News and theories about the missing Malaysian plane

.

Well, they might have put airline safety on the back burner while they try and figure out what went wrong here.

 

It was led by Ukrainian air traffic control though the area. Surprisingly, it was flying right over the area where Ukrainian government troops (estimated 5-7 thousand man, 120 army vehicles) are surrounded and completely blocked by the rebels since 14 July. Much smells like a provocation and attempt to change the situation in Ukrainian government favor.

Also another interesting point: 1-2 days before the same flight was using the route much further South.

Another interesting: just one hour before the accident National Defense Council of Ukraine made a statement claiming that rebels are in possession of surface to air missile systems.

 

Assuming the risk was only from shoulder-launched missiles that cannot reach airliner cruise altitudes now looks reckless. Obviously airlines are very keen to fly the shortest route to save fuel, even to the point of ignoring risk.

 

Earlier Ukrainian Army deployed Buk surface to air missiles in the area. There were also reports that one of Buks was captured by the rebels, but not sure about its condition.

In any case it is highly irresponsible to allow planes fly there; there was AN26 transport Ukrainian air force aircraft shot few days ago.

The question is always: who's benefit? The answer is clear: West-backed Ukrainian Government. Given international media resource, they can blame rebels or Russia in shooting the plane down.

 

Airspace should have been closed to international traffic, there are seemingly several parties culpable in this.

 

Right. The story behind is: for last few days, Ukraine used military transport aircraft to drop cargo/ammo/food/bottled water to its surrounded and demoralized troops. One of these aircraft AN26 was shot few days ago at altitudes reported 3500m (by rebels) to 6000m (by Government), there are photos of wreckage and video where one of pilots is interviewed. Then, Ukrainian air traffic control directed the B777 exactly though the area... It does not really matter who shot it; definitely the criminals are who directed the plane there.

 

According to press reports, international flights traversing the area dropped from 300-odd to about 100 daily after the turmoil started a few months ago. Some decided to take the risk apparently, I suspect most passengers would have no idea they were over-flying the area where planes were being shot down.

 

it adds a lot of fuel costs to fly around a whole region, so they do not make the derision lightly to fly around unless there is a good reason.

Typically where the commercial flights originate and are heading to countries where they have no alliance or allies involved figure it is "not their fight", and commercial carriers make the decision to over fly or not. Most will stay away from the area, but also consider at the altitudes commercial carries fly, it takes advanced weapons systems to reach that high from the ground, usually controlled by a responsible government. Also, there will always be very severe consequences (economic as well as military) for any country shooting down a commercial transport, particularly with permission to over fly the area. It is a calculated risk. But as one can see, not always "responsible" parties will be in charge of such weapons systems.

and we also have the possibility that one party or another, intentionally "set up" and commercial flight to create just such an event, calculating that it would help "their cause" if their deception is not detected.

You see this kind of using non-combatants as s human shield to launch attacks in the middle east right now. when children are killed when the counter attacks comes, than they use gruesome footage and the internet to "prove" the other side is the "evil" one. Many ignorant people fall for this propaganda, calling the country or people that defend themselves "baby killers", etc. However, under international law, using non-combatants in such a way is a war crime. Those that use civilian populations to create "victims" are the criminals, not those that launch the counter attack. The perpetrators should get a tribunal and get publicly executed (if the international community can ever get their act together).

In the case of Ukraine, there were several high altitude transport aircraft used to resupply combat troops in the area, which would be a legitimate target. Presuming the weapons operators know what they are shooting at, and what flights are in the area (or else they might even shoot down their own aircraft). If they claim that they thought the commercial flight was a ruse to get supplies to military assets, so they shot it down "to protect their interest", it will not hold up because of the extensive records keeping. This is the exact argument I have heard coming out of Moscow. Without any international leadership (including the United States "fundraiser" and chief), not likely this will be resolved properly. With strong leadership, all of the civilized countries will organize against the perpetrators and force them to end the hostilities and make them agree to terms, and even have foreign troops enforce those terms.

If civilized countries do nothing about international incidents like this, than the barbarians will have their way with the innocents. From now on all carriers will fly around the area, and many will cut off trade and diplomatic relations. That will do little if there are some countries that will not go along with sanctions, so a show of force may become necessary. If the international communities can muster the back bone to do it. Unfortunately, that kind of leadership will not be forthcoming from the United States any time soon.

 

Petros, what I see every day is that 'civilized countries' created this situation and brought Western-backed Nazi to power in Ukraine last February. Then, my area - the Crimea - split off. Now Ukrainian government is shelling the cities in Eastern Ukraine with heavy weapons, just yesterday about 44 civilians killed in Lugansk by Ukrainian army, but this is not seen by 'civilized countries'. This accident with airplane is evidently a provocation in favor of Ukrainian government. After catastrophic defeat of Ukrainian troops in Eastern Ukraine, the government is trying to retake control of the area, create media background and can now call for NATO intervention.

 

Interesting to read your perspective. So much speculation and accusations passes as "news" it is difficult to know what is really happening. I do not know of any western backed powers contributing to the situation in Ukraine, but it is possible if there is some large financial interest. (could you elaborate?).

But I would not call any country "civilized" if they are willing to sacrifice people and a recognized sovereign country for their benefit.

Can you explain what Putin's claim of "protecting Russia's interests" in Ukraine means? That keeps being repeated, but I do not know what "interests" are there that would not be best secured by agreement and trade rather than funding a war.

 

I'm thinking that maybe instead of two sides to this (and just about every other) story, there might be 10 or 15 and none of them are the whole story and none of them are wholly 'right'.

 

No way that plane was targeted by the rebels knowing it was a civilian airliner, there was nothing in it for them to do that.

 

Petros, definitely there are some interests.

1. Ukrainian Russians. In Ukraine, officially 18% of population (2002) are native Russians and about the same of mixed Russian-Ukrainian origin living mostly in East and South; Russian is home/preferred language in 80% of families and native language for over 50% of population. But Russian is not a national language! It got the status of 'local official language' in 2012 in some provinces, but the first thing the new government did just one day after the coup is they canceled this status. This is closely connected with cultural ethnicide which was the policy of Ukraine for last 23 years.

2. The Crimea. First, there is Russian naval base (Sevastopol and some others) and about 16,000 Russian servicemen permanently present in the area. In February 23-26 tensions started in Crimea where native Russians are the majority (62% by ethnicity, over 90% by language), and finally the province split off. Imagine if Canada cancels status of French in Quebec - what will happen next day? In February, Ukrainians sent nationalists from Kiev who joined with radical Crimean Muslims, so 2 pro-Russian activists were killed and number injured during standoff in Simferopol on 26th. After that, 2 days, armed pro-Russian activists captured the Crimean Parliament building, the parliament voted for independence from Ukraine, and basically Ukraine was kicked out with strong support of the locals. My parents were there during referendum on March 17 where 90% voted to join Russia in and they say they have never seen such enthusiasm - people with flags, flowers, election sites very crowded. So what the Western media say about 'Russian occupation of Crimea' is not true; the move had strong support of the locals and we have been dreaming about this since 1992-1994 when Ukraine suppressed the Crimean independence movement.

3. Ukrainians in Russia. About 3 million Ukrainian citizens live and work in Russia permanently. Russia granted special rights to Ukrainian citizens for entering and working in Russia.

4. Borders and gas transit. Russia is interested to have friendly relations with its neighbors and gas-transit countries. No one is interested in confrontation - there is long border.

5. The Maidan coup. The Maidan movement has been backed by the West from the beginning, with cash flow and Western politicians speaking on stage, etc. And note - it was done exactly during the Winter Olympic Games in Russia, so Russia had limited opportunities to act. The current government of Ukraine is clearly a party of war with open Nazi involvement, Nazi is used as police in Eastern Ukraine to suppress the rebels, and under direct control of the West, and everything they do is to provoke Russia. Actually, what I see they are provoking armed Russian invasion for some reasons. If You look at events in Ukraine during last mounts, You will see terrible burn of pro-Russian protesters in Odessa on May 2, explosion on gas pipeline in Poltava province, storm of Russian embassy in Kiev with Ukrainian Minister of foreign affairs Deshitsa present on site and singing 'Putin is d..khead' with the crowd, idiot prime-minister Yatsenuk who declared they will 'claim the refund for unfair gas prices since 2010 in court, and thus will not longer pay for consumed gas' and many other things. Recently, they started shelling Russian territory in the South with 2 civilians killed, and 2 border police soldiers were killed by Ukrainian regiment which crossed the Russian border, etc. These guys are brainless but they feel they can do anything since they have been promised something by their Western sponsors. This is just my opinion, they can shoot down the plane without any hesitation. The same as they evidently had shot few dozens their own supporters in Keiv around Febraury 20 and then blamed Yanukovich regime for that.

Coming back to the airplane, again, the media situation now is in favor of Ukrainian government. It should be noted that we look at the same flight tracks on 14-16th July, they were much to the South. The conclusion is clear - the plane was led towards war zone by Ukrainian air traffic control.


So any ideas?

 

But this is easy; see who got the contract for shale gas from new government:
http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-...hell-to-halt-shale-wells-in-restive-east.html

And this is interesting, 'private citizen' is involved:
http://eaglefordtexas.com/news/id/81656/ukrainian-gas-company-hires-joe-bidens-son-2/

 

First some general information. I may not share the actual numbers, but for the sake of calculation we can regard the cost to the airline of the crew, the fuel, and the fees as being substantially identical. This is for long haul international flights, not short ones. Calculating TAROC (Total Airplane Cost of Operation), the overall cost of fuel, the overall cost of crew (including training, pensions, and all other charges), and the overall cost of landing fees, overfly rights, and all other taxes etc, are all exactly the same percentage of overall TAROC or operations costs. Other costs are included in TAROC, like maintenance, cost of money, depreciation, etc, but these are other percentages. This means that fuel economy alone is not the deciding factor, though reducing weight might be. Fees are all based on airplane weight, as are crew salaries, landing fees, fuel burn, etc. Hence the press for lighter airplanes.

Overfly rights are such big business, that some countries, in particular the ‘-stans’ around the black sea, probably earn more from airplanes flying overhead than actually landing in their countries. Ukraine might have been similar; i know Russia reaps a pretty penny from their overfly rights, mainly due to polar routes.

As far as i know, no one ‘tells’, or even can tell, an airline where to fly or not to fly, least of all the United Nations. Its a bit like a Pilot on a boat, pilots advice, but captains orders. Exactly the same on an airplane, controllers advice, captains orders. Now, just like today, cruise ship captains (the only ones I'm familiar with, and then only a little) are subject to all kinds of ‘advice’ from their head office staff, and airplane captains are the same. In other words, the captain files and flies the route previously agreed with his head office staff. All airlines, especially the bigger, international ones, have a staff of meteorologists, and other experts, to advise on possible route structures. These people are also contracted to the US State department, and/or other similar organizations in England, Canada, Germany, France, Israel, Russia, etc, for information on the latest in terrorist or other activity. I don't say they are all associated with the American State Department, or even that they listen, but such services are available, even direct from Boeing.

Basically an airplane files a flight plan just before takeoff, describing the route they intend to take, turning points, heights, etc, though in fact it is legal to change the flight plan in mid flight, more on this later. Per the original flight plan, the airplane PIC (pilot in command, effectively the officer of the watch, representing the captain) notifies each regional controller as he is leaving one region, and entering another. Classically, in this forum, when Malaysia Flt 370 signed off with Indonesia, and failed to sign on with Singapore. The standard language is English, and though heavily accented, and complete with radio interference, usually quite legible. Though technically each controlled region is supposed to get a teleprinter message from the flight plan filing airport, the controllers are quite used to the airplane turning up before the flight plan notification does. Teleprinters are still used partially because it leaves a paper copy at both ends, all date and time stamped. The actual controllers often use the teleprinters actual paper tape slipped into a small aluminum “chip” sliding in a rack on their desk as an indicator of the plane, the chips physical position representing the physical position of the plane.

When very long range operations were introduced, many airplanes could not quite make the full flight with full reserves, so they would ‘file’ for a closer airport, then refile in flight as conditions allowed. For instance, a DC-10/30 could not get from Heathrow (London, UK) to LAX with full reserves, so they filed their flight plan from Heathrow to Las-Vegas. If they struck an unseasonable headwind, then they did have to land in Las Vegas and top up the tanks, missing their connection in LAX. This happened sufficiently infrequently, that airlines accepted this as a risk of doing business. More normally, if the plane experienced little or no wind, or better yet a tailwind, they ‘re-filed’ their flight plan probably somewhere over Canada, to LAX. They could do this ‘re-filing’ because they now had enough reserves to get to LAX from over Canada.

There has been a very real danger for many years from shoulder launched infrared homing anti-aircraft missiles. The Russian “Strella” or SA-7 having been distributed by the millions, and fairly freely available in Middle Eastern bazars. Fortunately they need strange batteries, and an even stranger gas supply, and so far no one has come up with a suitable substitute. Equally, all western equivalents also require specialist batteries, and sometimes gas, so are equally hard to use. I say this because aircraft are very vulnerable during landing and climb-out, and even a rocket grenade (unguided) could do serious damage.

To hit an airplane at 34,000ft requires a bit of technology, and some training, even now. Though a lot of older anti-aircraft missile systems could do this, their radar and fuel/battery requirements are mostly gone now, so making one operational would be very difficult. Equally, successfully launching a newer, i.e. currently operational somewhere, missile requires the coordination of several people, scattered over a fairly wide area, and needs fairly intensive and specialist training as well. Note, the detection radar is rarely the guidance set, and they are usually spaced some miles apart, even if the guidance set and launch apparatus are more or less adjacent. Note; its just too easy to send an air to ground missile down the guidance beam and knock both out.

We have fitted ECM (electronic counter measures) suites, and/or Infrared jammers to quite a few of our commercial airplanes, but i may not share details.