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

[Amp34]

So basically the rebels are going to get royally ******* because they are the only ones that anyone can get. Nice how that happens isn't it?

"As we don't have the power or ability to get anyone else that made the errors we are going to saddle it all on you!"

 

[ubersonic]

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.

The rebels captured multiple Buk systems on June 29th when they captured the A-1402 air defense base, they then used one on July 14th to shoot down a Ukrainian air force Antonov-26 transport plane at 21,000ft (well beyond the range of a shoulder launched SAM). Of course they and Russia have been very quiet about this since MH17 went down but they were quite excited about both events at the time so you can easily find articles if you know what your looking for.

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.

Yes the were, Russian ATC issued NOTAMs prior to the MH17 crash warning of the conflict zone and to either maintain set altitudes on certain routes or avoid set areas altogether. MA failed to check any of these instead relying purely on Ukrainian ATCs lax NOTAMs (it's standard to look at other countries NOTAMs not just the ones from the country your route starts out in, had MA done this like other airlines they would have avoided the area too).

 

[Werewolf]

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



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.

I'm not an expert in flight paths, but that "planned one" looks very much like someone took the start and end point and plotted a course on the map.
Whilst the one they took looks more like a real flight path that has to go though different ATC corridors appropriate for the general route (I don't think there are many flights over Europe that go in what is effectively a straight line over multiple countries).

It would be interesting to overlay that picture with one that shows the common air corridors for the height at which the aircraft was travelling, I suspect there would be a very close match.

 

[Rroff]

Still think there was too much naivety and disorganisation, etc. involved - anyone who'd kept even half an eye on the news with any kind of even basic understanding of the military hardware involved wouldn't have created a flight plan over that area.

 

[ubersonic]

It would be interesting to overlay that picture with one that shows the common air corridors for the height at which the aircraft was travelling, I suspect there would be a very close match.

This is it's flight path when it was shot down compared to it's regular flight path.



---------------------


And this is the flight paths of other planes on the day (Singapore Airlines basically detoured around the conflict zone).

 

[SarGara]

And this is the flight paths of other planes on the day (Singapore Airlines basically detoured around the conflict zone).

Flying over Donetsk is not classed as "around the conflict zone" so I wouldn't claim otherwise. Donetsk and its airport were very much part of the conflict zone at that time of year by all accounts so Air India and Singapore Airlines both did the same as MA.

Virgin and Lufthansa appear to be the only ones far enough south but that's probably not intentional just them flying to different destinations hence the different route.

 

[Amp34]

I'm not an expert in flight paths, but that "planned one" looks very much like someone took the start and end point and plotted a course on the map.
Whilst the one they took looks more like a real flight path that has to go though different ATC corridors appropriate for the general route (I don't think there are many flights over Europe that go in what is effectively a straight line over multiple countries).

It would be interesting to overlay that picture with one that shows the common air corridors for the height at which the aircraft was travelling, I suspect there would be a very close match.

The planned one is irrelevant, it's not the one mentioned in the article - it probably is just a join the dots. I chose that specific image showing the flight path (note the actual flight path goes further north than the other flight paths shown in the previous image by the other poster) because it was from the Guardian, not a website people had never heard of.

There are plenty of examples showing the previous flight paths of MH17 on google which are visual versions of the telegraph article. I didn't use one of those because I prefer to use links and images from well known websites, rather than being caught out by a pro/anti xyz site full of conspiracy theorists.

I couldn't actually find a reputable image showing the actual flight path that day, the previous flight paths of the plane and the flight paths of other planes that flew in the area (as I said earlier MH17 seems to be the only plane that actually flew over the rebel held area, rather than nearby, that day if the other image is correct).

 

[Jokester]

Yes the were, Russian ATC issued NOTAMs prior to the MH17 crash warning of the conflict zone and to either maintain set altitudes on certain routes or avoid set areas altogether. MA failed to check any of these instead relying purely on Ukrainian ATCs lax NOTAMs (it's standard to look at other countries NOTAMs not just the ones from the country your route starts out in, had MA done this like other airlines they would have avoided the area too).

They were flying at 33000feet, above even the Russian safety notice.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...h-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17.html?_r=0

 

[ubersonic]

They were flying at 33000feet, above even the Russian safety notice.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/...h-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17.html?_r=0

You're missing the point, ill try and explain it with a demonstration of the planning process:

Malaysia Airlines: Okay, Ukraine has issued a warning for some routes in the east for undisclosed reasons, says to stay above 32,000 ft. Okay looks legit, lets go.

Competent Airline: Okay, Ukraine has issued a warning for some routes in the east for undisclosed reasons, says to stay above 32,000 ft. Okay, lets just check for any other warnings for our flightpath, oh other countries have issued warnings too, oh, it's an active conflict zone with anti air fire and the are warnings to fly high in some areas or just avoid entirely, Ukraine should have mentioned this, I think we'll just avoid that area.

 

[Jokester]

You're missing the point, ill try and explain it with a demonstration of the planning process:

Malaysia Airlines: Okay, Ukraine has issued a warning for some routes in the east for undisclosed reasons, says to stay above 32,000 ft. Okay looks legit, lets go.

Competent Airline: Okay, Ukraine has issued a warning for some routes in the east for undisclosed reasons, says to stay above 32,000 ft. Okay, lets just check for any other warnings for our flightpath, oh other countries have issued warnings too, oh, it's an active conflict zone with anti air fire and the are warnings to fly high in some areas or just avoid entirely, Ukraine should have mentioned this, I think we'll just avoid that area.

Love a strawman.

 

[ubersonic]

Love a strawman.

A straw man is based on giving the impression of refuting an opponent's argument, while actually refuting an argument which was not advanced by that opponent.

I'm not trying to refute any argument, I'm trying to prove my point (which is strange as it's mostly common sense and legal precedent, and also a point the crash investigators have made lol) and your trying to refute it.

 

[scorza]

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.

Uber - no offence but I don't think there's a court on the planet that would regard you as a "reasonable man" after reading your post history on here.

P.S. please stop using 'facts' from dubious sources and claiming them to be equivalent to reporting from western media companies.

 

[ubersonic]

Uber - no offence but I don't think there's a court on the planet that would regard you as a "reasonable man" after reading your post history on here.

I didn't claim I was a reasonable man, I was just explaining how the law works >.>

Seriously, all you have to do is type it into Google and it explains it all, just search for "reasonable man standard", so next time before insulting me and making yourself look foolish try actually checking if I'm wrong first please.

P.S. please stop using 'facts' from dubious sources and claiming them to be equivalent to reporting from western media companies.

Can you be specific here?

 

[Jokester]

​

I'm not trying to refute any argument, I'm trying to prove my point (which is strange as it's mostly common sense and legal precedent, and also a point the crash investigators have made lol) and your trying to refute it.

You've repeatedly stated that MA ignored safety notices when there is absolutely no evidence of this, and I've even shown that you're claim they were ignoring Russian restrictions is also false.

So you now create a scenario to try and paint MH as acting negligent, completely shifting the goal posts, and not only that suggesting that MA were somehow behaving different to everyone else. Of course it's a strawman.

By exaggerating, misrepresenting, or just completely fabricating someone's argument, it's much easier to present your own position as being reasonable, but this kind of dishonesty serves to undermine rational debate

Also, the Dutch safety board haven't made any statements of culpability yet. They've only reported the known facts.

 

[ubersonic]

You've repeatedly stated that MA ignored safety notices when there is absolutely no evidence of this

O.o

Other airlines reviewed the safety notices and their route planners chose different routes, as any reasonable man would in that situation. MA's route planner failed to review all the relevant safety notices and sent their plane into a danger zone where it was shot down. If they had acted in a manner that would be reasonably expected of them the would have been no danger or tragedy.

I'm not even really arguing, just explaining what happened...

So you now create a scenario to try and paint MH as acting negligent

I didn't create the scenario, they did, this is what makes them negligent and culpable in the eyes of the law!.

completely shifting the goal posts, and not only that suggesting that MA were somehow behaving different to everyone else.

I haven't shifted anything, I'm simply defending the same point that you originally argued against. And they were behaving differently to everyone else by ignoring warnings and getting their plane shot down >.>

Also, the Dutch safety board haven't made any statements of culpability yet.

The draft report of their findings pins some blame on MA for ignoring NOTAMs and for continuing to fly over the conflict zone (as reported by CNN).

 

[Jokester]

Other airlines reviewed the safety notices and their route planners chose different routes, as any reasonable man would in that situation. MA's route planner failed to review all the relevant safety notices and sent their plane into a danger zone where it was shot down. If they had acted in a manner that would be reasonably expected of them the would have been no danger or tragedy.

I'm not even really arguing, just explaining what happened...

That is an argument! Only a couple of airlines were giving the area a wide birth (BA and Air France), most airlines were quite happily overflying the area, because they believed they were taking reasonable precautions by ensuring they were flying high enough.

I didn't create the scenario, they did, this is what makes them negligent and culpable in the eyes of the law!.

Again, it's entirely a scenario to try and paint MA as negligent - they weren't the only airline overflying that area. The fact will be MA will not face prosecution, in any country, for their aircraft getting shot down. The investigators will ask the question if they're procedures were up to standard and will likely make recommendations for future flight planning over war zones, but they will absolutely not face prosecution how ever much you believe this to be the case.

I haven't shifted anything, I'm simply defending the same point that you originally argued against. And they were behaving differently to everyone else by ignoring warnings and getting their plane shot down >.>

Then, if they were criminally negligent you will see them in court.

The draft report of their findings pins some blame on MA for ignoring NOTAMs and for continuing to fly over the conflict zone (as reported by CNN).

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2014/images/09/09/mh17.report.pdf
Care to point out the section, I can't see any mention of this.

It does actually mention in section 3, Summary of Findings:-

ATC/Airspace
At the time of the occurrence, flight MH17 was flying at FL330 in unrestricted airspace of
the Dnipropetrovs’k (UKDV) FIR in the eastern part of the Ukraine, the aircraft flew on a
constant heading, speed and altitude when the Flight Data Recording ended. UkSATSE
had issued NOTAMs that restricted access to the airspace below FL320.

Again, evidence they were following the safety notices.

 

[ubersonic]

That is an argument! Only a couple of airlines were giving the area a wide birth (BA and Air France), most airlines were quite happily overflying the area

BA and Air France were giving the entire country a wide berth, other airlines were giving the conflict area a wide berth.

Then, if they were criminally negligent you will see them in court.

And I look forward to quoting this when that happens

I can't see any mention of this.

Probably because you're reading a preliminary report that's 10 months old? try this:

the report also pins some blame on Malaysia Airlines for how its planes were dispatched that day.

Some airlines were avoiding the conflict zone. According to the report Malaysia Airlines was not reading other countries' notice to airmen or NOTAMs and it continued to fly over the zone. Notice to airmen or NOTAMs are written notifications issued to pilots before a flight, advising them of circumstances relating to the state of flying, and those notifications can include warnings of potential dangers like conflict zones.

U.S. Airline Carriers for example make decisions about where to fly and where not to fly based on notice to airmen (NOTAMs) that different countries issue to their pilots. If for example, based on intelligence, Britain warned its pilots to avoid flying over a certain country U.S. Carriers would read and consider those warnings and decide if they too will avoid the area.

The Dutch Safety Board is investigating the crash of flight MH17 but it is also investigating the decision-making process pertaining to safety when determining flight routes.

Dutch investigators say in their report that because Malaysia airlines didn't review other countries' warnings it was unaware of conflict zones other airlines were avoiding. Sources who have seen the report say the Dutch Safety Board suggests Malaysia Airlines didn't have a robust system like other carriers.

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/07/15/politics/mh17-pro-russian-missile-crash-ukraine/

 

[Jokester]

And I look forward to quoting this when that happens

There's more chance of the Russian's being prosecuted for shooting it down. If Malaysian Airlines is found guilty of criminal negligence then I will donate £50 to the Red Cross. There won't even be an attempted prosecution.

Probably because you're reading a preliminary report that's 10 months old? try this:

I would wait for the actual report to be issued, it's still months away yet.

 

[ubersonic]

I would wait for the actual report to be issued, it's still months away yet.

That's fair, how about we just give up this argument for now and go back to bashing Russia

 

[Jokester]

That's fair, how about we just give up this argument for now and go back to bashing Russia

Bloody Russians.