Malaysia B772 has crashed near Donetsk
avherald.com
avherald.com
A defence expert has told the BBC that shooting down a plane at 10,000m (9.7 miles) would have required a long- range surface-to-air missile - possibly guided by radar.
That suggests it is unlikely it could have been downed by a portable air defence missile, or Manpad, which has a much shorter range.
The only other possibility is for an aircraft at that height to be downed by a fighter carrying air-to-air missiles.
The US will have access to satellite imagery that should be able to identify ultra-violet plumes if a long-range surface-to-air missile was fired.
Source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-28354856
Edit:
Amateur video reportedly showing aftermath of the crash (from a distance):
http://www.theguardian.com/world/video/2014/jul/17/malaysia-...
Confirmed: Malaysia Airlines confirms it has lost contact with #MH17 from Amsterdam. Last known position over Ukraine. Was shot down, all passengers dead.
The pro-Russian rebels in Ukraine deny shooting it down, and are blaming the Ukrainian armed forces.
The Ukraine Defense Ministries claim it was shot down by a BUK missile, which the separatists do have, and it would reach. We also have this interesting translation of Ukraine rebel leader’s VKontakte (Facebook) post regarding another downed airplane: http://pastie.org/9400258. (I translated it, so forgive me for any inaccuracy).
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?hl=en&q=cache%3...
and the google translation is as follows:
Message from the militia. "In the area Torrez just downed plane An-26, lying somewhere in the mine" Progress ". Warned same - not to fly in "our sky." And here is the video the confirmation of the next "ptichkopada." Birdie fell for waste heap, the residential sector is not caught. Peaceful people do not suffer. And also have information about the second downed aircraft, like the Su. "
even though the original post has been deleted from VK
Unless I'm mistaken from the description, it takes 3 vehicles, each serving a separate purpose, to utilize the BUK missile system - with a complex series of operations and coordination between all the components (that can only be done by trained operators).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
http://www.cnn.com/2014/07/17/world/europe/malaysia-airlines...
The evidence against the anti-Kiev militia seems to only show the missile vehicle component. And it's unknown if it was even fully operational (aside from being drive-able on the roads).
> We also have this interesting translation of Ukraine rebel leader’s VKontakte (Facebook) post regarding another downed airplane
If my understanding is correct (from his other posts), the original info/report came from a post on their social site, where someone saw a plane coming down and assumed it must have been a military plane shut down by their side - and promoted it as such.
"The Buk missile system was designed to surpass the 2K12 Kub in all parameters and its designers including its chief designer Ardalion Rastov visited Egypt in 1971 to see Kub [SA-6, very effective in the Kom Kippur War 2 years later] in operation. Both the Kub and Buk used self-propelled launchers developed by Ardalion Rastov. As a result of this visit the developers came to the conclusion that each Buk transporter erector launcher (TEL) should have its own fire control radar rather than being reliant on one central radar for the whole system as in Kub. The result of this move from TEL to transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) was a system able to engage multiple targets from multiple directions at the same time."
If they have a vector to feed the fire control radar, and it then succeeds in acquiring the target, I would expect it to work. Our anti-radiation missiles, plus the system's missiles until the most recent one having semi-active homing (fire control radar must paint the target), put a premium on this sort of arrangement.
ADDED: I too am just learning these fine details; further down, as quoted by powertower in reply to this posting, the above ideal wasn't implemented in full, there's a normal 2-1 ratio of TELARs to TELs. And think about the implications of the TELARs being obviously more expensive: the normal ratio is unlikely to be always observed, the maintenance demands of TELARs and a high TELAR to TEL ratio is going to be higher, etc. etc.
http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:NF6E5FC...
From wikipedia -
"A standard Buk battalion consists of a command vehicle, target acquisition radar (TAR) vehicle, six transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) vehicles and three transporter erector launcher (TEL) vehicles. A Buk missile battery consists of two TELAR and one TEL vehicle."
So a TEL vehicle would also require a feed from a TELAR or a TAR vehicle.
Though I'm just learning about all this, so I could be completely wrong.
I seem to recall (can't find the link now) that Ukraine declared their airspace closed to civilian aircraft after the Ukrainian Troop Transport plane was shot down recently.
Even if the airspace was open, it seems highly risky to fly over a battle-zone anyhow where direct radio communication with troops on the ground may not be possible, and opens a wide door for an accidental grounding, if not on purpose.
That being said, touching eastern Ukraine with a 30,000 ft. pole would probably be less than wise at the moment.
Yes, but without any direct communication, no organized Air Traffic Control, and without tracking satellites, it seems very easy for ground troops to mistake a civilian transport with a military transport.
Seems ludicrous for anyone to attempt to fly over Ukraine right now.
Except for the transponder...
This is now starting to appear very-much-so as an accidental grounding. The rebel's posted on a social network bragging about grounding another military troop transport, then quickly deleted the post as soon as the news broke about a civilian airline going down over Ukraine.
oh and here is them bragging that they've captured Buk http://oi58.tinypic.com/29gmnah.jpg
I think it's pretty clear
EDIT: there is another image of it https://pbs.twimg.com/media/Bswy4VtCUAAJCDS.jpg:orig Worse still it is stationed between houses using their own people as human shields
EDIT: got the answer in this thread - post was deleted.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
This could take out a 777 trivially either. I wouldn't put it past Putin to give control of this to his proxy soldiers or fuck up trying to shoot down what they detected as a Uke fighter or cargo jet. This is the system the Uke military has been blaming on shooting down their jets.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/malaysia-airlines...
>“The plane was shot down by the Ukrainian side,” said Serhiy Kavtaradze, a member of the rebels’ security council, according to the Russia’s Interfax news agency. “We simply do not have such air defense systems.” He said rebels’ shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles “have a firing range of only 3,000 to 4,000 meters” and that passenger jets fly at much higher altitudes.
He denied that the rebels possess the SA-17 Buk air-defense as Kiev alleges."
Would you not put it past the Ukraine backed neo-nazis, which even the state-funded BBC now admit exist, trying to widen the conflict and drag third parties into the fight?
FWIW, I don't like neo-nazis or people who shoot down innocent civilians who weren't even involved in the area (other than being over it) to begin with. Whoever did this will be determined. Are you OK with accepting the outcome when it is?
I just think it's ridiculous that minutes after the event, some Ukranian officials start finger-pointing and people want to believe them because they have been conditioned to associate Russia with bad things.
Up until yesterday, 99% of the people reading this thread had probably never even heard of a Buk, yet suddenly everybody's an expert. Might as well accept neo-nazis could have done it, after all, look what Brevik did to those kids in Norway and his reasoning.
Yes, this tragedy may be due to the separatists but it could also easily have been a mistake by the Ukrainians. In fact, a British major was just on TV saying that they could have accidentally shot down the plane because their air defence is "slack".
At the end of the day, look at this thread and see how quickly people are to blame Russia. It must be a Pavlovian response of some sort.
We both agree this is wrong, and that's where we have commonality. I hear you about the blaming being laid about. It sucks on top of already a sucky situation.
Here's where it was shot down: https://www.google.com/maps/place/Torez,+Donetsk+Oblast,+Ukr...
Here's the territory controlled by the rebels: http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/02/27/world/europe/u...
We know Russia has been supplying the rebels with heavy weapons. It's unlikely that Ukrainian pro-Kiev "neo nazis" marched a heavy SAM launcher through rebel controlled territory. Also, in any case, it doesn't follow that because someone is a "neo nazi" they will shoot down aircraft.
More than that, we know the rebels themselves claim to have captured exactly the sort of weapon that would be able to do this (Buk missiles) from a raid on a Ukrainian military base.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/malaysia-airlines....
>“The plane was shot down by the Ukrainian side,” said Serhiy Kavtaradze, a member of the rebels’ security council, according to the Russia’s Interfax news agency. “We simply do not have such air defense systems.” He said rebels’ shoulder-launched antiaircraft missiles “have a firing range of only 3,000 to 4,000 meters” and that passenger jets fly at much higher altitudes. ... He denied that the rebels possess the SA-17 Buk air-defense as Kiev alleges."
There's also the fact that Ukranian officials have specifically said that Russian-backed rebels shot the plane down. We shouldn't accept those statements uncritically, but they're out there and they are worthy of some consideration. Meanwhile, I'm not aware of anyone credible, who is in a position to know, asserting that Ukraine is behind this.
Sadly too many parties have an incentive to shape the narrative and they will use anonymous "tips" to push the frenzied media in different directions. Unless there is independent, corroborated and conclusive evidence, we may never know what happened to this flight.
(btw, it's a valid point, no need to downvote. Yes it may seem obvious that it was Russian allies, but it's important to keep an open mind in times of war, as both sides usually play dirty)
http://voiceofrussia.com/news/2014_06_29/Donetsk-militia-tak...
Air-To-Air Missile seems highly unlikely.
Rumors abound that Militia groups were bragging about downing a Ukrainian Transport
http://itar-tass.com/mezhdunarodnaya-panorama/1325017
Take everything with a grain of salt!
That's rich coming from the guy linking to Russian state controlled media.
When was the last time you read anything positive about Russia in the Western press?
Maybe since the day you were born you've been conditioned to have a Pavlovian reaction to Russia?
2. Subsequently, people in the already autonomous region of Crimea, ethnically/culturally/historically Russian, had a referendum to break-away from Ukraine and then join Russia - especially after the new coup leaders decided to ban use of the Russian language.
Check your facts, dude.
I have also heard sometimes countries call in the US or whatever EU agency to consult along with their personnel.
For satellites, wouldn't you want the most accurate data anyway? Using US, EU and Russian (even China/India) imagery would probably be better than pointing a finger at the right country/agency and saying we should use their images because the plane crashed in their country.
> 16:05 GMT: > The Donetsk People’s Republic – where heavy fighting continues between Kiev and opposition – has denied reports in the Western media which claim that the Malaysian plane was shot down.
http://rt.com/news/173628-malaysian-plane-crash-ukraine/
Not seen that claim reported elsewhere. Lets see what happens.
edit: also, I bet dollars to donuts there were US citizens on the flight.
Do you mean the Swedish neo-nazi snipers fighting there? http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28329329
Or are you referring to people who have taken up arms because they no longer want to be part of the Ukraine. Why not simply call these people "rebels" or "separatists"?
It would be a waste of resources otherwise.
Some launch areas are well-known (e.g., fixed land-based silos), some aren't (e.g., mobile launchers, submarines). So a wide-area detection capability is almost certain, though whether this includes arbitrary land surface areas is an interesting question. I'd be inclined to think so.
The Buk missles are ~700 kg (1500 lb), 5.5 m (15.3 ft) solid rocket systems. They're close to a sub-orbital missile system, and might be picked up by an orbital tracking system.
That said, I'm not sure what optical or infrared tracking exists. There's some discussion of SLBM/ICBM detection by the 7th Space Warning Squadron, but it seems largely reliant on ground-based PAVE-PAWS radar.
There was the 1960s MIDAS orbital infra-red detection system, replaced by the Defense Support System:
"The satellites are in geostationary orbits, and are equipped with infrared sensors operating through a wide-angle Schmidt camera. The entire satellite spins so that the linear sensor array in the focal plane scans over the earth six times every minute."
So any given spot on Earth is scanned once every 10 seconds. DSS involved 23 launches, I don't see information on presently active satellites.
There's also the note:
"The DSP constellation may have offered an excellent vantage point for an early warning system against state-centric threats such as missiles, but military analysts warn its ability to collect intelligence on non-state actors is severely limited."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MANPADS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system#Missiles
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/7th_Space_Warning_Squadron#Miss...
First off, 10,000m is 6.2 miles, not 9.7 miles.
If the plane is 6.2 miles on the ground away and flying at 30K feet (5.7 miles), then basic pythagorean geometry says that a missile has to travel sqrt(6.2^2+5.7^2) = 8.4 miles, which is closer to the number they give?
Deleted comment
So your reply is quite confusing. Did you misread the above post?
?
Let's hope this plane won't be the Franz Ferdinand 100 years later.
Edit: I am talking about the US-Russian relationship deteriorating because of the (blamed) intent, not the number of casualties or the strength of the Malaysian army.
Edit 2: Thanks for the links on previous situations like this. Reassuring.
It's not going to be the end of the world unless someone very high profile was on board, but it will further worsen relations with Russia. Malaysia isn't exactly a nuclear superpower. A US airliner would be a lot closer to end of the world territory.
Number of civilian casualties is roughly comparable to those in the past few weeks in Gaza.
That comparison is interesting. What is it about planes that draws so much attention when something like this happens? It is barely news when a couple hundred civilians die on the ground in a war zone, but put the same civilians in the air and the whole world pays attention.
EDIT: Some people have mentioned that Gaza is all over the news but I would make the argument that the civilian casualties aren't what is making news. What is making news is the eruption of hostilities in the first place. For example, compare the coverage of Gaza to Iraq, Ukraine, etc. There have been several times more civilian casualties in numerous other active war zones this month, but they aren't new conflicts so news agencies aren't focusing on them.
1. Almost everyone has an intrinsic fear of flying and any accidents in the air hit that nerve.
2. Everybody knows that living in a war zone is dangerous. Conversely, you know whether you're living in a war zone or not, so most people don't see deaths in war zones as related to their everyday lives.
However, in this case, these people were on a flight between Amsterdam and Malaysia. They weren't involved in a war in any way. So that really hits a nerve. You can image yourself in their place.
Last I checked it was defined like this:
"""massacre/ˈmasəkə/
noun
an indiscriminate and brutal slaughter of many people.
verb
deliberately and brutally kill (many people).Tell me how what happens in Gaza is consistent with "indiscriminate" and "deliberately" as long as only launch sites and weapons caches are targeted and warnings are sent out well in advance, something I haven't heard any other army has ever done so consistently before. (And I will happily tell you that I don't think the Israelis are without fault. I just want this sick twisting of referential frames to stay away from hn.)
Have you been watching the news recently? Wall-to-wall coverage of Gaza.
If you aren't seeing it then you either aren't really paying attention, or you don't consume American media and have no idea what you're talking about on this topic.
Well, it's going to be overshadowed by this plane crash for a bit.
The Asiana plane crash at SFO last year where only 2 or 3 people died as the plane crashed and broke up upon landing is very, very unusual.
https://twitter.com/NicholasCollins/status/48980231956832665...
I don't see what your other point has to do with this event?
Referencing: http://curacaochronicle.com/main/dutch-passengers-aboard-cra...
"Dutch passengers aboard crashed Boeing 777". Curacao Chronicle. 17 July 2014. Retrieved 17 July 2014. "Dutch travel Agency D-Reizen confirms that Dutch citizens were on board. Also, through ANWB Reizen, we learn that about fifteen or sixteen Dutch citizens were on board. It’s about people who have booked at Fox Reizen and SNP, which falls under ANWB Reizen. Tour operator WTC.nl believes it’s between twenty and thirty Dutch citizens who have booked through the site."
This is overwhelmingly likely a false flag operation performed by CIA and the new Ukrainian government to further deligitimize the ethnic Russian population in Eastern Ukraine and put additional pressure on Putin to denounce them or face the disapproval of the entire Western world.
But let's go with your overwhelmingly more sensible explanation since I am clearly just a KGB paid astroturfer and a crazy conspiracy theorist to boot and nothing like that would ever happen in the real world.
"We don't recognize the current government and want more autonomy. Let's shot down a foreign passenger plane! That'll help our cause!"
But the point I was really trying to make is that there is no "overwhelmingly likely" theory at this point. There are just knee-jerk reactions based on your preexisting world view.
This seems to make the most sense. I can buy that maybe Russia slipped them parts of a high-end anti-aircraft missile system. Maybe enough to shoot it at an aircraft they saw. But it's plausible that they don't have the high-end air-search radar and/or the personnel with experience in managing the results of such a radar, or with the experience in operating it in cooperation with an anti-aircraft missile battery, that would allow them to reliably identify aircraft and direct attacks against only against the desired targets. They also likely have reason to be on alert to aircraft coming to attack them.
I would also think that the Ukrainian military is likely to have proper air-search radar and the experience using it to identify aircraft properly. And not much reason to be on high alert for potentially hostile aircraft, since the rebels don't have any, and Russia isn't in the fight on that level now.
I don't see how that's remotely possible.
I can't think of any nation powerful enough to rival Russia wanting to risk this level of conflict today though.
Don't worry. Malaysia can join forces with Thailand, and then together attack all of their neighbours, but that would hardly make an impact to the "world order".
The things started to change when German army joined with Austrian forces in attack to Serbia, and Bulgaria decided to step in and stab Serbia from behind, but at this point the conflict was already far from "minor" and "local".
Can a cool disconnected mind give me a rational perspective on this?
Does logic dictate I have nothing to worry about? ("Lightning doesn't strike twice in the same place" argument.)
Or does logic say I would be smarter to lose some $$, and book a different airline and route? ("Lighting does strike twice in the same place" argument.)
Thoughts?
UPDATE: The FAA just prohibited flying over that airspace. So I would be blown away if your plane continued flying there.
UPDATE: Air France now, too.
UPDATE: Even three Russian airlines are re-routing, which will be difficult for some flights heading west from Moscow. No word from Malaysian... they've probably got bigger fish to fry at the moment.
UPDATE: British Airways and Air Canada, too.
Edit:
Some airlines are already reacting:
"A statement from Virgin Airlines says it "will be re-routing a small number of our flights this evening"."
Two of only three fatal 777 crashes ever were MH planes. They were both total losses and both in the last five months. The airline has some work to do.
"These events are still rare." OK, but if there's a turd in a bowl of 10,000 Skittles, I'm not eating any of them.
Addressing first-order probabilities only provides half the picture.
In general, flying is safer than either driving or walking in urban areas. But most flights don't happen over not-technically-but-actually-definitely war zones. So ... make sure whatever flight you're on avoids the area entirely.
For now the 'coincidence' of two Malaysian 777 aircraft going down within a few months is lighting striking twice.
The air path for that flight is likely to be heavily monitored over the fortnight, so it's likely to be safer than normal
And Syria was not officially "at war".
This is a whole another level. If they really approved a flight plan to fly over a war zone... I just can't... WTF.
As a point of irritation, I can't believe that of all the controversial opinions I've voiced on this website, "planes shouldn't fly over war zones" is being downvoted as the pinnacle of stupidity.
I recently flew to Moscow and our route was quite far to the north, but I would have changed it if necessary. It's a pilot's decission, but also a flight planer and Chief pilot hands to modify dangerous routes.
I've flown over Afghanistan on my way to India, didn't bother me in the slightest.
this can be done by simply liquidating the airline and walking away, or by buying/merging another firm and operating under the new name.
see: valujet
Deleted comment
Someone on slashdot translated it as:
"Near Torez (city) an An-26 airplane was just shot down, it crashed somewhere beyond "Progress" mine site. We warned beforehand - do not fly over "our zone". Here's another video proof of the next "birdfall". A birdie crashed down beyond terricon (mine excavation site), missed living areas. Population not harmed. We also allegedly have info on another SU-25 shot down".
If that's true, they have mistaken it for a transport plane and shot it down.
Edit: Thanks great replies!
The US shot down an Iranian airliner in 1988: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
And the Russians shot down a Korean airliner in 1983: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007
Some examples (in no particular ordering):
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libyan_Arab_Airlines_Flight_114
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_902 (air-to-air, not ground-to-air missile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Rhodesia_Flight_825
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_Rhodesia_Flight_827
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 (air-to-air, not ground-to-air missile)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1983_TAAG_Angola_Airlines_Boeing_737_crash(The only one I've heard of before was Iran Air Flight 655)
After more than 30 years we still don't know for sure what happened...
It's now widely accepted that the Itavia 870 was downed by a NATO plane, likely French, likely engaged in some sort of anti-Lybic operation.
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/10/14/world/after-9-days-ukraine...
I don't think you'll have any trouble finding other poor countries that haven't yet erupted in full-out war.
Would any of these systems have prevented it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Northrop_Grumman_Guardian
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CAMPS
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flight_Guard
BTW, according to the Guardian article a MANPAD can be purchased for as little as $5,000.
Apparently this was something else such as http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buk_missile_system
I know this happened before, but shooting down civilian aircraft cannot be tolerated.
What is a "Pro-Russian militant"? At what point are they considered part of the Russian armed forces?
It's more likely that this plane was shot down by a radar-guided system like the BUK [2], at least one of which was captured by Ukrainian separatists recently.
Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur with 280 passengers and 15 crew onboard went down over Shakhtyorsk, Ukraine 50 kilometers (20 miles) from the Russo-Ukrainian border on July 17, an aviation industry source said, Interfax reported. The Ukrainian Interior Ministry said that pro-Russia separatists shot it down with a 9K37 Buk surface-to-air missile system, while separatist leader Alexander Borodai accused Kiev's forces of shooting down the plane, Reuters reported. Kiev previously designated the areas of fighting in the east an "anti-terrorist operation" zone, limiting civilian flights to 7,900 meters (23,000 feet) and in compliance the flight was at 10,000 meters (33,000).
I wouldn't want to blame Malaysia Airlines for this one, but I feel like the route planning tools should include indicators for all known active combat zones with the option to navigate around them.
[1] http://www.kyivpost.com/content/ukraine/zyuganov-calls-for-n...
As many correctly pointed out, there is a civil war going on in this region. These days the military war also means propaganda war. Thus, there will be all kind of statements by "officials". Unless you want to join the propaganda war yourself, I would suggest that you do not repeat this crap and wait for investigation results.
EDIT: I am not saying that 777 should withstand SAM attack. However these numbers are remarkable and show the reliability of the plane that have been in operations for almost 20 years and flew in all corners of the world.
I think many people, myself included, wrongly assumed you were insulting the quality of the 777, not complimenting it.
http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS17/history/20140717/10...
From the crash site (WARNING GRAPHIC / NSFL): https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BswpDkqIcAAp6Wp.jpg:orig
https://twitter.com/ReutersWorld/statuses/489795402892591104
Two flights in a year. Bringing a plane down from 33,000 feet is not that easy.
[1] https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/489795658879348737/...
Still, it's weird that the last tracked position shown on that pic is to the West of Donetsk and very much outside the troubled area, but the reported crash site is just to the East of Donetsk, deep into "rebel" territory. Could that be an artifact of the tracking system?
They can't keep track of their planes and can't properly investigate crashes.
Now they are sending a plane over an active war zone with air space restrictions (hint: even if its restricted to 10K, flying at 30K is not OK).
Feels like they are running a amateur shit show over there with little to no regulations.
I can picture bunch of ex-cab drivers who are no in charge of plane routing green lighting this flight in between their 100th smoke break.
http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/mh17/#3d6095b http://www.flightradar24.com/data/flights/sq333#3d3c1a6
Also, commercial flights from Europe to India fly over Afghanistan every day, no one is concerned about that.
Also, I don't think it's fair to compare Afghanistan and their weak and limited S2A technology to technology used by Russia and Ukraine.
BA and NH appear to avoid it.
If they can avoid it, then news like this:
> http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/2014/07/ukrainian-milit...
Would make me go 'hey guys, let's avoid this route for now'.
I don't think they should be shut down at all, just stating. Both /seem/ to have been mostly out of the control of the airline, aside from flying over the area, which MH isn't the only one doing.
Okay.
>On Friday, Malaysia Airlines CEO released some new information that could bolster the fire theory. Four days after denying that the plane had carried any hazardous materials, the CEO admitted that it was carrying a shipment of lithium-ion batteries in its cargo hold.
Also please don't call a company professional if it's sending planes over war zone with 200+ people on board.
Does this change your mind?
https://twitter.com/FlightCrisis/status/489806319717986305/p...
https://twitter.com/flightradar24/status/489795658879348737/...
https://twitter.com/jc_stubbs/status/489815565868216320
Is Lufthansa a professional airline? Singpore Airlines? British Airways? They, along with virtually every airline, have all been routing flights through this part of Ukrainian airspace.
Then again, perhaps your casual association of Malaysian airline officials with "ex-cab drivers" tells us all we need to know about your biases here.
EDIT: to clarify, I don't believe Malaysia Airlines should be shut down, just trying to clarify OPs comment.
Do you believe United Airlines would know such a thing?
Air France did not know what happened to AF447 for several years until the wreckage was found.
No airlines are in a position to investigate the cause of their crashes. These tasks fall to national agencies, such as the NTSB in the United States.
Airlines neither manufacture their jets, nor have access to all the territory they fly over. They merely operate them.
Unless you can point to some exceptional flaw in the management of Malaysia Airlines, it's absurd to suggest a well-respected airline should be shut down.
Deleted comment
Deleted comment
You're not cute. You're a dick.
I know that lynch mobs form very quickly online, especially to attack unpopular people, but in this case, the responsibility of directing a civilian plane into closed airspace over a rebel-held region where a vicious battle with tanks, airplanes, and artillery has raged for months is shared between two parties: the Ukrainian air traffic control (the airplane crossed the length of the country before being shot down) and the pilots.
Now, these rebels may be the worst people in the world since Cain - I am not taking up the politics of this at all - but even if they did shoot this plane down, they acted reasonably given their military situation: they have no aviation of their own and they are bombed frequently by Ukrainian jets, while no civilian traffic has flown anywhere near them since April.
[Why the downvotes? Clearly stated _unrelated_. Just a stupid fact.]
Edit: it occurs to me that you might legitimately not understand the downvotes. TWA 800 was the center of a lot of conspiracy theories about it being shot down by a US Navy missile, up to and including purported eyewitness accounts of a missile plume. Drawing the comparison between what looks likely to be a shootdown and a relatively mundane fuel tank explosion that spawned lots of conspiracy theories about a shootdown is a good way to sound like a conspiracy nut.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TWA_Flight_800_conspiracy_theor...
I recall the conspiracies got a lot of attention at the time, but I'm sure it all depends on how old you are and what you were actually watching, listening to, or reading.
The TWA incident couldn't be less similar to this or have any real similarities at all. They both involve aircraft crashes, granted, but that is as far as it goes.
Oh and before you claim you weren't trying to Americanify this incident let me point out that there have been four commercial airline crashes on July 17th. TWA 800 is not even the most recent.
July 17th 2007 – TAM Airlines Flight 3054, an Airbus A320, crashes at Congonhas-São Paulo Airport, Brazil, killing all 187 people on board and 12 on the ground. Yet you bring up one from 1964, why is that?
It is clear that the only point in bringing up a plane crash in the 1960s as opposed to any of the others (including more recent ones, see 2007) was to make it more relevant to Americans.
Is it really an "anti-American knee-jerk" for calling people out for clearly trying to take international events and to twist them into a discussion about your own local issues/problems/incidents? It happens all the freaking time on here, and it is often by the same nationality trying to turn everything into a "well how does this apply to America?"
Also petty name calling, really?
> twist them into a discussion about your own local issues/problems/incidents
Again, not really sure why this offends you so much. There may not be a lot of value in pointing out this particular coincidence, but it's certainly not intended to pull attention from the tragedy that just occurred. It's just...conversation. Isn't that why we're here on HN?