Malaysian airline MH-17 discussion thread

InTheTrees

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

You seem to be an expect on air traffic control, heres a question for you.
Would air traffic control at Dublin Airport listen in on and record conversations of flights that are passing through say French air space? I would think they are too busy to be concerned about whats going somewhere that they have no jurisdiction over.

Huh? An "expert" on air traffic control?

As it happens I am a pilot. But small planes only.

Eurocontrol controls high altitude airliners transiting through Europe.

It would be pointless and time consuming for an airliner traveling at maybe 400kts to be contacting every nations atc. I mean you can pass over austria in a few minutes, and switzerland?

So there's a system for controlling the airways.

And when its time to land you switch to local and they guide you down from the international airway into the local area.

Think of it like a motorway. On the motorway you're under the guidance of the motorway police, when you get close to your destination you exit and come under the jurisdiction of the locals.

Not that hard to understand.

Would Dublin airport local atc be monitoring paris local atc? Probably not. Why would they?

But Eurocontrol certainly is.

To even suggest that ukraine would have the only copies of communication with the malaysian plane is incredibly simplistic. Really, its the 21st century, its not difficult to make backups now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eurocontrol

whatstherush

KahBoom wrote: »

You haven't shown that images/videos can't be independently verified - that's a claim you'd need to back up with something.

I don't need to , as I haven't said one piece of evidence can be taken as being fabricated as it hasn't been independently verified, yet can't say how that evidence can be verified and then come out and say that other evidence images/videos can be independent verified and yet again you can't tell us how this other evidence can be verified. Which is it KB, how do you verify one and not the other?

InTheTrees

Elmer Blooker wrote: »

Would air traffic control at Dublin Airport listen in on and record conversations of flights that are passing through say French air space? I would think they are too busy to be concerned about whats going somewhere that they have no jurisdiction over.

Thats true. Think of it as a motorway.

Dublin Airport only gets invloved when a plane needs to land at Dublin.

smurfjed

Hmmm. Well they dont. So your conspiracy theory is wrong.

I don't have a conspiracy theory..... Eurocontrol is an agency, but the airspace is divided into sectors.

AH doesnt allow posting of pictures, but if you get yourself a Jeppesen chart you can see the UKDV FIR, and on the right side it is bordered by the URRV FIR. These are different areas and are controlled by different ATC sectors.

You have stated that you are a light aircraft pilots, i assume a PPL, well you need to brush on your knowledge of high altitude flying.

So please, drop the conspiracy theory bs, and deal in facts!

InTheTrees

smurfjed wrote: »

I don't have a conspiracy theory..... Eurocontrol is an agency, but the airspace is divided into sectors. This is the Ukraine FIR.

<iframe src="https://www.flickr.com/photos/pprunemutt/14834783161/player/" width="600" height="800" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen webkitallowfullscreen mozallowfullscreen oallowfullscreen msallowfullscreen></iframe>

You can see from the highlighted area that it is called the UKDV FIR, on the right side it is bordered by the URRV FIR. These are different areas and are controlled by different ATC sectors.

So please, drop the conspiracy theory bs, and deal in facts!

So the airway over ukraine is called Ukraine FIR and you take this to mean what exactly?

smurfjed

So the airway over ukraine is called Ukraine FIR and you take this to mean what exactly?

Do you actually understand the difference between an airway and an FIR? It appears that you don't!

While i at it, do you actually know how to calculate the range of a VHF transmission from an airliner?

InTheTrees

smurfjed wrote: »

You can see from the highlighted area that it is called the UKDV FIR, on the right side it is bordered by the URRV FIR. These are different areas and are controlled by different ATC sectors.

What do you mean controlled by "different sectors"? You're saying that completely different controllers are advising air traffic in those different corridors do you?

You seem to be trying not to understand.

You initially said Ukrainian Air traffic controllers would have the only copies of communication between the international flight and the ground as it passed over ukraine.

DO you still believe that?

KahBoom

whatstherush wrote: »

I don't need to , as I haven't said one piece of evidence can be taken as being fabricated as it hasn't been independently verified, yet can't say how that evidence can be verified and then come out and say that other evidence images/videos can be independent verified and yet again you can't tell us how this other evidence can be verified. Which is it KB, how do you verify one and not the other?

I never said anything can or cannot be independently verified - you said that, and now you're trying to pin that statement to me, so you can nitpick endlessly.

Again, the details of how something is independently verified, is irrelevant - if it has not been independently verified by an impartial third party, it's not credible evidence.

InTheTrees

smurfjed wrote: »

Do you actually understand the difference between an airway and an FIR? It appears that you don't!

Why dont you explain it?

smurfjed

Why dont you explain it?

Nope, you are the one pushing ideas based on a lack of knowledge, you obviously know nothing about high altitude or long distance flying.

InTheTrees

smurfjed wrote: »

While i at it, do you actually know how to calculate the range of a VHF transmission from an airliner?

Whats that got to do with anything??

Are talking about a VOR?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VHF_omnidirectional_range

InTheTrees

smurfjed wrote: »

Nope, you are the one pushing ideas based on a lack of knowledge, you obviously know nothing about high altitude or long distance flying.

Er...You said Ukrainian Atc has the only copies of communication with the Malaysian Jet.

whatstherush

KahBoom wrote: »

I never said anything can or cannot be independently verified - you said that, and now you're trying to pin that statement to me, so you can nitpick endlessly.

You said it here

KahBoom wrote: »

If the US provide satellite images/videos, they can be subject to independent verification.

And just so there's no misunderstanding for something to be 'subject' to verification a mechanism is required to do that verification, so again what is it that mechanism that can be applied to the images video?

InTheTrees

smurfjed wrote: »

Nope, you are the one pushing ideas based on a lack of knowledge, you obviously know nothing about high altitude or long distance flying.

Sure. The largest plane I can fly is a 172.

Go read the wiki's if you think I'm just trying to confuse you or something.

If you look at my posts I've used all sorts of words, corridors, air routes, sectors, even motorways, to make it easier to understand.

You said the Ukrainian air traffic controllers have the only copies of communication with the Malaysian plane.

I dont see you giving us any details about that theory.

smurfjed

This is getting better, a PPL who doesnt know the difference between VHF transmissions and a VOR.

Anyway you seem to of the impression that the ATC / Aircraft transmissions should be recorded by someone other than the local ATC unit, that problem with that concept is how are they going to receive them? VHF transmissions have a limited range, so the ATC receiver must be within VHF range or have repeater stations for longer ranges. As each ATC sector will pass traffic information electronically from one sector to the next, there really isn't a need for ATC sectors to listen to traffic in the previous area. So your options for finding the transmissions lie with Ukraine ATC, and various military stations.

KahBoom

whatstherush wrote: »

You said it here


And just so there's no misunderstanding for something to be 'subject' to verification a mechanism is required to do that verification, so again what is it that mechanism that can be applied to the images video?

If something is 'subject' to independent verification, that doesn't mean it can successfully be verified or not - it depends on the quality of the evidence.

Enough of this waste-of-time nitpicking: If evidence is not independently verified, then it is not credible.

To suggest it is credible, is precisely the same as saying "you have to take their (the Ukrainian governments) word for it - trust them", which is ludicrous.


You'll have to come up with some 'evidence' backed by something better than "just trust them".

smurfjed

As for Eggs previous statement that the aircraft was 200 nms off course, well this is planned route filed before the flight.

ARNEM UL620 SUVOX UZ713 OSN UL980 MOBSA DCT POVEL DCT SUI L980 UTOLU/N0490F330 L980 LDZ M70 BEMBI L980 PEKIT/N0480F350 L980 TAMAK/N0480F350 A87 TIROM/N0490F350 A87 MAMED B449 RANAH L750 ZB G201 BI DCT MURLI DCT TIGER/N0490F370 L333 KKJ L759 PUT R325 VIH A464 DAKUS

The aircraft crashed within 30 nms of TAMAK, so it was where it was supposed to be, the only difference is that they should have climbed to FL350 before getting there and they didn't.

InTheTrees

smurfjed wrote: »

This is getting better, a PPL who doesnt know the difference between VHF transmissions and a VOR.

The difference? One uses the other.

The "V" in VOR stands for VHF. They use VHF frequencies.

InTheTrees

smurfjed wrote: »

Anyway you seem to of the impression that...

I'm under the impression that there's no possibility that ukrainian ATC have hidden the recordings of their communication with the aircraft.

This was all started on the idea that there's a conspiracy by ukranian ATC to hide the "recordings" of the communication between the ground and the aircraft and you've done nothing at all to show that happened.

InTheTrees

KahBoom wrote: »

Enough of this waste-of-time nitpicking: If evidence is not independently verified, then it is not credible.

Independently verified by whom?

I expect the black boxes will end up with Boeing, it was their aeroplane after all and persumably they'll be needed to extract the data.

But who are these "independent" bodies who will conduct the investigation?

Are there any reputable accident investigation organizations outside the west and Japan? Brazil maybe?

InTheTrees

KahBoom wrote: »

You'll have to come up with some 'evidence' backed by something better than "just trust them".

Well thats getting to the core of it isnt?

Given that there may be no independent investigation possible it comes down to which side we trust doesnt it?

What else is there?

And on the one side we have putin and the russians and on the other we have us in the west.

KahBoom

No it doesn't come down to which side you trust: You don't trust any side - that's why you want independent verification.

If some proposed evidence hasn't been verified by an impartial third-party, then you have no credible evidence - and you shouldn't advocate acting on anything (sanctions or otherwise).

We were given the "trust me" argument about WMD's in Iraq, and it was a lie that was used to pull many countries into an illegal war - that's why you don't accept unverified claims/'evidence'...

InTheTrees

KahBoom wrote: »

No it doesn't come down to which side you trust: You don't trust any side - that's why you want independent verification.

I said if there is no independant verification then what?

All thats left is trust right?

smurfjed

I expect the black boxes will end up with Boeing, it was their aeroplane after all and persumably they'll be needed to extract the data.

Boeing don't build the black boxes and will have nothing to do with them.

But who are these "independent" bodies who will conduct the investigation?

The people who will conduct the investigation are dictated by ICAO regulations, they can ask for assistance from whoever they like, hence the involvement of the AAIB.

you've done nothing at all to show that happened.

Strangely enough, i never said that they did hide the recordings. But i did say that the likelihood of anyone else having them was very slim.

It will be up to the Ukrainian authorities to hand over the recordings to the Dutch investigation board.

Did you find out the difference between an airway and an FIR yet? What about the range of a VHF transmission and the likelihood that these transmissions could be picked up by another ATC agency? Or the idea that because its called Eurocontrol you can just contract one ATC controller and he will give you directions to cross the whole of Europe?

InTheTrees

KahBoom wrote: »

If some proposed evidence hasn't been verified by an impartial third-party, then you have no credible evidence

What impartial third party?

InTheTrees

smurfjed wrote: »

It will be up to the Ukrainian authorities to hand over the recordings to the Dutch investigation board.

To the Dutch? What about the ICAO?

And why havent they already handed them over?

KahBoom

InTheTrees wrote: »

I said if there is no independant verification then what?

All thats left is trust right?

If you don't have independent verification, you discard the 'evidence' - because you have no idea if it's just a lie, like with the Iraq WMD claims.

KahBoom

InTheTrees wrote: »

What impartial third party?

That's irrelevant - I don't have to identify a third party.

InTheTrees

smurfjed wrote: »

Did you find out the difference between an airway and an FIR yet? What about the range of a VHF transmission and the likelihood that these transmissions could be picked up by another ATC agency? Or the idea that because its called Eurocontrol you can just contract one ATC controller and he will give you directions to cross the whole of Europe?

Funny guy.

Did you learn what a VOR is yet? Or how VHF is used for navigation?

Do you understand the functions of Air traffic control? And that you can talk on the radio to someone in another country?

:pac:

InTheTrees

KahBoom wrote: »

That's irrelevant - I don't have to identify a third party.

Oh? Why it is irrelevant?

You're connecting the legitimacy of the investigation to its independance so it is relevant isnt it?

Or is russia plannng on dismissing the results whatever they may be?