3 ms·

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

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?

ptaipale 11y ago
> On second thought, I wonder if an airline can elect to not fly on certain corridors because they declare a risk? Of course they can. But it could be that alternative corridors also have their risks, or may have a significantly longer flight time.
waterlesscloud 11y ago
My brother and my niece will be on the second leg of their journey to South Africa in a few hours. Continuing on from London. They will overfly a couple of areas of conflict. I dunno how else they could go, though.
avar 11y ago
Not everyone was continuing to fly over Ukraine. Some including British Airways and Air France had already stopped flying over Ukraine months earlier[1] due to heightened risk in the area. Malaysian Airlines decided the risk was worth it. 1. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28356745 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28356745 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Ba...
tfgg 11y ago
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.
- TeMPOraL 11y ago
  That's probably how he rationalized it to himself, given that opposing the airline over this would probably cost him his job. People generally take risks and then tell themselves stories to justify them.
tomlongson 11y ago
Why not put responsibility with the group that fired the missile? This is victim blaming.
- freehunter 11y ago
  Just because you put some blame on the victim does not mean you are victim blaming. Victims are not always 100% responsibility free. Bank tellers are often instructed to comply with the demands of a robber. If the teller instead sets off the alarm, locks the doors, and tries to fight the robber and the teller gets shot, sure, the teller is the victim and the robber should not have shot the teller. But the teller was also taking an unnecessary risk by trying to fight the robbery. If the teller had handed over the money, chances are the robber would have taken it and left without anyone getting hurt. That is not victim blaming, that is stating the facts. People can take steps to minimize their risk of becoming a victim. If they do not take those steps and as a result are injured in some way, it's prudent to explain how they could have avoided the negative outcome. Don't shoot down passenger planes flying over your war. But also, don't fly passenger planes over an active warzone.
- trhway 11y ago
  >Why not put responsibility with the group that fired the missile? This is victim blaming. the rebels were constantly attacked from the air. They were shooting back using what was available to them - MANPADs and once they captured it in June - BUKs. It is obvious from their celebratory tweets first half-an-hour after shooting down the MH-17 that they were thinking it was one more military transport plane of Ukraine. Ukraine was using air forces for ground attacks. Obviously they should have closed the airspace, especially after their BUK systems were captured by rebels. That Ukraine was using air forces and that their planes were being shot down by SAMs more powerful than MANPADS was well known as well as it was reported in international news sources too (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334). So airlines shouldn't have been flying there even without Ukraine failing to close the airspace.

ptaipale 11y ago

> On second thought, I wonder if an airline can elect to not fly on certain corridors because they declare a risk? Of course they can. But it could be that alternative corridors also have their risks, or may have a significantly longer flight time.

waterlesscloud 11y ago

My brother and my niece will be on the second leg of their journey to South Africa in a few hours. Continuing on from London. They will overfly a couple of areas of conflict. I dunno how else they could go, though.

avar 11y ago

Not everyone was continuing to fly over Ukraine. Some including British Airways and Air France had already stopped flying over Ukraine months earlier[1] due to heightened risk in the area. Malaysian Airlines decided the risk was worth it. 1. http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28356745 http://www.bbc.com/news/business-28356745 2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Background https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Malaysia_Airlines_Flight_17#Ba...

tfgg 11y ago

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.

TeMPOraL 11y ago
That's probably how he rationalized it to himself, given that opposing the airline over this would probably cost him his job. People generally take risks and then tell themselves stories to justify them.

tomlongson 11y ago

Why not put responsibility with the group that fired the missile? This is victim blaming.

freehunter 11y ago
Just because you put some blame on the victim does not mean you are victim blaming. Victims are not always 100% responsibility free. Bank tellers are often instructed to comply with the demands of a robber. If the teller instead sets off the alarm, locks the doors, and tries to fight the robber and the teller gets shot, sure, the teller is the victim and the robber should not have shot the teller. But the teller was also taking an unnecessary risk by trying to fight the robbery. If the teller had handed over the money, chances are the robber would have taken it and left without anyone getting hurt. That is not victim blaming, that is stating the facts. People can take steps to minimize their risk of becoming a victim. If they do not take those steps and as a result are injured in some way, it's prudent to explain how they could have avoided the negative outcome. Don't shoot down passenger planes flying over your war. But also, don't fly passenger planes over an active warzone.
trhway 11y ago
>Why not put responsibility with the group that fired the missile? This is victim blaming. the rebels were constantly attacked from the air. They were shooting back using what was available to them - MANPADs and once they captured it in June - BUKs. It is obvious from their celebratory tweets first half-an-hour after shooting down the MH-17 that they were thinking it was one more military transport plane of Ukraine. Ukraine was using air forces for ground attacks. Obviously they should have closed the airspace, especially after their BUK systems were captured by rebels. That Ukraine was using air forces and that their planes were being shot down by SAMs more powerful than MANPADS was well known as well as it was reported in international news sources too (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334 http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334). So airlines shouldn't have been flying there even without Ukraine failing to close the airspace.