.

-CXfirst

Quoting sofianec (Reply 46): This is a speculation. Just as easily someone observing the crash from afar might have jumped on the bandwagon and claimed to have done it to get scoring points, later realizing just how stupid that was - the tweeting, not the actual shooting. Trust me hitting that plane with Buk missile system is not possible by these rebels. Only a well trained army unit can with sophisticated logistical support can. Don't just buy any easily explainable suggestion because it is never that simple as normal people usually accept.

Do not forget that parts of the Ukrainian Army switched sides, afaik also a air defence unit. Now even if they are not trained on the system, I dare say that by now they should be able to use it in "automatic" mode. (Buk has a "auto-engage mode")