Ukraine on the brink of civil war. Mod Warning in OP.

WakeUp

oscarBravo wrote: »

The airspace wasn't restricted, and the victim blaming is getting seriously annoying.

Anything below 32000 ft in that region is restricted airspace the plane was at an altitude 1000ft above that was on the edge that's nothing. Not sure what you mean by victim blaming or if that comment was directed toward me..if it was perhaps you could elaborate on it a little. If not all good .
http://www.latimes.com/world/europe/la-fg-ukraine-aviation-20140717-story.html

Wurzelbert

oscarBravo wrote: »

The airspace wasn't restricted, and the victim blaming is getting seriously annoying.

don’t think anyone is blaming the victims, i.e. the people on board the downed flight. everybody else, the air traffic authorities, the flight planners, the airspace controllers, the radar operators, those who gave the firing command and the sam crew who actually fired the missile, will have to answer questions one way or another...

oscarBravo

WakeUp wrote: »

Anything below 32000 ft in that region is restricted airspace the plane was at an altitude 1000ft above that...

...in other words, not in restricted airspace.

Wurzelbert wrote: »

don’t think anyone is blaming the victims, i.e. the people on board the downed flight. everybody else, the air traffic authorities, the flight planners, the airspace controllers, the radar operators, those who gave the firing command and the sam crew who actually fired the missile, will have to answer questions one way or another...

The people who have questions to answer are the people who shot down a civilian airliner. The idea that civilian authorities have questions to answer for allowing a flight to operate in unrestricted airspace is nothing other than a way of sharing the blame for the shooting down of the aircraft with people who didn't shoot it down.

If a woman gets raped and people start muttering darkly about the companies who make those provocative clothes having questions to answer, that's implying that someone other than the rapist is responsible for the crime, and it's victim blaming, however indirect.

A civilian airliner was in unrestricted airspace and was shot down. The people with questions to answer are those who shot it down. End of.

Wurzelbert

oscarBravo wrote: »

...in other words, not in restricted airspace.



The people who have questions to answer are the people who shot down a civilian airliner. The idea that civilian authorities have questions to answer for allowing a flight to operate in unrestricted airspace is nothing other than a way of sharing the blame for the shooting down of the aircraft with people who didn't shoot it down.

If a woman gets raped and people start muttering darkly about the companies who make those provocative clothes having questions to answer, that's implying that someone other than the rapist is responsible for the crime, and it's victim blaming, however indirect.

A civilian airliner was in unrestricted airspace and was shot down. The people with questions to answer are those who shot it down. End of.

i see this discussion is pointless...am out of here...

WakeUp

oscarBravo wrote: »

...in other words, not in restricted airspace.



The people who have questions to answer are the people who shot down a civilian airliner. The idea that civilian authorities have questions to answer for allowing a flight to operate in unrestricted airspace is nothing other than a way of sharing the blame for the shooting down of the aircraft with people who didn't shoot it down.

If a woman gets raped and people start muttering darkly about the companies who make those provocative clothes having questions to answer, that's implying that someone other than the rapist is responsible for the crime, and it's victim blaming, however indirect.

A civilian airliner was in unrestricted airspace and was shot down. The people with questions to answer are those who shot it down. End of.

In fairness , you are going a bit over the top with the above. I'm not blaming the victims I don't think anyone is , whoever fired the missile is responsible for the plane coming down , obviously ,though I would question the decision or lack of decision on behalf of the Ukranian authorities responsible for Ukranian airspace and in turn the safety of people. So I would disagree with you. Why do you think the Ukranians restricted airspace below 32000ft. Do you think they did that because it safe for planes to be in the sky over that part of the world or unsafe. If they believed there was a threat to planes ,which quite clearly they do, that airspace should have been off limits to commercial airlines completely not just restricted in my opinion. Even more so when planes have already been shot down.

Lemming

WakeUp wrote: »

I find it hard to believe that the Russians would be stupid enough to take out a passenger jet for all sorts of reasons

Why? They have form on that, having taken down a S.Korean passenger jet in the 1980s under controversial circumstances.

WakeUp

Lemming wrote: »

Why? They have form on that, having taken down a S.Korean passenger jet in the 1980s under controversial circumstances.

Well are we talking about the Russians directly or pro-Russian rebels?.. Rebels most certainly could get it wrong assuming they had a working Buk system and knew or didn't know what they were doing. it's one thing to have that system another thing to have it operational and hit a plane at what is it 10km or something. that isn't an easy thing to do. considering the stakes I would think the Russians would be quite careful what they went after if indeed they were going after planes themselves. Of course I can't say they didn't hit it for certain but with their capabilities I would think it would take a serious error on their part to get it that wrong. though it's possible I'm not saying it isn't.

riffmongous

Lemming wrote: »

Why? They have form on that, having taken down a S.Korean passenger jet in the 1980s under controversial circumstances.

The Ukrainians also shot down a plane a few years ago too by accident, it took them a long time to admit it I think.

I wonder if it will be possible to verify the authenticity of the intercepted rebel conversations?

SpaceTime

I think it's highly unlikely to have been the Russians for two reasons.

1. They have sophisticated air traffic control systems and would have known what that aircraft was.

2. They've well trained troops and commanders who'd have access to all of this information.

It seems most likely that it's some amateur with access to weaponry that they didn't really know how to use.

They could have just as easily shot down a Russian passenger aircraft or a Chinese one.

There wouldn't be any logic in them deliberately targeting a Malaysian civilian aircraft.

It shows how dangerous the situation is though.

If Russia gave rebels this level of equipment, it was an incredibly stupid idea.

oscarBravo

WakeUp wrote: »

Why do you think the Ukranians restricted airspace below 32000ft.

Presumably because they thought it was unsafe to fly below 32000', which logically implies that they didn't think it was unsafe to fly above that altitude.

You're doing the usual "they should have known" Monday morning quarterbacking, but I didn't see anyone arguing for more restricted airspace last week.

...that airspace should have been off limits to commercial airlines completely not just restricted in my opinion.

Back to my rape analogy: if women are warned that it's not safe to walk through a park, and someone gets raped outside the park, any discussion about whether the authorities are at fault for not sufficiently restricting women's movements is nothing other than shifting the blame away from the rapist.

Someone shot down a civilian airliner that was flying in unrestricted airspace. The blame lies squarely and exclusively with whoever took the decision to fire on a large aircraft that was flying at a standard cruising altitude. The aircraft had every right to be there. The missile did not.

WakeUp

oscarBravo wrote: »

Presumably because they thought it was unsafe to fly below 32000', which logically implies that they didn't think it was unsafe to fly above that altitude.

You're doing the usual "they should have known" Monday morning quarterbacking, but I didn't see anyone arguing for more restricted airspace last week. Back to my rape analogy: if women are warned that it's not safe to walk through a park, and someone gets raped outside the park, any discussion about whether the authorities are at fault for not sufficiently restricting women's movements is nothing other than shifting the blame away from the rapist.

Someone shot down a civilian airliner that was flying in unrestricted airspace. The blame lies squarely and exclusively with whoever took the decision to fire on a large aircraft that was flying at a standard cruising altitude. The aircraft had every right to be there. The missile did not.

You can leave it out with your rape analogy for a start that's completely irrelevant and pointless. and I'm not trying to shift the blame away from whoever fired the missile so please understand that and don't accuse me of it again . "presumably" the first word of your reply is quite apt actually. and here's why . the reason they only restricted the airspace to below 32000ft is because the Ukranian authorities assumed , wrongly , that there was no threat to planes at altitudes higher than that or why only restrict it to that height. clearly they believed there was a threat to planes but underestimated that threat . they assumed wrong. I actually think what I'm saying is quite clear in that if they believed there was a threat to planes in the sky over that part of the world it should have been off limits until they believed the threat was no more. or is that not a reasonable thing to consider?...

oscarBravo

WakeUp wrote: »

You can leave it out with your rape analogy for a start that's completely irrelevant and pointless. and I'm not trying to shift the blame away from whoever fired the missile so please understand that and don't accuse me of it again .

You may not be intending to do so, but by continuing to ask what the rape victim was doing in the park why the airliner was allowed in that airspace, you're sharing blame between those who shot it down and those who you now claim with the ever-useful wisdom of hindsight should have prevented it from ever being there.

"presumably" the first word of your reply is quite apt actually. and here's why . the reason they only restricted the airspace to below 32000ft is because the Ukranian authorities assumed , wrongly , that there was no threat to planes at altitudes higher than that or why only restrict it to that height. clearly they believed there was a threat to planes but underestimated that threat . they assumed wrong. I actually think what I'm saying is quite clear in that if they believed there was a threat to planes in the sky over that part of the world it should have been off limits until they believed the threat was no more. or is that not a reasonable thing to consider?...

Planes are currently flying to the east of the eastern Ukraine/Russia border. If Ukrainian airspace is dangerous, shouldn't it be assumed that Russian airspace adjacent to Ukrainian airspace is also dangerous, and shouldn't there be a no-fly zone for, oh let's say a hundred miles outside Ukraine's borders in all directions?

No, because that would be stupid. A pragmatic risk assessment suggests that it's relatively safe for civilian aircraft to skirt the eastern border. Last week, a pragmatic risk assessment would have suggested that it was relatively safe for airliners to fly over Donetsk, as long as they maintained FL320 or higher. That was a reasonable assessment, because it wasn't reasonable to assume that some nutter would be taking potshots at civilian aircraft 10km up.

If you had been arguing for more restricted airspace last week, I would have a lot more time for your argument now, but it's far too easy to blame civilian authorities for something that's only obvious in hindsight, and it diverts blame from where it squarely belongs.

dnk

Facts:
First of all rebels have only Buk 9K37 (NATO reporting name "Gadfly") surface-to-air missile systems which is in theory can hit airplane higher then 4Km (13000ft). They reported before that it's damaged and not full complex only main part.
Secondly the range of even full complex is 42km but most sources said the point of lost response is between Mazanovka and Ivanovka villages which is 63km away from nearest rebels controlled territory.
Third, Russian space control recorded that Ukranian Buks activated aim radar (2 radars in complex 1 is for spot another for aim ) in that area and time.

Wurzelbert wrote: »

that would be strange indeed...and why would air traffic control (or who else?) redirect an airliner into restricted airspace over a war zone...maybe just another major ****up by some air traffic controller...

Yes. It's first my shock that some passenger liners fly over war zone where used air forces and surface-to-air missiles.
So, who exactly pull the trigger and what type of missile is a just tech details. Anyway responsibility of tragedy is Ukrainian authority.

PS: I do not see any reason for shoot airliner either rebels or Kiev Ukraine side. And this is not possible for educated operator of Buk to mix up passenger airliner and airforce transport even. My personal opinion it is kind of mistake. As again both sides do not have properly prepared operators.

WakeUp

oscarBravo wrote: »

You may not be intending to do so, but by continuing to ask what the rape victim was doing in the park why the airliner was allowed in that airspace, you're sharing blame between those who shot it down and those who you now claim with the ever-useful wisdom of hindsight should have prevented it from ever being there. Planes are currently flying to the east of the eastern Ukraine/Russia border. If Ukrainian airspace is dangerous, shouldn't it be assumed that Russian airspace adjacent to Ukrainian airspace is also dangerous, and shouldn't there be a no-fly zone for, oh let's say a hundred miles outside Ukraine's borders in all directions?

No, because that would be stupid. A pragmatic risk assessment suggests that it's relatively safe for civilian aircraft to skirt the eastern border. Last week, a pragmatic risk assessment would have suggested that it was relatively safe for airliners to fly over Donetsk, as long as they maintained FL320 or higher. That was a reasonable assessment, because it wasn't reasonable to assume that some nutter would be taking potshots at civilian aircraft 10km up.

If you had been arguing for more restricted airspace last week, I would have a lot more time for your argument now, but it's far too easy to blame civilian authorities for something that's only obvious in hindsight, and it diverts blame from where it squarely belongs.

Well the pragmatic reasonable risk assessment you speak of didn't work out too well did it. It isn't reasonable to assume anything in a war zone . and relatively safe isn't really good enough in my opinion .no matter how many times you attempt to accuse me of shifting the blame I'm not. whoever fired that missile is responsible for what happened .To be honest I wasn't aware that there was restrictions in place over certain areas of that specific region specific being the operative word - until this happened and I started reading about it. I'll tell you what I think is stupid though . Assuming wrongly planes are safe at a certain altitude when you are aware there is a threat to them and clearly they aren't . that risk assessment you allude too - somebody phucked up. are they responsible for taking the plane out of the sky no - but they assumed they were safe and got it wrong, clearly . Or do you believe their risk assessment was correct? ..planes have already been shot down in that part of the world which is in effect a war zone as we all know . that said I accept your point about a nutter firing a missile at a civilian airliner at that altitude but the fact restrictions were already place shows that they recognised there was a threat - they underestimated it. maybe that's down to the Ukranian intelligence services not knowing the rebels had an operational Buk system capable of reaching such heights I'm not too sure but they knew their was a threat that much is obvious.

oscarBravo

dnk wrote: »

So, who exactly pull the trigger and what type of missile is a just tech details.

Yeah, who cares who actually shot it down? It's not like it matters who's responsible for the deaths of nearly 300 people.

Unbelievable.

WakeUp wrote: »

Well the pragmatic reasonable risk assessment you speak of didn't work out too well did it.

So you'd agree that civilian airliners shouldn't be flying within 100km of Ukraine, because if the airspace over Ukraine is risky then clearly the airspace adjacent to Ukraine might be risky too?

Do you think Israeli airspace should be off-limits to civilian air traffic?

WakeUp

oscarBravo wrote: »

So you'd agree that civilian airliners shouldn't be flying within 100km of Ukraine, because if the airspace over Ukraine is risky then clearly the airspace adjacent to Ukraine might be risky too?

Do you think Israeli airspace should be off-limits to civilian air traffic?

Let me put it to you this way I would prefer to not fly over Ukraine in a plane while planes are being shot out of the sky by the surface to air missiles . When I fly I don't want it to be relatively safe - in this instance not being shot out of the sky - I'd rather not take that chance at all . Korean air , Qantas, China airlines , Cathay Pacific , Pakistan airlines to name but five who no longer fly over that country because of safety concerns so it isn't just me questioning the wisdom of that at this particular time. Planes are not falling out of the sky over Israel and Hamas don't have Sam missiles as far as I'm aware? so to answer your question I would have to say no.

walshb

I think it's been proven that now air carriers need to err on the side of caution and there needs to be a no fly zone implemented.

BlaasForRafa

dnk wrote: »

So, who exactly pull the trigger and what type of missile is a just tech details. Anyway responsibility of tragedy is Ukrainian authority.

Greetings friend, what else has comrade Putin told you to say today?

Sand

WakeUp wrote: »

the facts haven't been established yet for all we know it could have been the Ukranians who took that plane out of the sky. It's too soon to apply the blame to one or the other as we don't know the facts yet. but it's very serious.

The least likely scenario is the Ukrainians shooting down the plane. The rebels don't have airplanes, so the Ukrainians are highly unlikely to be looking to shoot any plane down. And even if the Ukrainians were deranged enough to attack a Russian plane, they would have enough cop on to realise the Russians would approach from the east, not the west.

The most likely candidates are the rebels, with Russian supplied weaponry. They had already shot down a Ukrainian jet the day before, and a transport plane only shortly before that. It is very likely they could have mistaken the airliner for another Ukrainian transport plane. However, I find it hard to believe rebels would be entrusted with these sort of weapons or have enough qualified technicians and operators - let alone supplies. Its quite possible it was Russian military operating under false flags within Ukraine, like they did in Crimea.

I think Putin's reckless policies with regard to Ukraine have blown up in his face - once the events are fully known, sanctions are going to be increased by an order of magnitude. Id imagine David Cameron might come under pressure to react to the murder of UK citizens by imposing financial sanctions that threaten Russian access to the City of London.

Red Nissan

Sand wrote: »

However, I find it hard to believe rebels would be entrusted with these sort of weapons or have enough qualified technicians and operators -

Don't lose sight of the fact that all combatants are former CCCP Conscripts. Hence their reluctance to do battle as they see each other as brothers and share that for about 100 years, despite their masters changing a bit.

Ukraines, Rebels, Russian Military are all the same with the same training and technical abilities.

aloyisious

Re this talk about air-space restrictions, that is double-edged. If a Gov't warns Civil Airlines that such and such a sector of national airspace is unsafe for aircraft, then it's up to the airlines and pilots to decide whether or not to enter that zone. It seem's logical that the Govt is NOT likely to shoot down aircraft flying through the zone as it would defeat the purpose of the warning and destroy it's reputation with other friendly Govts and nations. It seem's to me that if, as seem's to be the fact, the separatists are the de-facto controllers of the ground-zone where the incident took place, they would not be likely to allow a Govt military unit operate there and would be likely to be aware of such a presence.

Another factor in the shooting-down and destruction of the plane and the lives of all aboard is that the only other aircraft likely (apart from Russian and Civil Aircraft) to be flying in the zone would be Ukrainian Govt planes. The Govt has already lost aircraft to the separatists that way, an acknowledgement that the separatists have shoot-down capability and knowledge. I can't imagine the Russians allowing their aircraft enter the zone unless they have full (even if temporary) control of the anti-aircraft systems the separatists have. I'm assuming that Russian trade, re-supply etc with the separatist zones is not all by road or sea. I haven't heard/seen any reports of Russian aircraft being downed by anti-air fire.

Sand

CCCP collapsed 23 years ago. Anyone who was a conscript at that time would be at least 40+ While there is certainly a number involved on both sides with experience of the old Soviet armed forces, its not Dad's Army either. The vast majority on both sides will be young men born after the CCCP ended - or at least with no adult experience of it, let alone military service.

Whoever was operating that weapons system was somebody the Russians trusted. From the released tapes someone the Russian military had a direct line of contact with. Could the rebels have operated and sustained that piece of equipment by themselves? When every other piece of heavy weaponry from helicopters to tanks have been Russian supplied and crewed? It doesn't seem like it. The Russians will deny it of course, but they've badly and blatantly lying about their involvement in the Crimea and the Ukraine for months. They have no credibility remaining in that regard.

oscarBravo

WakeUp wrote: »

Let me put it to you this way I would prefer to not fly over Ukraine in a plane while planes are being shot out of the sky by the surface to air missiles .

Me neither. Guess what? Your average pilot wouldn't fly over Ukraine if he thought he was going to be shot down; your average airline executive wouldn't allow a plane to fly over Ukraine if she thought it was going to be shot down; eight out of ten air traffic controllers wouldn't route a plane through airspace in which they thought there was even a remote chance of it being shot down.

All of which goes to prove that nobody thought it remotely likely that a civilian airline would be shot down before one was. In fact, the only people who seem to have known how risky flying over Ukraine was are those who have suddenly appeared out of the woodwork after a plane was shot down to tell us all how dangerous Ukrainian airspace above FL320 obviously was.

Korean air , Qantas, China airlines , Cathay Pacific , Pakistan airlines to name but five who no longer fly over that country because of safety concerns so it isn't just me questioning the wisdom of that at this particular time.

Nobody is flying over Donetsk now. Why not? Because now they're aware of the risk you are so cleverly telling us they should have been aware of last week.

Planes are not falling out of the sky over Israel and Hamas don't have Sam missiles as far as I'm aware? so to answer your question I would have to say no.

Cool. Let's hope no civilian airliners get shot down over Israel, because then you'll have to go back in time and know in advance (but forget to tell anyone) how dangerous that airspace is.

walshb wrote: »

I think it's been proven that now air carriers need to err on the side of caution and there needs to be a no fly zone implemented.

Yes. It's been proven now. Clearly anyone who routes a civilian airliner over Donetsk now is criminally negligent. My problem is with those who are claiming with the crystalline clarity of hindsight that this should have been done before now.

gandalf

Unfortunately the warning signs were there with the Crimea land grab. The west should have taken stronger action against Putin. Now the limp wristed response has not only resulted in the death of a large number of Ukrainian civilians a Jet plane with 298 people on board has been downed as well.

The time has come to isolate Russia. Hit them with severe sanctions, freeze the overseas assets of all the oligarchs and take prestigious events away from them like the World Cup in 2018. This is no longer the time for half measures.

comongethappy

gandalf wrote: »

Unfortunately the warning signs were there with the Crimea land grab. The west should have taken stronger action against Putin. Now the limp wristed response has not only resulted in the death of a large number of Ukrainian civilians a Jet plane with 298 people on board has been downed as well.

The time has come to isolate Russia. Hit them with severe sanctions, freeze the overseas assets of all the oligarchs and take prestigious events away from them like the World Cup in 2018. This is no longer the time for half measures.

Authoritarians like Putin see their legacy in events like the world cup.

Though it would never happen, removing that would be a hammer blow to Putin's ego & pride.

However, the "west's" response thus far was pretty measured I think.

Now if France would just have the balls to cancel the 2 huge warships she is building for Putin, that would be nice.

Red Nissan

gandalf wrote: »

Unfortunately the warning signs were there with the Crimea land grab..

The West were destroyed the last time we tried that one. We have Ambulances, Mobiles Medical Army Units, Private Nursing, Revolution in Health Care, Private Hospitals, Charitable Hospitable and the FIRST WORLD WAR, AND THE SECOND WORLD WAR, AND THE COLD WAR.

Since. Assuming history repeats itself, we will all be speaking German inside six months.

WakeUp

oscarBravo wrote: »

Me neither. Guess what? Your average pilot wouldn't fly over Ukraine if he thought he was going to be shot down; your average airline executive wouldn't allow a plane to fly over Ukraine if she thought it was going to be shot down; eight out of ten air traffic controllers wouldn't route a plane through airspace in which they thought there was even a remote chance of it being shot down.

All of which goes to prove that nobody thought it remotely likely that a civilian airline would be shot down before one was. In fact, the only people who seem to have known how risky flying over Ukraine was are those who have suddenly appeared out of the woodwork after a plane was shot down to tell us all how dangerous Ukrainian airspace above FL320 obviously was. Nobody is flying over Donetsk now. Why not? Because now they're aware of the risk you are so cleverly telling us they should have been aware of last week. Cool. Let's hope no civilian airliners get shot down over Israel, because then you'll have to go back in time and know in advance (but forget to tell anyone) how dangerous that airspace is.

Yes. It's been proven now. Clearly anyone who routes a civilian airliner over Donetsk now is criminally negligent. My problem is with those who are claiming with the crystalline clarity of hindsight that this should have been done before now.

That's nice so tell me this then. why had some airlines already changed their routes before this even happened? Why do you think they did that..did they do it for the craic do you think?..do you reckon they thought it might be a bit risky...eastern Ukranian airspace is now closed as far as I'm aware. The US and Chinese have banned all their planes going anywhere near the place. is a shame it took this to happen for some common sense to kick in, better late than never I suppose.

oscarBravo

WakeUp wrote: »

That's nice so tell me this then. why had some airlines already changed their routes before this even happened?

Because they weighed the risks differently.

Look, I'm not going to bother arguing this with you any more. If it's important for you to blame someone other than whatever bastard shot down a civilian airliner for the deaths of the people on board, you go ahead and apportion blame in whatever way feels right to you.

For me, the blame lies squarely with whoever fired the shot, and when we know who it is, I hope the blame-dilution is confined to whatever hurlers on the ditch are busy trying to impress others with their 20:20 hindsight.

WakeUp

oscarBravo wrote: »

Because they weighed the risks differently.

Look, I'm not going to bother arguing this with you any more. If it's important for you to blame someone other than whatever bastard shot down a civilian airliner for the deaths of the people on board, you go ahead and apportion blame in whatever way feels right to you.

For me, the blame lies squarely with whoever fired the shot, and when we know who it is, I hope the blame-dilution is confined to whatever hurlers on the ditch are busy trying to impress others with their 20:20 hindsight.

That's ok I don't want to argue with you either. And you seem to have a hard time answering any questions put to you you like stating things .but just because you disagree with what I'm saying in a very personal type way actually doesn't mean I'm attempting to blame somebody else or impress others whatever that means which I am not. which you keep accusing me of .or that you're right and I am wrong .the more I read up on this the more I believe that particular part of the sky should not have been open to commercial airlines. Is it ok for me to have this opinion and come to this conclusion based on what I now know and have read after the fact? Of course it is . apparently the Americans knew rebels were being trained up on longer range missile systems .The blame lies with whoever fired the missile for killing those people they are to blame . blame dilution - you're not getting it are you. Though let's leave it there.

K-9

Mod:

Post by re-reg troll deleted, and responses to same. Thanks.