Why was the Malaysian plane flying over a known trouble spot anyway?

originally posted by: stormcell

originally posted by: Expat888
An attempt to save on additional fuel costs that result from flying a different route ..

If they were wanting to save fuel, why where they shipping 1300kg of lithium batteries? Wouldn't it be cheaper sending them by land transport?

This bit I don't understand - lithium batteries are shipped from Malaysia to China, but they are also shipped from Europe to Malaysia. Why?

That's just freight paid for by a customer. Every international plane you've ever been on is also carrying mail/goods etc that's unrelated to the passengers.

As for the batteries, they're probably European made parts for non-consumer use such as hospitals or whatever.

originally posted by: thirdcoast
a reply to: Zaphod58

Is there a possibility you are wrong? Were you there? Are you active in the military? Do you have sources? Are your sources military personnel?

you should know that if he is in military or ex military, chances are he is a goverment plant / shill that will never comment beyond what US goverment told him to say,and he will always attack people who have differing opinion.

i thought after 9-11 people should know better than to trust US goverment... WMD in iraq , we attack , no WMD ? full speed ahead damn the world's opinion.. invade , kill, steal , install puppet... the modus operandi of USA so transparent it took a reallly deluded person to think US goverment is not evil

a reply to: milomilo

And who exactly have I attacked? I wasn't aware that questioning things people say is an attack.

a reply to: milomilo

you should know that if he is in military or ex military, chances are he is a goverment plant / shill that will never comment beyond what US goverment told him to say,and he will always attack people who have differing opinion.

Now other than calling names can you provide any evidence they did file a flight plan that took them on a different route, because as of right now all you are doing is assuming and speculating.

And it's not attacking someone...it's called Denying Ignorance try it sometime.

originally posted by: tsurfer2000h
a reply to: milomilo

you should know that if he is in military or ex military, chances are he is a goverment plant / shill that will never comment beyond what US goverment told him to say,and he will always attack people who have differing opinion.

Now other than calling names can you provide any evidence they did file a flight plan that took them on a different route, because as of right now all you are doing is assuming and speculating.

And it's not attacking someone...it's called Denying Ignorance try it sometime.

whats the point ? some of you americans are so close minded and never even try to think outside their "american exceptionalism" arrogance. Is the delusion that bad even after the 9-11 false flag you still believed your goverment is the pillar of democrazy and all thing good?

if you want to stand by your irrational faith in the US goverment and follow it to the end , then by all means go ahead and enjoy this last ride..

a reply to: DupontDeux

That doesnt make alot of sense when tge risk is high and the money.you will lose from law suits and loss of a plane and pilots is far greater than the fuel.

Not saying its.not true, but.if they cant afford to go around a war zone.they might as well close up shop.

a reply to: tsurfer2000h

Why i am not surprised are you going to defend the Candyman In Kiev till he gets removed by the real Ukrainian people?

a reply to: Apollumi

I think your right there mate.

someone earlier in the thread said they went lower to avoid a storm. But to my best knowledge I have never seen a thunder storm at 33,000 ft level. Most T-storms are hardly ever over 11,000ft. 29-35K is pretty clear skies to fly in. I think the lower altitude because of storm is just someones guess rather than factual.

a reply to: ChesterJohn

They didn't descend at all. If you look at the track on Flightaware they actual climbed as they were over the Ukraine.

originally posted by: Zaphod58
a reply to: ChesterJohn

They didn't descend at all. If you look at the track on Flightaware they actual climbed as they were over the Ukraine.

oh I believe you. It was something an earlier poster said. I just didn't quote it at the time as I was reading through the thread which is a few pages along now.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Still though, they only flew a thousand feet over a "no fly zone". It was restricted at lower altitudes.
Ny times

a reply to: violet

Irrelevant. They were still above the restricted airspace. A thousand feet is as good as three thousand feet or more. Above it is above it is above it.

a reply to: Zaphod58

Apparently a thousand feet did matter.

A. BUK missile doesn't need to be a direct hit, the shrapnel is all it takes . How far can this shrapnel go, once released? Can bits of it fly upwards another thousand feet?

Is it because a Buk missile wasn't taken into consideration?

If there's this alleged evidence a Buk missile launcher had been captured or stationed, shouldn't they have altered the route sooner?

a reply to: violet

The 31,000 feet was set because of MANPADS known to be in the region. That altitude is well above any max altitude for a shoulder fired missile.

The BUK was known to have shot down a military plane on the 14th, but it takes longer than that for action to be taken by the ICAO governing body. It's still essentially a government organization, only in this case it involves multiple governments, which means time.

It might even have taken that long for then just to get word it was there and used in that incident.

originally posted by: ChesterJohn
someone earlier in the thread said they went lower to avoid a storm. But to my best knowledge I have never seen a thunder storm at 33,000 ft level. Most T-storms are hardly ever over 11,000ft. 29-35K is pretty clear skies to fly in. I think the lower altitude because of storm is just someones guess rather than factual.

That may have been me that said that. I heard about a storm on CNN weather report, thet they altered a route.
I went with the assumption of a descent, because I was once on a flight where the pilot announced we are gong to descend to avoid lightning. This was 1969. We landed in Bangor Maine, previously DOW AFB . Soldiers everywhere. I don't know if it was a destined shop over or emergency landing. I was only 9. Given the airport , it makes it more curious.

ETA
After some research, I found out it was the remnants of a big hurricane
So did this pilot lie to us?

a reply to: violet

Not necessarily, thinking about it. The most common lightning strike for a plane, upon reflection, is a cloud to cloud bolt. If you descend then you may be able to avoid them.

a reply to: Zaphod58
Ok thanks for the info.
That flight has boggled my mind for years. Not too often a civilian flight lands at an army base. I don't recall any rain. We disembarked on the asphalt surrounded by soldiers

At the time of the crash, FR24 has identified:

MAS17 - B772 - 9M-MRD - Amsterdam -> Kuala Lumpur
Singapore Airlines - SIA351 - B772 - 9V-SVI - Copenhagen -> Singapore
Singapore Airlines - SIA333 - A388 - 9V-SKS - Paris CDG -> Singapore
Austrian Airlines - AUA660 - F70 - OE-LFI -> Rostov-Vienna
Eva Airways - EVA88 - B77W - B-16713 -> Paris CDG - Taipei
Aeroflot - AFL2074 - A320 - VQ-BBB - Moscow -> Larnaca

Those were in the area the shoot down occurred. To the South of that area was:

Jet Airways - JAI118 - B77W - VT-JEH - Bombay -> London Heathrow
Virgin Atlantic - VIR301 - A333 - G-VRAY - Delhi -> London Heathrow

FR24 Facebook