At the 10.30 mark you can see the missile impact on the plane.
Large portions of the NYT article were rewritten after first publication this morning.
The BUK missile shrapnel flies perpendicular to the missile's direction. It is a simple geometric task to show how that shrapnel has also hit the left engine and clipped the left wing with the direction of the shrapnel damage there matching the direction of the damage to the pilot cabin.
Can you really get that info before hand(well I guess one can access previous flight plans) ? If the passengers knew that, would have they cancelled their trip ? I certainly would have.
Never the less, the risk assessment was bad and too many people died that day.
Should a war be blamed for being a war?
Or should companies be blamed for being too greedy and put passengers at risk to save a few thousand dollars ? I think the latter makes more sense.
That question is not new and is rather simple to google, see for instance http://www.wsj.com/articles/how-to-find-the-route-your-plane...
I dislike the message here, which shifts the blame on the victims (the captain who chooses the flight path, and who was killed). The blame belongs with the operators of that BUK system.
(Incidentally, this victim-blaming has been one theme of the Russian troll factories, and this in turn implicates Russian leadership in my eyes.)
Yes, it's obviously moral fault of whoever operated that BUK system. But flying over an active warzone where planes have already been shot down shows lack of practical wisdom. So while only one side gets to be called evil, the other side can be justly considered irresponsible.
More readily available AA weapontry is only good against low-flying targets and it was thought at the time that the "rebels" did not have high-end military equipment from Russia. That's an intelligence failure, granted, but not irresponsibility by the airline.
I think there's 0% chance of your ticket being refunded if you don't show up at the gate, and serious chance of finding yourself on a no-fly list if you do show up and refuse to board. Probably near 100% if you are vocal about why.
Keep in mind that most passengers of MH17 were not business travelers. This was at the start of the summer holidays, so many families were travelling together on a holiday. Even if you would have known the flight path, would you have canceled your family holiday (and lose the money) for the perceived risk? Keep in mind that even that day, 159 out of 160 civil flights crossed Ukraine succesfully.
Just to pick a random example: Flight TK7900 IST-SIN is up in the air right now (19:32 GMT on Oct 13, 2015). For a picture of the route, see this.
Over the past few hours, it crossed from Turkmenistan/Iran to Afghanistan a bit north of Herat, crossed the country, passed south of Kabul, then went on to the Pakistani tribal area south of Peshawar, and continued across the hostile Pakistani-Indian border just south of contested Jammu and Kashmir, and then continued over India. There's plenty of conflict in these areas.
Then it was on the Indian Ocean, far away from anyone who could rescue it should something happen to it. Right now it is passing Andaman Islands. If it were forced to land due to multiple engine failure, the passengers perhaps would meet the Sentinelese people.
And I think Turkish Airlines is perfectly OK to do all this. Should someone shoot down the plane, I know some people would blame the airline. But I would only blame those who shoot it down. It's not okay to shoot down airplanes. Commercial airplanes are not valid targets.
If only reality worked that way. In real war, everything is a potential target - sometimes civilians get hurt by mistake, other times because one side decides to take advantage of the "rules" above and e.g. hide weapons in hospitals.
In general, if an area of land is a warzone and it's known there are anti-aircraft missiles deployed, and there are confirmed shootdowns of aircrafts in the area, you don't fly over that area. Flying there shows lack of practical wisdom. You're betting lives over desperate people following some arbitrary rules and not making any mistake.
In general, exposing yourself willingly to significant danger is stupid, and if anything happens to you, you can't avoid some part of responsibility.
But it was not known there was anti-aircraft missile capability until April 14th (a few days before the MH17 crime). You're making the exact logic fallacy that the DSB criticized in its report.
All incidents from before that Antonov downing on the 14th were done using MANPADS (i.e. shoulder-carried missile launchers). These don't reach high altitude. The information about the new capability wasn't relayed quickly enough to commercial aviation authorities (I don't think the DSB identified a reason for the delay).
Instead, the DSB argued that risk assessment for fly/no-fly decisions should not only include known risks, but should also account for unknown risks (say, the speculation that the rebels did have anti-aircraft capability).
(edit: although another source says that the rebels' STA capability was known since June 29th)
The report is quite clear : the Ukrainian authorities were aware of the threat, and had good reason to close the airspace BEFORE this happened. This is in fact one of the few pieces of blame being laid out here.
That means the only real remaining question is whether the Ukrainian authorities were using commercial flights, and the lives of thousands of passengers as human shields to safeguard their military aviation in the area, were they trying to provoke Russia into shooting down commercial planes or was it merely a monumental fuckup ?
It seems we'll keep seeing every attempt being made to shift the blame on Ukraine, not the ones who actually decided to pull the trigger. Russia is active in stopping an investigation to find out who it was. That tells me a lot.
Passenger planes routinely fly over conflict zones. A plane flying at >10 km cannot be mistaken for a fighter-bomber. Unless the operators of BUK were, well, drunk, which is still what I suspect, but equally irresponsible.
This doesn't mean the Russians shouldn't have cooperated better.
(BTW I'm Dutch.)
All I'm saying is the company flying over east Ukraine put its passengers in danger for the sake of saving fuel which I find as disgusting as the attack itself.
You're somehow suggesting that i'm a "putin-bot" and a russian troll which is insulting and ridiculous.
Closing the air space would look like sign of loosing control over situation in country from the official govt side.
So this looks like not "too busy with other things", but more like miserable politics.
Which, of course, is why Russia have been spinning this since day 1. Where did the missile system come from, and who operated it? On that day, both the Russian News and the rebels' twitter account reported downing a (what they thought military) plane. Both items were quickly redacted afterwards.
they had it since end of June when Donetsk BUK battery was captured. Using those BUKs during the first half of July before the MH-17 the rebels dawned 2 Ukrainian AN-26 transport planes which were flying at about 7km height, much beyond the reach of MANPADs. The MH-17 was flying much north of the civil corridor and the rebels thought that they got another AN-26.
June 29, 2014
Russian source http://www.vesti.ru/doc.html?id=1741703
(In English http://sputniknews.com/voiceofrussia/news/2014_06_29/Donetsk...)
Pro-Ukranian source http://www.unian.net/politics/934238-boeviki-chastichno-zahv...
Somebody's personal twitter mentioning capturing of the BUK systems in Donetsk https://twitter.com/lennutrajektoor/status/48328116547931340...
Read the tweets, people were clearly saying that airlines need to stop flying over Ukraine now.
no, rebels had never had such capability, i.e. planes and Russia didn't ventured the planes in.
>although I can't read them
There are also some tweets in English down on the twitter page i linked. Also you can Google translate it. The capture of the BUK systems was well communicated on both sides - in Russian and Ukrainian news at the time, before the MH-17. There was also another Ukrainian BUK battery captured in Luhansk, though there weren't much traces of it after that.
This is BBC http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334 on the second AN-26. I remember how in those days we were amuzed at the stupid propagandist version put forward by Ukraine that it was a SAM from Russian territory - it would have needed at least a C-300/400 missile which would be recorded by all the NATO radars/satellites.
"On 6 June 2014, [..] an Antonov An-30B had been downed using a MANPADS at an altitude of less than 4,500 metres near Slavyansk. On 14 June 2014, [..] a Ukrainian Air Force Ilyushin 76MD had been downed during landing at Luhansk [using a MANPADS]. During the weeks that followed, other incidents occurred in which a helicopter (Mil Mi-8TV, 24 June 2014) and fighter aeroplanes were shot down. On 1 July an attempt was made to down a Su-25 UB and on 2 July 2014 a Su-24 was shot at. Both were allegedly targeted by a MANPADS."
Would you say this information is a fairly complete summary, or have there been more (unconfirmed) shootings?
"On 14 July, three days prior to the crash of flight MH17, a Ukrainian Air Force transport aeroplane, an Antonov An-26, was downed in the Luhansk region, [..] was flying at an altitude of 6,500 metres when it was hit [..] according to the Ukrainian authorities the aircraft must have been hit by a ‘more powerful weapon’ than a MANPADS.
The Ukrainian government assumed two possibilities: a modern anti-aircraft system ‘Pantsir’ or an ‘X-24 Air-to-air missile’. The authorities assumed that it was a weapon fired from the Russian Federation, because the armed groups would not have such weapons."
I'm curious about the Ukrainian response here. Did they not consider the possibility that the rebel forces would be able to operate their BUK, or was it willfully ignored?
the list is a bit short, and if you look at page 182 of the report (or wikipedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Ukrainian_aircraft_los...) you'll see 2 su-25 shot down on July 16. One of them was shot down at 6-8 km altitude. This time Ukraine blamed a Russian plane (which was never sighted nor attacked anything else nor had any other traces left nor there were any other signs of Russian planes in other situations/places. To compare - we know that Russia helped rebels with tanks and soldiers as there is ample evidence of this. You can't hide planes in the age of smartphones/YouTube/twitter/etc - all the aspects of this war are very well documented there).
it was the issue of propaganda and responsibility (imagine yourself an officer in the chain of command related to the captured BUKs). 2/3 of their Navy switched allegiance to Russia. Other regular forces also didn't have much enthusiasm for fighting. Ukraine claimed that the captured BUK systems were made un-operational before being captured. Which as far as i know - my general understanding of the situation and various sources i've read - is just not true.
EVA Air Flight 88 (Paris to Taipei)
Singapore Airlines Flight 351 (Copenhagen to Singapore)
Air India Flight 113 (New Delhi to Birmingham)
On second thought, I wonder if an airline can elect to not fly on certain corridors because they declare a risk?
Bank tellers are often instructed to comply with the demands of a robber. If the teller instead sets off the alarm, locks the doors, and tries to fight the robber and the teller gets shot, sure, the teller is the victim and the robber should not have shot the teller. But the teller was also taking an unnecessary risk by trying to fight the robbery. If the teller had handed over the money, chances are the robber would have taken it and left without anyone getting hurt.
That is not victim blaming, that is stating the facts. People can take steps to minimize their risk of becoming a victim. If they do not take those steps and as a result are injured in some way, it's prudent to explain how they could have avoided the negative outcome.
Don't shoot down passenger planes flying over your war. But also, don't fly passenger planes over an active warzone.
the rebels were constantly attacked from the air. They were shooting back using what was available to them - MANPADs and once they captured it in June - BUKs. It is obvious from their celebratory tweets first half-an-hour after shooting down the MH-17 that they were thinking it was one more military transport plane of Ukraine.
Ukraine was using air forces for ground attacks. Obviously they should have closed the airspace, especially after their BUK systems were captured by rebels. That Ukraine was using air forces and that their planes were being shot down by SAMs more powerful than MANPADS was well known as well as it was reported in international news sources too (http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28299334). So airlines shouldn't have been flying there even without Ukraine failing to close the airspace.
Of course they can. But it could be that alternative corridors also have their risks, or may have a significantly longer flight time.
I dunno how else they could go, though.
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.
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 ...
A transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) is the same as a TEL but also incorporates part or all of the radar system necessary for firing the missile(s). Such vehicles have the capability of being autonomous, greatly enhancing their effectiveness. With this type of system, each vehicle can fight regardless of the state or presence of support vehicles.
“quite likely the operators mistook the Boeing 777 for a large Ukrainian military transport aircraft” — yeah, I also think so. The important difference with Flight 655 and MH17 is USS Vincennes was there legally. The cruiser wasn’t smuggled to some international terrorists who say they’re independent freedom fighters, like it happened with Buk M1 which downed MH-17.
"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.
The report isolates the region the missile could have been launched from, based on the damage pattern from the warhead's projectiles and MH17's flight path, to a very small number of square kilometers, all of which are firmly ensconced in separatist territory.
These missiles have a fairly short range.
The report and the missile's Russian manufacturer agree about the very limited number of missile models that the warhead could have been mounted on.
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.
Until MH-17 there was no reason to believe separatists had any high altitude anti-aircraft weapons.
It could. They shot other planes before.
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.
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/
"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"
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.
Or, the more likely explanation, they thought it was a military plane like the several they shot down in the weeks prior...
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.
Do they do it just from the pattern of debris, or do they use other methods as well. I think I got that they can use the microphones in the cockpit to work out the direction the missile fragments came from, but not quite sure on the details.
Thanks in advance!
I don't know much about supersonic fluids. For anyone interested in following this up, here is a paper on "Reproduction of Virtual Sound Sources Moving at Supersonic Speeds in Wave Field Synthesis":
Planes are too fast and too maneuverable. Especially military planes — SAMs weren’t actually designed to down civilians. That’s why missiles have proximity-based detonators, so called “proximity fuze”, to explode at the right moment.
BTW, here’s 8 minutes video about the history of that technology: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Kq_Uy5hGazc
Summary of video: USA developed the "VT fuze" proximity fuse used initially in ship based AA fire; improved efficacy rates from 2400 down to 400 rounds needed to down an aircraft. First used over ground at the Battle of the Bulge.
According to the source, the report says it was a Buk missile -- a Russian surface-to-air missile -- that was used, launched from a village in Russian rebel controlled territory. "
Whether the missile happened to have been fired from one of the 3 villages within that area, or from unincorporated territory is basically irrelevant to the report's main conclusions. And whether some CNN reporter, or his editor, may have fudged a bit on this basically irrelevant detail (shortening "fired from an area near village X" to "fired from village X"), even more so.
From which "evidence points to pro-Russian rebels as being responsible" is hardly an unreasonable extrapolation. It's a very reasonable extrapolation, in fact.
So I still don't see where the "outrageous lie" was.
They seem to have done a lot of good work trying to track the launcher down and analysing the evidence that was available to them, though I haven't been following their reporting. Without the physical evidence being analyzed the link between the BUK and the plane was strong but not confirmed.
Here an subtle but strong example : http://www.sott.net/article/302911-Sott-Exclusive-Full-unedi...
Further, to even entertain this question, you have to believe that Ukraine positioned BUK launchers in the most heavily contested part of the country, in areas which were apparently held by rebels just weeks earlier.
This does not look like a serious controversy. The rebels shot the plane down.
Only the Russian side has these BUKs. One of the key findings is which specific warhead version was used. The report doesn't spell out who did it, it does however conclude that a BUK missile from the Russian military shot down the plane.
That BUK may have been stolen or on holiday in eastern Ukraine.
How is that even logical?
These are discontinued older model BUK missiles.
Meaning only a place like Ukraine would have them in any significant numbers.
I'm sure there are a few of these still around here and there, but no one is lying about the production stop that happened 16 years ago (that can be verified many ways).
Those pictures are sourced from -
And they are still up.
It's not much of proof of anything.
As far as the other 2 whole pictures at parades, etc, well, that's proof of itself that these missile models are dwindling in numbers and are a rare sight.
For every 1 of these decommissioned missiles that Russia still posses, Ukraine probably has 100 (considering it's always been a weapons depot for this type of older Russian and Soviet-era gear).
Nobody forced in anyone in Russia to make the easily falsified claim that they didn't have any 9M38M1 missiles. The only reason it's interesting to establish that they did is that it harms an alibi they weren't forced to offer.
The Dutch report, and a lot of other open-source evidence, makes it pretty unlikely that the Ukranians launched the missile. This is a missile system that consists of several vehicles, one of which is a giant lumbering missile launcher. The missile was launched within an 100km^2 firmly controlled by the separatists. The Ukranian military didn't spirit a missile launcher convoy to a wheat field just a few km south of Snizhne --- a town that Ukraine was bombing --- spectacularly down a jetliner, and then somehow spirit that convoy back to Ukranian-held territory. That is not a reasonable narrative.
I don't see any serious arguments that this was anything other than a tragic accident. No matter who launched the missile, we're all pretty sure they didn't mean to shoot down MH17. The subtext behind Russia's involvement is that they set up a barely-organized irregular separatist militia with a weapons system that was easily capable of shooting down airliners.
The only thing I've seen conclusively is the size of the anti-Russian rederick. Which has been of such giant proportions that less than 2 hours after the crash happened, it was made out to be all Putin's fault, and every event after was spinned that way (example - Keiv was preventing the OSCE access to the area, yet media coverage claimed it was the Rebels).
But when trying to use logic here, I don't see why would Russia shoot the plane. They had nothing to gain. Ukraine? I don't know, I refuse to believe they would deliberately kill hundreds for some advantage. My bet is on the rebels who did it mistakenly. The question is whose BUK they used. One provided by Russia or one taken from an abandoned Ukrainian base.
Your earlier comment parroted a line that is apparently popular in the Russian media, that Russia no longer uses the 9M38M1 SAM. But that missile is distinctive, and can been seen in recent photographs at Russian military installations.
I didn't say that Russia shot down MH17. I said that if they're claiming not to use that missile, they're lying. Why? What a weird thing to lie about, that's so easily falsifiable.
Nevertheless he lied about it and his ratings in Russia did not even suffer from it.
What we should remember here is that "who did it" in this matter is more a matter of who was in command and who provided the hardware, rather than who pushed the button.
This is the most likely hypothesis but there are others. Apart from the craft being downed by Ukraine (Nothing in the report points in that direction), another hypothesis one would be actual Russian personnel, rather than Ukrainian separatists, operating from inside Donetsk. That would be hugely controversial, but hard to prove.
It's possible that Ukrainian forces or someone else had a conspiracy to frame the rebels (if you have a good conspiracy theory, Russian propaganda would love to hear it). But this is very unlikely as it's a high-risk, low pay-off strategy and even Russian leaders are usually not that evil or stupid.
At the time, Kiev was complaining that Russia was sending out spy planes into its territory.
Knowing the state of the Ukrainian military, to me it's much more likely that they mistaken the plane for something it was not and shot it down.
Does anybody have an objective news sources regarding Ukraine?
Even the link above looks like Russian propaganda.
http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm OSCE Special Monitoring Mission to Ukraine. Here's the SMM's mandate:
The monitors are mandated to contribute to reducing tensions and to help
foster peace, stability and security. The Mission engages with
authorities at all levels, as well as civil society, ethnic and
religious groups and local communities to facilitate dialogue on the
ground. The Mission will gather information and report on the security
situation, establish and report facts in response to specific incidents,
including those concerning alleged violations of fundamental OSCE
http://www.osce.org/ukraine OSCE Project Co-ordinator in Ukraine
And here are the daily updates from the Special Monitoring Mission: http://www.osce.org/ukraine-smm/daily-updates
http://www.osce.org/who And to help you judge the OCSE for yourself, here's their about page. (There are 57 particpating states, including Russia, USA and Ukraine)
Basically someone messed up with a borrowed bit of heavy kit and a tragedy ensued. There will be no justice for them or their families. Poor bastards, can only hope the report is accurate and any suffering was brief.
I can't help but think though, why weren't similar measures taken with Flight 93 (Pennsylvania, 2001-09-11) or Flight 77 (Pentagon, 2001-09-11)? I don't wish to allude to any of the many conspiracy theories, but I do find it interesting to see how a "real" crash investigation is done, as opposed to what we've been told about 9-11.
Here's a 600 page report with over 100 pages of footnotes. The first chapter deals with the hijackings. You can start your research there! http://www.9-11commission.gov/report/911Report.pdf
In later chapters, there's a lot of discussion about the terrorist group that planned the hijackings, and not much discussion on missile ballistics. That's because the former happened as a matter of fact, the latter is pure fantasy.
So what would you like to see? A detailed analysis of all of the ways the plane did exactly what you'd expect? Do you think the onus is on the investigators to disprove conspiracy theories? It's like you want a report called "Why it wasn't a missile: a detailed report on how Flight 93 looks like what you'd expect if terrorists hijacked a plane and crashed it into the ground."
You're asking others to disprove your hypothesis, for which there's no evidence in the positive, while ignoring competing evidence. This is the hallmark of bad conspiracy theories.