Malaysian 777 Passenger Airline Shot Down Over Eastern Ukraine

originally posted by: DaFunk

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DaFunk

It takes longer than three days for word to get spread, and for an agency like ICAO to act. On the day of the shootdown alone over fifty flights operated over the Ukraine, and all told several hundred went over just in those three days.

The news was posted on CNN on the 15th.

These Airlines have noone monitoring the news of the volatile areas they fly across every day? The pilot himself is not the least bit interested?

A lot of people involved, had to have known by the 17th.

Trust me this ran faster than a wildfire though the airlines, they knew as fast as we did at least in America. AND were aware of flying there.

originally posted by: DaFunk
a reply to: Rosinitiate

But still they decided to fly across it?

Honestly, most airlines are über cautious regarding flight path carrying a plane load of citizens. If for no other reason than the companies bottom line, i.e., the cost of each lawsuit sure to come from the families of loved ones. It'll hurt pretty bad not to mention the "lost" flight as well. I don't know if Malaysia Air is government or private owned off hand but the likely survivability rate of the carrier is slim to none. Who's going to want to fly on it?

As for the airline policy for travel over war torn Ukraine, I honestly don't know but not at all in line with what I know regarding airline policies. I've worked in the travel industry for over 10 years.

a reply to: DaFunk

The ICAO doesn't have anyone monitoring phone calls.

Let's not forget that this plane crash is also a perfect opportunity for let's say not so official agencies to infiltrate the area for intelligence gathering.

a reply to: judydawg

The airlines get their threat assessments from the ICAO for that area. They knew if they watched the news, but until the ICAO closed the airspace as far as they knew it was still safe.

originally posted by: roadgravel
a reply to: GargIndia


You are the one defending the the actions of the rebels. Other countries, neutral, should have been let in. The rebels say no.

problem is just what countries can be considered neutral? most western and western backed nations have been all parroting the one side of information automatically damming the pro Russians without any real evidence. while the countries left would not be trusted by the west. so just who could we say is impartial in this that people would actually trust? would you say trust China, Iran, or North Korea?

a reply to: Zaphod58

It is clear to everyone that this is totally besides the point.

a reply to: DaFunk

ATC tells the aircraft where to fly, are you implying that the ATC deliberately sent MH17 in the wrong path? That is almost a perfect copy of a certain 007 film where a UK destroyer was diverted into foreign waters by manipulating the radar position.

a reply to: Rosinitiate

They made the decision based on what the ICAO told them, which was that it was safe above 31,000 feet.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: judydawg

The airlines get their threat assessments from the ICAO for that area. They knew if they watched the news, but until the ICAO closed the airspace as far as they knew it was still safe.

It is not really about them closing the air space, well it also is, but the pilot and the airline had to have known too, why pick that course?

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: judydawg

The airlines get their threat assessments from the ICAO for that area. They knew if they watched the news, but until the ICAO closed the airspace as far as they knew it was still safe.

which just points out the fault of this whole thing rests with the ICAO, for not shutting down the airspace and gambling with civilian's lives.

a reply to: DaFunk

So it's ok for someone to make claims but not to say something counter. Got it.

a reply to: generik

The airlines had the choice of not flying through there, regardless of that. They chose to anyway. Just because airspace is open doesn't mean you have to go through it.

a reply to: bigfoot007

I am not really implying anything, just asking questions and making observations, trying to make sense of things.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: generik

The airlines had the choice of not flying through there, regardless of that. They chose to anyway. Just because airspace is open doesn't mean you have to go through it.

Anybody calculated the cost savings on fuel flying this route over avoiding it?

a reply to: DaFunk

Because since the start of this conflict it had been just as safe to fly over the Ukraine as it had been to fly anywhere else in the world. They gambled and it bit them in the ass.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: DaFunk

So it's ok for someone to make claims but not to say something counter. Got it.

No you haven't got it. I made a joke. You responded to it with a serious comment. It was besides the point.

a reply to: moobie

This route is the standard route they would fly over the region. I don't have exact numbers, but I'm betting it'sa pretty good bit of difference in cost.

originally posted by: Zaphod58 Just because airspace is open doesn't mean you have to go through it.

nor that you have to avoid it.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: moobie

This route is the standard route they would fly over the region. I don't have exact numbers, but I'm betting it'sa pretty good bit of difference in cost.

We have a saying..

Penny wise, pound foolish.