MH17 Report • Hacker News Board

Re: MH17 Report

#31

Post by ronmacgill » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:01 PM UTC

guard-of-terra wrote: post #16

ptaipale wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on your destination, you will find out that you'll fly over Pakistani tribal regions, Iraq or other unstable areas. Or the Gobi desert or the Arctic ocean. Places where you would not wish to land. There was nothing particularly strange about flying over Ukrainian airspace, because you don't really expect civilian planes to be shot down, even by rogue militias that are in power in some areas. The very fact t…

"and probably that someone was drunk" It's a strange assumption. I doubt drunk people ever get to be around Buk launchers (even in separatists' camps) You should keep in mind that rebels shot down military plane allegedly carrying 40 Ukrainian soldiers (and crew) - month before MH17. This was a serious military transport plane Il-76, not some light planer. They shot other aircraft too. One could imagine that shooting…

The E. Ukr rebels were using shoulder-fired missiles and were firing at planes close to the ground. Quite a different kettle of fish than buk missiles which requires a lot more technical coordination

Re: MH17 Report

#32

Post by Alupis » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:01 PM UTC

guard-of-terra wrote: post #16

ptaipale wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on your destination, you will find out that you'll fly over Pakistani tribal regions, Iraq or other unstable areas. Or the Gobi desert or the Arctic ocean. Places where you would not wish to land. There was nothing particularly strange about flying over Ukrainian airspace, because you don't really expect civilian planes to be shot down, even by rogue militias that are in power in some areas. The very fact t…

"and probably that someone was drunk" It's a strange assumption. I doubt drunk people ever get to be around Buk launchers (even in separatists' camps) You should keep in mind that rebels shot down military plane allegedly carrying 40 Ukrainian soldiers (and crew) - month before MH17. This was a serious military transport plane Il-76, not some light planer. They shot other aircraft too. One could imagine that shooting…

> You should keep in mind that rebels shot down military plane allegedly carrying 40 Ukrainian soldiers (and crew) - month before MH17. This was a serious military transport plane Il-76, not some light planer. They shot other aircraft too. One could imagine that shooting at planes has become norm rather than unexpected at the area.

Yet Malaysian airlines still thought it a good idea to ignore the rebel-declared no-fly-zone and continue flying through airspace known to have active AA activity.

Honestly, I think we're not blaming the airline nearly enough here.

Re: MH17 Report

#33

Post by tfgg » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:02 PM UTC

Shivetya wrote: post #7

rogeryu wrote: post #5

It's incredible that 61 airlines flew over that area during those days. That day alone, 160 airplanes flew over East Ukraine before MH17 was hit. Even if it's safe to fly at 10k height, what happens if you have problems with your plane, like a failing engine? Next time I fly I'm going to check over which countries we fly.

the take away is, do not fly over areas of conflict. why the international community allowed it, let alone individual airlines did not take their own action, is beyond me. On second thought, I wonder if an airline can elect to not fly on certain corridors because they declare a risk?

I think it's just so unlikely that a group that couldn't be held properly responsible would have AA missiles capable of reaching to normal cruising altitude that it's not normally considered a problem and why MH17 was exceptional. Or, at least, that's how it was explained to me by the captain of a 747 while we were flying over Afghanistan.

Re: MH17 Report

#34

Post by Mikeb85 » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:05 PM UTC

ptaipale wrote: post #8

rogeryu wrote: post #5

It's incredible that 61 airlines flew over that area during those days. That day alone, 160 airplanes flew over East Ukraine before MH17 was hit. Even if it's safe to fly at 10k height, what happens if you have problems with your plane, like a failing engine? Next time I fly I'm going to check over which countries we fly.

Depending on your destination, you will find out that you'll fly over Pakistani tribal regions, Iraq or other unstable areas. Or the Gobi desert or the Arctic ocean. Places where you would not wish to land. There was nothing particularly strange about flying over Ukrainian airspace, because you don't really expect civilian planes to be shot down, even by rogue militias that are in power in some areas. The very fact t…

> The tragedy here was that there was someone with a BUK system there, and probably that someone was drunk and decided to give a lesson to those blasted Ukrainian fascists.

Or, the more likely explanation, they thought it was a military plane like the several they shot down in the weeks prior...

Re: MH17 Report

#35

Post by tptacek » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:08 PM UTC

sschueller wrote: post #29

curiousjorge wrote: post #22

The entire world except Russia knew Russia is responsible but when you are the second guy with the most nukes, you get away with impunity. Just the idea of having one or others thinking you have more than one nuke is enough to allow others to look the other way and let you do whatever gay shit that you do

The report did not go into finding out who did it. Both sides own BUKs. It is very difficult to find the truth because all sides are pumping out propaganda. Even the United States is manipulating what we hear for their own political and economic gains. Here an subtle but strong example : http://www.sott.net/article/302911-Sott-Exclusive-Full-unedi...

Did both sides have the ability to position a BUK launcher so that it was capable of hitting an airliner at 33kft at that precise location, 50 miles towards Russia east of rebel-controlled Donetsk? How seriously are we meant to take this particular controversy?

Re: MH17 Report

#36

Post by outworlder » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:10 PM UTC

joshvm wrote: post #26

ptaipale wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Depending on your destination, you will find out that you'll fly over Pakistani tribal regions, Iraq or other unstable areas. Or the Gobi desert or the Arctic ocean. Places where you would not wish to land. There was nothing particularly strange about flying over Ukrainian airspace, because you don't really expect civilian planes to be shot down, even by rogue militias that are in power in some areas. The very fact t…

Going to Japan was a bit unnerving. The flight from the UK overflies Russia. That's not a problem politically, but you fly for hours and hours over Siberia. You can look out of the window and see nothing but icy tundra stretching into the distance. There is absolutely nothing there (3 people per square km), maybe the odd hamlet. If the plane goes down, you'd better hope it catches fire so you don't freeze to death. I…

Well, going to Japan from Los Angeles involves flying over the Pacific Ocean for 12 hours or so. Nothing but water.

Re: MH17 Report

#37

Post by aikah » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:16 PM UTC

rogeryu wrote: post #5

It's incredible that 61 airlines flew over that area during those days. That day alone, 160 airplanes flew over East Ukraine before MH17 was hit. Even if it's safe to fly at 10k height, what happens if you have problems with your plane, like a failing engine? Next time I fly I'm going to check over which countries we fly.

> Next time I fly I'm going to check over which countries we fly

Can you really get that info before hand(well I guess one can access previous flight plans) ? If the passengers knew that, would have they cancelled their trip ? I certainly would have.

Never the less, the risk assessment was bad and too many people died that day.

Should a war be blamed for being a war?

Or should companies be blamed for being too greedy and put passengers at risk to save a few thousand dollars ? I think the latter makes more sense.

Re: MH17 Report

#38

Post by davidw » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:19 PM UTC

outworlder wrote: post #36

joshvm wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Going to Japan was a bit unnerving. The flight from the UK overflies Russia. That's not a problem politically, but you fly for hours and hours over Siberia. You can look out of the window and see nothing but icy tundra stretching into the distance. There is absolutely nothing there (3 people per square km), maybe the odd hamlet. If the plane goes down, you'd better hope it catches fire so you don't freeze to death. I…

Well, going to Japan from Los Angeles involves flying over the Pacific Ocean for 12 hours or so. Nothing but water.

Flights from places like Amsterdam or Frankfurt to Portland or Seattle go about halfway up Greenland. Same sensation of "it would really suck to have a problem here", but there's nothing to do other than grip the armrests even harder than normal to keep the plane in the air.

Re: MH17 Report

#39

Post by armabiz » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:27 PM UTC

mc32 wrote: post #15

rogeryu wrote: post #5

It's incredible that 61 airlines flew over that area during those days. That day alone, 160 airplanes flew over East Ukraine before MH17 was hit. Even if it's safe to fly at 10k height, what happens if you have problems with your plane, like a failing engine? Next time I fly I'm going to check over which countries we fly.

Yes, this is pretty incredible. I somewhat can see the Ukrainians being too busy with other things to recategorize their airspace, but the carriers as well as international airtraffic control didn't think to recategorize the airspace, that's a failure of leadership and responsibility.

Officially Ukrainian govt call that Civil War happening in the country as "Anti-Terror Operation". To be clear, rebels occupy territory of 15K square kilometers with population 4M people.

Closing the air space would look like sign of loosing control over situation in country from the official govt side.

So this looks like not "too busy with other things", but more like miserable politics.

Re: MH17 Report

#40

Post by tremon » Tue, Oct 13, 2015, 4:44 PM UTC

armabiz wrote: post #39

mc32 wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, this is pretty incredible. I somewhat can see the Ukrainians being too busy with other things to recategorize their airspace, but the carriers as well as international airtraffic control didn't think to recategorize the airspace, that's a failure of leadership and responsibility.

Officially Ukrainian govt call that Civil War happening in the country as "Anti-Terror Operation". To be clear, rebels occupy territory of 15K square kilometers with population 4M people. Closing the air space would look like sign of loosing control over situation in country from the official govt side. So this looks like not "too busy with other things", but more like miserable politics.

Actually, the airspace was closed. Up to 20,000ft, that is. The cruising lanes (10km, 30,000ft) were still open because up to then, the rebels did not have surface-to-air missiles with that range.

Which, of course, is why Russia have been spinning this since day 1. Where did the missile system come from, and who operated it? On that day, both the Russian News and the rebels' twitter account reported downing a (what they thought military) plane. Both items were quickly redacted afterwards.