[TW]Fox;28683735 said:
http://www.nltimes.nl/2014/12/08/eurocontrol-wanted-close-ukraine-airspace-mh17/
Boeing 777 shot down
- Thread starter Glaucus
- Start date
http://www.nltimes.nl/2014/12/08/eurocontrol-wanted-close-ukraine-airspace-mh17/
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
No mention of financial grounds.
I'll take your answer as 'Yes, I am just speculating' then.
[TW]Fox;28684106 said:
You asked for "confirmation that closing the airspace above FL300 was discussed, the risk was acknowledged but that the decision was made not to purely on financial grounds". I will admit I only provided "confirmation that closing the airspace above FL300 was discussed, the risk was acknowledged but that the decision was made not to".
However as the only explanations for not doing it are either that they didn't want to lose millions or that they are grossly incompetent, highly negligent and very stupid, I personally find the conclusion that they were greedy to be both more plausible and reassuring. However I can understand if you prefer to believe in their incompetence instead as it's not provable either way.
So speculation.
And more speculation. I'm sure you know all about ATC Risk assessment, you seem to know all about missiles, tanks, and everything else you ever comment on after all
Things always seem so easy in hindsight from the comfort of the internet, right?[TW]Fox;28684182 said:
No it's not speculation, we know they were asked to close the airspace by Eurocontrol, we know they looked into it and decided not too, we know that was a very stupid and risky decision with the information they had available (hence why they were being urged to close it in the fist place).
We also know they stood to lose millions by doing so, the only two possible reasons they have for not closing it are money, and gross incompetence.
To say it was most likely money is not speculation it is the most logical/rational conclusion based on the available evidence (speculation doesn't have any evidence to derive from, that's why it's speculation).
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
http://www.spiegel.de/international...an-separatists-for-mh17-downing-a-997972.html
- IL-76 shot down over Donetsk 14 June 2014, IL-76 is a transport aircraft that has ceiling of 45 000 feet. It is not said what it was shot with but its hardly a close air support plane.
- An-26 Shot down again, July 14. Another high flying transport aircraft.
- SU-25 "1 shot down on 16 July 2014, by a rebel SAM"
I mean it seems to be clear that Ukranians knew about rebels having BUK systems and yet did not shut down air-space to civilian aircraft. This is essentially man-slaughter.
How could they lose millions by shutting airspace? Keeping in mind they had already closed other parts of the airspace due to conflict of interest (crimea etc)
The problem is you are saying it the only reason not to close it but not providing any information on where these millions are coming from.
The problem is you are saying it the only reason not to close it but not providing any information on where these millions are coming from.
Airlines using the airspace pay overflight rights to the Ukrainian government, at ~$1000 a flight they would have lost millions by closing it for just a month.
160 flights a month over the region the report says, so that's closer to 160k than millions.
And they had already shut or handed control over in other regions.
I don't think finances were the motivator, it just seems like looking for a reason with the benefit of hindsight. they were simply too cautious with their limits and too trusting that the loons wouldn't shoot at a neutral aircraft, which sounds silly but up until that point they had been reasonably accurate and successful at lower levels.
Last edited:
Soldato
- Joined
- 27 Apr 2011
- Posts
- 5,607
- Location
- UK
source? All I can find is the freedom of the skies act which they signed up to that says they dont charge.
160 flights a day. So yes. Millions. (If they pay a fee)
Google quickly tells me you are just parroting something you read on a random website (That same $1000 figure) - it seems that actually nobody knows that the fee is because it isn't public information. Therefore you cannot say with any certainty it was financially motivated, its just a guess. Washington Post for example seems to think it was the airlines themselves that wanted to continue overflying.
Permabanned
- Joined
- 20 Nov 2011
- Posts
- 3,814
- Location
- Cambridge/Chicago
[TW]Fox;28684683 said:
Well I mean our understanding of Space is just one big educated guess.
no that's retarded too.
its much more likely the untrained rebels couldn't tell what they were shooting down.
the issues is though where did they get the missiles.
if they got them from the Russians its understandable the Ukrainian government did not know about them.
if they got them from capturing them from the Ukrainians then they certainly knew about the weapons being in the hands of the rebels and should have shut the airspace.
Last edited:
[TW]Fox;28684683 said:
You're correct that I am just repeating an estimate from various websites, however that figured is actually a conservative estimate based on what other countries charge, I.E Iran charges $2000 a flight on average.
[TW]Fox;28684683 said:
You're right that it is impossible to be certain, however while the exact amount is unknown it is a fact that Ukraine stood to lose millions from closing the airspace, and that is one of the only two reasons they have for not doing so (the other being gross incompetence/negligence). So while nobody can be certain on the exact reason, money remains the most likely/logical reason based on the evidence available.
Indeed, by comparison my conclusions into their motivation are no more guesswork than the Dutch investigators conclusions into the accident. They too are drawing the most likely/logical conclusions based on the evidence available.
TBH where they got the specific missile that did the deed is pretty irrelevant to the airspace argument, regardless of where that one came from they did have missiles they had captured from the Ukrainians and had used either them or Russian supplied ones to shoot down a high flying transport three days earlier. So like you said, they certainly knew about the weapons being in the hands of the rebels and should have shut the airspace.
I don't think anyone can say much more than it was an horrific accident but someone needs to be held accountable. (Russia / Ukraine / Rebels).
In the infancy of this disaster I read somewhere that airspace was to be closed (up to 32,000ft) and the Aviation Authority advised airlines to avoid the area. However this was just advice and not an order. My guess is many airlines did a risk analysis and deemed it safe enough to still fly over. (160 flights a day flew through that airspace; some of which were big name airlines. 3 other planes were in close proximity when MH17 went down).
Hindsight is a nice thing.
In the infancy of this disaster I read somewhere that airspace was to be closed (up to 32,000ft) and the Aviation Authority advised airlines to avoid the area. However this was just advice and not an order. My guess is many airlines did a risk analysis and deemed it safe enough to still fly over. (160 flights a day flew through that airspace; some of which were big name airlines. 3 other planes were in close proximity when MH17 went down).
Hindsight is a nice thing.
It's not like we really know anything important today that wasn't known at the time, all the information was there for the Ukrainian authorities to make the right decision. All the information was there for airlines to decide to boycott the area as many did.
The available evidence suggests it was shot down by an Igla, not a Buk missile system:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...loodiest-day-missiles-bring-down-military-jet
Such a system only has a range of a few kilometres, there were also reports of it being shot by machine gun fire, so it was low altitude.
So yes, Ukraine probably knew they had low altitude anti-air assets, however the higher altitude attacks only started 2-3 days before MH17 was hit, so if Ukraine knew they had a Buk it was not until later on, not during June like you are claiming.
He's right and wrong, it's true that high altitude shootdowns only started three days before MH-17 was shot down, however Ukraine did know the rebels had Buks back in June, because it was in June that the rebels captured Ukrainian Buks.