4 ms·

Depending on your destination, you will find out that you'll fly over Pakistani tribal regions, Iraq or other unstable areas. Or the Gobi desert or the Arctic o

Depending on your destination, you will find out that you'll fly over Pakistani tribal regions, Iraq or other unstable areas. Or the Gobi desert or the Arctic ocean. Places where you would not wish to land. There was nothing particularly strange about flying over Ukrainian airspace, because you don't really expect civilian planes to be shot down, even by rogue militias that are in power in some areas. The very fact that dozens of airlines had been doing that safely all the time that the conflict was there shows that many pilots and airlines did not think there was much risk. The tragedy here was that there was someone with a BUK system there, and probably that someone was drunk and decided to give a lesson to those blasted Ukrainian fascists. I expect it will be futile to try to get the responsible to a court, because any small fish are already in shallow graves somewhere, to protect the big fish.

guard-of-terra 11y ago
"and probably that someone was drunk" It's a strange assumption. I doubt drunk people ever get to be around Buk launchers (even in separatists' camps) You should keep in mind that rebels shot down military plane allegedly carrying 40 Ukrainian soldiers (and crew) - month before MH17. This was a serious military transport plane Il-76, not some light planer. They shot other aircraft too. One could imagine that shooting at planes has become norm rather than unexpected at the area.
- kilotaras 11y ago
  IL-76 was shot a lot lower and not from BUK missile. Until MH-17 there was no reason to believe separatists had any high altitude anti-aircraft weapons.
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    I'm not talking about how it was shot. I'm talking about whether it could be a rational decision (possibly fueled by incomplete knowledge) instead of "being drunk". It could. They shot other planes before.
- ronmacgill 11y ago
  The E. Ukr rebels were using shoulder-fired missiles and were firing at planes close to the ground. Quite a different kettle of fish than buk missiles which requires a lot more technical coordination
  - guard-of-terra 11y ago
    Once you've got determination to shoot down planes with people inside, getting a bigger gun doesn't seem impossible.
    - TeMPOraL 11y ago
      Especially since you're getting good at shooting down low-altitude flights you can expect the enemy to fly higher, at which point getting a weapon with greater range seems prudent.
- Alupis 11y ago
  > You should keep in mind that rebels shot down military plane allegedly carrying 40 Ukrainian soldiers (and crew) - month before MH17. This was a serious military transport plane Il-76, not some light planer. They shot other aircraft too. One could imagine that shooting at planes has become norm rather than unexpected at the area. Yet Malaysian airlines still thought it a good idea to ignore the rebel-declared no-fly-zone and continue flying through airspace known to have active AA activity. Honestly, I think we're not blaming the airline nearly enough here.
joshvm 11y ago
Going to Japan was a bit unnerving. The flight from the UK overflies Russia. That's not a problem politically, but you fly for hours and hours over Siberia. You can look out of the window and see nothing but icy tundra stretching into the distance. There is absolutely nothing there (3 people per square km), maybe the odd hamlet. If the plane goes down, you'd better hope it catches fire so you don't freeze to death. I think they avoid North Korea though. There was some interesting investigative journalism into the BUK theory back in January. https://mh17.correctiv.org/english/ https://mh17.correctiv.org/english/
- outworlder 11y ago
  Well, going to Japan from Los Angeles involves flying over the Pacific Ocean for 12 hours or so. Nothing but water.
  - davidw 11y ago
    Flights from places like Amsterdam or Frankfurt to Portland or Seattle go about halfway up Greenland. Same sensation of "it would really suck to have a problem here", but there's nothing to do other than grip the armrests even harder than normal to keep the plane in the air.
    - arprocter 11y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_21 "The airline had installed special lockers on the aircraft to store the corpses of any passengers that died en route, since the flight's routing over the Pacific Ocean and North Pole meant that there were few if any possible unscheduled stops"
- yongjik 11y ago
  It seems some airlines do use the NK airspace. Despite being a horrible place in every regard, it's not exactly a war zone, and Pyongyang has no incentive to shoot down passing passenger aircrafts. But I think the whole heavily guarded SK-NK border is a no-fly zone: it limits the usefulness of NK airspace greatly, because any plane flying toward Incheon (or some other South Korean airport) from North will have to take a detour anyway.
Mikeb85 11y ago
> The tragedy here was that there was someone with a BUK system there, and probably that someone was drunk and decided to give a lesson to those blasted Ukrainian fascists. Or, the more likely explanation, they thought it was a military plane like the several they shot down in the weeks prior...
rlpb 11y ago
> The very fact that dozens of airlines had been doing that safely all the time that the conflict was there shows that many pilots and airlines did not think there was much risk. The report disagrees with you. It says that dozens of airlines had been doing that all the time because everybody expected someone else to assess the risk.
cstross 11y ago
The BUK-M isn't something where "someone was drunk and decided to give a lesson" -- it's the Russian equivalent of a Patriot missile battery, with a platoon-sized crew and several support vehicles (radar and command trucks) needed to fire the thing. Other variants have anti-ballistic missile capability and/or nuclear warheads! It's quite likely the operators mistook the Boeing 777 for a large Ukrainian military transport aircraft. There are echoes of Iran Air Flight 655 here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655
- istvan__ 11y ago
  This still does not prove anything, it could have been the Ukraine military as well, they have (just like any other ex-Soviet country) plenty of BUK missiles.
  - tptacek 11y ago
    First, no, they do not have "plenty" of BUK missile launchers, second, the launchers they do have are not parked in the middle of separatist strongholds, and third, it's not the SBU spinning wild stories of fighter jets flying alongside MH17 and sudden course changes by MH17 --- it's the separatists and the Russian Ministry of Defense saying those things, which have been conclusively debunked now by the Dutch report.
    - istvan__ 11y ago
      1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Ground_Forces#Army_Air_Defence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Ground_Forces#Army_A... "Surface-to-air missile systems and complexes of division level are characterized by their long range and firepower and are equipped with surface-to-air missile complexes;S-300V,Osa, Buk, Buk-M1 and Tor." 2. No they did not need to do that, it was enough to park it closer to the zone 3. I am not sure what is this gibberish about, I did not mention anything about SBU or anybody else saying anything. Thanks for the downvotes, even when you are obviously wrong. It is just showing how much HN lost its way.

guard-of-terra 11y ago

"and probably that someone was drunk" It's a strange assumption. I doubt drunk people ever get to be around Buk launchers (even in separatists' camps) You should keep in mind that rebels shot down military plane allegedly carrying 40 Ukrainian soldiers (and crew) - month before MH17. This was a serious military transport plane Il-76, not some light planer. They shot other aircraft too. One could imagine that shooting at planes has become norm rather than unexpected at the area.

kilotaras 11y ago
IL-76 was shot a lot lower and not from BUK missile. Until MH-17 there was no reason to believe separatists had any high altitude anti-aircraft weapons.
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  I'm not talking about how it was shot. I'm talking about whether it could be a rational decision (possibly fueled by incomplete knowledge) instead of "being drunk". It could. They shot other planes before.
ronmacgill 11y ago
The E. Ukr rebels were using shoulder-fired missiles and were firing at planes close to the ground. Quite a different kettle of fish than buk missiles which requires a lot more technical coordination
- guard-of-terra 11y ago
  Once you've got determination to shoot down planes with people inside, getting a bigger gun doesn't seem impossible.
  - TeMPOraL 11y ago
    Especially since you're getting good at shooting down low-altitude flights you can expect the enemy to fly higher, at which point getting a weapon with greater range seems prudent.
Alupis 11y ago
> You should keep in mind that rebels shot down military plane allegedly carrying 40 Ukrainian soldiers (and crew) - month before MH17. This was a serious military transport plane Il-76, not some light planer. They shot other aircraft too. One could imagine that shooting at planes has become norm rather than unexpected at the area. Yet Malaysian airlines still thought it a good idea to ignore the rebel-declared no-fly-zone and continue flying through airspace known to have active AA activity. Honestly, I think we're not blaming the airline nearly enough here.

joshvm 11y ago

Going to Japan was a bit unnerving. The flight from the UK overflies Russia. That's not a problem politically, but you fly for hours and hours over Siberia. You can look out of the window and see nothing but icy tundra stretching into the distance. There is absolutely nothing there (3 people per square km), maybe the odd hamlet. If the plane goes down, you'd better hope it catches fire so you don't freeze to death. I think they avoid North Korea though. There was some interesting investigative journalism into the BUK theory back in January. https://mh17.correctiv.org/english/ https://mh17.correctiv.org/english/

outworlder 11y ago
Well, going to Japan from Los Angeles involves flying over the Pacific Ocean for 12 hours or so. Nothing but water.
- davidw 11y ago
  Flights from places like Amsterdam or Frankfurt to Portland or Seattle go about halfway up Greenland. Same sensation of "it would really suck to have a problem here", but there's nothing to do other than grip the armrests even harder than normal to keep the plane in the air.
  - arprocter 11y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_21 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Singapore_Airlines_Flight_21 "The airline had installed special lockers on the aircraft to store the corpses of any passengers that died en route, since the flight's routing over the Pacific Ocean and North Pole meant that there were few if any possible unscheduled stops"
yongjik 11y ago
It seems some airlines do use the NK airspace. Despite being a horrible place in every regard, it's not exactly a war zone, and Pyongyang has no incentive to shoot down passing passenger aircrafts. But I think the whole heavily guarded SK-NK border is a no-fly zone: it limits the usefulness of NK airspace greatly, because any plane flying toward Incheon (or some other South Korean airport) from North will have to take a detour anyway.

Mikeb85 11y ago

> The tragedy here was that there was someone with a BUK system there, and probably that someone was drunk and decided to give a lesson to those blasted Ukrainian fascists. Or, the more likely explanation, they thought it was a military plane like the several they shot down in the weeks prior...

rlpb 11y ago

> The very fact that dozens of airlines had been doing that safely all the time that the conflict was there shows that many pilots and airlines did not think there was much risk. The report disagrees with you. It says that dozens of airlines had been doing that all the time because everybody expected someone else to assess the risk.

cstross 11y ago

The BUK-M isn't something where "someone was drunk and decided to give a lesson" -- it's the Russian equivalent of a Patriot missile battery, with a platoon-sized crew and several support vehicles (radar and command trucks) needed to fire the thing. Other variants have anti-ballistic missile capability and/or nuclear warheads! It's quite likely the operators mistook the Boeing 777 for a large Ukrainian military transport aircraft. There are echoes of Iran Air Flight 655 here ... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Iran_Air_Flight_655

istvan__ 11y ago
This still does not prove anything, it could have been the Ukraine military as well, they have (just like any other ex-Soviet country) plenty of BUK missiles.
- tptacek 11y ago
  First, no, they do not have "plenty" of BUK missile launchers, second, the launchers they do have are not parked in the middle of separatist strongholds, and third, it's not the SBU spinning wild stories of fighter jets flying alongside MH17 and sudden course changes by MH17 --- it's the separatists and the Russian Ministry of Defense saying those things, which have been conclusively debunked now by the Dutch report.
  - istvan__ 11y ago
    1. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Ground_Forces#Army_Air_Defence https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ukrainian_Ground_Forces#Army_A... "Surface-to-air missile systems and complexes of division level are characterized by their long range and firepower and are equipped with surface-to-air missile complexes;S-300V,Osa, Buk, Buk-M1 and Tor." 2. No they did not need to do that, it was enough to park it closer to the zone 3. I am not sure what is this gibberish about, I did not mention anything about SBU or anybody else saying anything. Thanks for the downvotes, even when you are obviously wrong. It is just showing how much HN lost its way.