Ukraine Invasion - Please do not post videos showing attacks/similar

Woden · 16 Jul 2015 at 16:39

The missile launch was a perfectly legal live for exercise, the Padme violated ~~soviet~~ Ukrainian airspace and flew into its path.

Amp34 · 17 Jul 2015 at 09:36

http://www.theguardian.com/world/20...g-wreckage-after-crash?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other

A newly released video from the immediate aftermath of the shooting down of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 reveals pro-Russian separatists rummaging through the luggage of dead passengers while apparently in a state of confusion.

One man dressed in camouflage, speaking a mixture of Russian and Ukrainian, asks where the remains of a military Sukhoi bomber is. “There it is, it is the passenger plane,” another responds. The distressing and graphic footage of militiamen trampling over the charred wreckage site could prove essential to investigations into the crash, clearly identifying armed men on the scene.

They open the backpacks of dead travellers, haphazardly discarding neatly folded clothes on the ground. All 298 people on the Amsterdam-Kuala Lumpur flight died.

A man in black boots and fatigues films as he tours the area while smoke still rises and small fires burn amid the metal corpse of the passenger plane. “Keep the perimeter. Don’t let civilians get through,” he says.

“Malaysia,” he says as he films the wreckage. “Who gave them the corridor?”, he adds, apparently referring to the flightpath above the war zone.

If the video is real it's even more evidence to show the event was a horrible tragedy caused by a compounding of errors on all sides.

The Netherlands, Malaysia, the UK and Australia this month sought the creation of a UN tribunal to prosecute suspects.

Australia urges UN support for tribunal to prosecute those who downed MH17
“Justice must be delivered for the 298 innocent people who lost their lives,” Philip Hammond, the UK foreign secretary, said on Friday. Ten Britons died in the tragedy.

“That requires an international tribunal, backed by a resolution binding all UN member states, to prosecute those responsible.”

I'd hope if a tribunal came to be the end result would be a few rebels charged with manslaughter as well as Malaysian airlines staff and Ukrainian ATC up on negligence charges. I doubt that will happen though.

SarGara · 17 Jul 2015 at 09:58

Amp34 said:
['d hope if a tribunal came to be the end result would be a few rebels charged with manslaughter as well as Malaysian airlines staff and Ukrainian ATC up on negligence charges. I doubt that will happen though.

Malayisan airlines and Ukrainian ATC wont be charged. At the time of the accident the flightpath being used wasn't off limits, its not like they diverted them over a warzone on purpose they were just following procedure. Checkout the other flights from the same day:

There are too many conflict zones to make them all off-limits without reason, unfortunately it takes something like this to happen.

It looks like the lawsuit has already been filed against the rebel leader at the time. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/w...shooting-down-plane-for-damages-10392367.html

Amp34 · 17 Jul 2015 at 10:08

Just because something is policy doesn't mean it can't be negligence.

It seems pretty clear the rebels assumed the aircraft was military, having declared a no fly zone over the area and shooting down multiple planes in the area. If the Ukrainian government decided to ignore all these points and still allow/route aircraft through the area then they are negligent are they not?

Edit: looking at those flight paths, most dont go near the rebel occupied area, so they are broadly irrelevant.

Amp34 · 17 Jul 2015 at 10:13

And looking at the actual Mh17 flight path

It appears it's the only one that day that flew over the rebel held area, deviating significantly from its standard flight path (which was further south apparently).

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/wor...-flight-was-300-miles-off-typical-course.html

The crashed MH17 flight took a route 300 miles to the north of its usual path, an aviation expert has said.

I'd definitely call that negligence. The ATC and Malaysian airlines didn't blow the plane out of the sky, but they were instrumental in putting it in a zone that had been declared off limits.

ubersonic · 17 Jul 2015 at 10:46

Amp34 said:
I'd definitely call that negligence. The ATC and Malaysian airlines didn't blow the plane out of the sky, but they were instrumental in putting it in a zone that had been declared off limits.

Indeed, they ignored safety notices and routed their flight over an active war zone, through an area which had been declared a no fly zone by the controlling faction, who had previously shot down enemy planes.

A very simple example of why it's criminal negligence is that the tragedy would never have happened without it.

StriderX · 17 Jul 2015 at 10:50

Malaysia Airlines should just cease to exist tbh.

Jokester · 17 Jul 2015 at 10:55

ubersonic said:
A very simple example of why it's criminal negligence is that the tragedy would never have happened without it.

That's not how criminal negligence works.

As far as I was aware the official guidance to airlines was that as long as they were above a certain altitude they were ok?

StriderX · 17 Jul 2015 at 10:58

Jokester said:
That's not how criminal negligence works.

As far as I was aware the official guidance to airlines was that as long as they were above a certain altitude they were ok?

Lol...a Buk system can fire at 15 miles, double what cruise altitude generally is.

ubersonic · 17 Jul 2015 at 11:00

Jokester said:
That's not how criminal negligence works.

Criminal negligence culpability uses a reasonable man test (a reasonable man of the type making the decision, not just a reasonably sensible man off the street), the is no way in hell any reasonable man would have ignored safety notices and used that route (hence why no other airline did). Therefore it's criminal negligence.

ubersonic · 17 Jul 2015 at 11:21

StriderX said:
Lol...a Buk system can fire at 15 miles, double what cruise altitude generally is.

What he means is that Ukraine's warning notices specified that the airspace was closed between 26,000 and 32,000 feet.

Jokester · 17 Jul 2015 at 11:23

StriderX said:
Lol...a Buk system can fire at 15 miles, double what cruise altitude generally is.

And how did Malaysia Airways know that? Were they told? The safety notices being given out at that time were for weapon systems that couldn't reach the altitude the flight was at.

ubersonic said:
Criminal negligence culpability uses a reasonable man test (a reasonable man of the type making the decision, not just a reasonably sensible man off the street), the is no way in hell any reasonable man would have ignored safety notices and used that route (hence why no other airline did). Therefore it's criminal negligence.

They didn't ignore safety notices. If there is any culpability beyond the Russians/Rebels then it would possibly have been the western intelligence agencies who would have almost certainly have known BUK weapon systems had been deployed in the region.

Amp34 · 17 Jul 2015 at 11:40

Jokester said:
That's not how criminal negligence works.

As far as I was aware the official guidance to airlines was that as long as they were above a certain altitude they were ok?

And this is where negligence on behalf of the ATC/government come into it.

Edit: That said governments are never culpable for their own mistakes... Just look at the 45 minutes claim and the invasion of Iraq. No one will ever get tried for that massive *****up either... Remember, those in power/the victors make up the rules and history.

Amp34 · 17 Jul 2015 at 11:45

Jokester said:
And how did Malaysia Airways know that? Were they told? The safety notices being given out at that time were for weapon systems that couldn't reach the altitude the flight was at.

They didn't ignore safety notices. If there is any culpability beyond the Russians/Rebels then it would possibly have been the western intelligence agencies who would have almost certainly have known BUK weapon systems had been deployed in the region.

And what do you believe the rebels should be culpable of? They shot an airliner down by accident, after clearly stating it was a warzone and planes will be shot down. That's a bit like someone bypassing a no entry sign and getting zapped by a spark in a substation...

Jokester · 17 Jul 2015 at 11:47

Amp34 said:
And what do you believe the rebels should be culpable of? They shot an airliner down by accident, after clearly stating it was a warzone and planes will be shot down. That's a bit like someone bypassing a no entry sign and getting zapped by a spark in a substation...

There's war zones all over the world that are over flown every day. It's upto the government security services to tell airlines what is safe and not safe as they are supposed to be the experts, not the airlines or ATC.

Amp34 · 17 Jul 2015 at 11:50

Jokester said:
There's war zones all over the world that are over flown every day. It's upto the government security services to tell airlines what is safe and not safe as they are supposed to be the experts, not the airlines or ATC.

That's not answering the question you quoted. But I'm in broad agreement there, someone on the Ukrainian side needs to be prosecuted however. As I said before, it was a catalogue of errors on all sides so blaming one without the others is way too short sided.

ubersonic · 17 Jul 2015 at 11:52

Jokester said:
They didn't ignore safety notices.

Either they ignored safety notices and flew through dangerous airspace, or they didn't look at any safety notices, or they altered their route through dangerous airspace. It doesn't really matter which one it is, because the end result is negligence.

ubersonic · 17 Jul 2015 at 11:55

Amp34 said:
That's not answering the question you quoted. But I'm in broad agreement there, someone on the Ukrainian side needs to be prosecuted however. As I said before, it was a catalogue of errors on all sides so blaming one without the others is way too short sided.

The way I see it three party's are to blame:

1: Whoever shot it down (and mostly to blame).
2: MA for the plane being there despite warnings.
3: Ukrainian ATC for downplaying the situation and releasing lax NOTAMs (politics should never trump international safety)

Apparently from the leaks this is the same conclusion the crash investigators have come too.

Amp34 · 17 Jul 2015 at 11:59

ubersonic said:
The way I see it three party's are to blame:

1: Whoever shot it down (and mostly to blame).
2: MA for the plane being there despite warnings.
3: Ukrainian ATC for downplaying the situation and releasing lax NOTAMs (politics should never trump international safety)

Apparently from the leaks this is the same conclusion the crash investigators have come too.

I'd add a forth party. Whoever supplied the weapons to the rebels (most likely Russia). That said as it was initially used as a legitimate weapon of defence (shooting down enemy combatant planes), they would be lower on the list of blame.

Jokester · 17 Jul 2015 at 12:01

Amp34 said:
That's not answering the question you quoted. But I'm in broad agreement there, someone on the Ukrainian side needs to be prosecuted however. As I said before, it was a catalogue of errors on all sides so blaming one without the others is way too short sided.

Ah sorry, mistook culpable with capable - to answer your original question, they took no effort to identify whether the aircraft was a legitimate target or not so they carry the most culpability, the Russians (if it's ever actually proven) are culpable to a degree for giving them the system in the first place, and our intelligence services (again if it's ever proven) would also be culpable for not passing the information on if they knew about it.

ubersonic said:
Either they ignored safety notices and flew through dangerous airspace, or they didn't look at any safety notices, or they altered their route through dangerous airspace. It doesn't really matter which one it is, because the end result is negligence.

There was at no point prior to the shoot down safety notices in place saying that MA couldn't do what they were doing that day. This is a fact. Several airlines have also said that they had flown over that area the day or two before, and two others flew other the conflict zone the same day.