3 ms·

The European air traffic control body, Eurocontrol, said Ukrainian authorities had banned aircraft from flying at 32,000ft or below and the doomed aircraft had

by morkbot 12y ago

The European air traffic control body, Eurocontrol, said Ukrainian authorities had banned aircraft from flying at 32,000ft or below and the doomed aircraft had been cruising above that, at 33,000ft – however this apparently still left it within range of the sophisticated surface-to-air weaponry that pro-Russia forces have been using recently to target Ukrainian military aircraft. All civilian flights have now been barred from the area of eastern Ukraine. http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/mh17-pressure-on-russia-as-world-demands-answers-over-planes-destruction http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/18/mh17-pressure-o...

wilsonfiifi 12y ago
So it didn't occur to either the Ukrainian authorities or Eurocontrol that due to the existence of advanced weaponry and the remote possibility that either faction could gain access to them, civilian flights should be barred from that airspace? Was the economic impact of rerouting flights so high that they were willing to take the risk with civilians?
- morkbot 12y ago
  This is targeted in the same article, although no clear answer is given: Questions were raised as to why Malaysia Airlines had continued to fly over such a volatile region, where separatists were known to be shooting at aircraft. Qantas, the Australian carrier, said it had been steering clear of the area by 400 nautical miles for several months. Malaysia Airlines said that after the crash it immediately altered its flight paths, while other airlines either did likewise or emphasised they had already been taking alternative routes. "With immediate effect, all European flights operated by Malaysia Airlines will be taking alternative routes avoiding the usual route," said a statement from the airline. It added: "The usual flight route was earlier declared safe by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. International Air Transportation Association has stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions."
- rasz_pl 12y ago
  if you look at the mh17 flight patch for the last couple of weeks you will notice that they all flew different route (west or over the sea of azov). This downed plane took extra steps (100km to the east) to fly over the war zone, almost as if pilots wanted selfies with russian troops in the background. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS17/history/20140717/1000Z/EHAM/WMKK http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS17/history/20140717/10...
  - yread 12y ago
    That's not really true, check out this comparison of flight paths: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/07/17/mh17/4fbce571a89fe76a609bde4b925f389d4e0d4d54/flight-paths-ai2html-460.png http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/07/17/mh17/4f... It was a route taken by SQ ,KL and others EDIT: oops sorry I haven't realized the labels aren't part of the image, I took it from here http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/17/world/europe/maps-of-the-crash-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/17/world/europe/m...
    - rasz_pl 12y ago
      Maybe it was (I didnt check other airlines), but this flight always flew at least 100km to the west. Might be weather conditions this particular day pushing all the planes north east. I have zero idea about air traffic, is there an airport doing flight control for the region that would reroute all the planes over the effing war zone because of some rain clouds?
      - yread 12y ago
        > I didnt check other airlines Perhaps I can point you to the link in the comment to which you've replied which plots the courses of flights of Malaysian and other airlines from the past weeks so that you can check?!
  - myth_drannon 12y ago
    Sounds like 1983 all over again with South Korean flight ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 ). So the plan : 1)Divert the plane into a restricted zone https://twitter.com/VagelisKarmiros/status/489926167731142656/photo/1 https://twitter.com/VagelisKarmiros/status/48992616773114265... 2)The other side responds with a missile thinking it's a military plane 3)Profit
- dingaling 12y ago
  The NOTAM is pretty standard for overflying a small-arms / light-weapons conflict zone. Mortar and medium artillery can loft up to 30,000 ft on high charges. It obviously didn't consider the use of dedicated anti-aircraft weapons. But even primitive shoulder-launched MANPADS like the original Strela-2 have been recorded striking easy targets over 24,000 ft ( a Hunter over Oman in the 1970s ).

by morkbot 12y ago

wilsonfiifi 12y ago

So it didn't occur to either the Ukrainian authorities or Eurocontrol that due to the existence of advanced weaponry and the remote possibility that either faction could gain access to them, civilian flights should be barred from that airspace? Was the economic impact of rerouting flights so high that they were willing to take the risk with civilians?

morkbot 12y ago
This is targeted in the same article, although no clear answer is given: Questions were raised as to why Malaysia Airlines had continued to fly over such a volatile region, where separatists were known to be shooting at aircraft. Qantas, the Australian carrier, said it had been steering clear of the area by 400 nautical miles for several months. Malaysia Airlines said that after the crash it immediately altered its flight paths, while other airlines either did likewise or emphasised they had already been taking alternative routes. "With immediate effect, all European flights operated by Malaysia Airlines will be taking alternative routes avoiding the usual route," said a statement from the airline. It added: "The usual flight route was earlier declared safe by the International Civil Aviation Organisation. International Air Transportation Association has stated that the airspace the aircraft was traversing was not subject to restrictions."
rasz_pl 12y ago
if you look at the mh17 flight patch for the last couple of weeks you will notice that they all flew different route (west or over the sea of azov). This downed plane took extra steps (100km to the east) to fly over the war zone, almost as if pilots wanted selfies with russian troops in the background. http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS17/history/20140717/1000Z/EHAM/WMKK http://flightaware.com/live/flight/MAS17/history/20140717/10...
- yread 12y ago
  That's not really true, check out this comparison of flight paths: http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/07/17/mh17/4fbce571a89fe76a609bde4b925f389d4e0d4d54/flight-paths-ai2html-460.png http://graphics8.nytimes.com/newsgraphics/2014/07/17/mh17/4f... It was a route taken by SQ ,KL and others EDIT: oops sorry I haven't realized the labels aren't part of the image, I took it from here http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/17/world/europe/maps-of-the-crash-of-malaysian-airlines-flight-mh17.html http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2014/07/17/world/europe/m...
  - rasz_pl 12y ago
    Maybe it was (I didnt check other airlines), but this flight always flew at least 100km to the west. Might be weather conditions this particular day pushing all the planes north east. I have zero idea about air traffic, is there an airport doing flight control for the region that would reroute all the planes over the effing war zone because of some rain clouds?
    - yread 12y ago
      > I didnt check other airlines Perhaps I can point you to the link in the comment to which you've replied which plots the courses of flights of Malaysian and other airlines from the past weeks so that you can check?!
- myth_drannon 12y ago
  Sounds like 1983 all over again with South Korean flight ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007 ). So the plan : 1)Divert the plane into a restricted zone https://twitter.com/VagelisKarmiros/status/489926167731142656/photo/1 https://twitter.com/VagelisKarmiros/status/48992616773114265... 2)The other side responds with a missile thinking it's a military plane 3)Profit
dingaling 12y ago
The NOTAM is pretty standard for overflying a small-arms / light-weapons conflict zone. Mortar and medium artillery can loft up to 30,000 ft on high charges. It obviously didn't consider the use of dedicated anti-aircraft weapons. But even primitive shoulder-launched MANPADS like the original Strela-2 have been recorded striking easy targets over 24,000 ft ( a Hunter over Oman in the 1970s ).