Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?
While there are various questions that have already emerged from what
was supposed to be Ukraine's "slam dunk" proof confirming Russian rebel
involvement in today's MH-17 tragedy, perhaps one just as gaping
question emerges when one looks at what is clearly an outlier flight
path in today's final, and tragic, departure of the Malaysian Airlines
Perhaps the best visualization of what the issue is, comes from Vagelis
Karmiros who has collated all the recent MH-17 flight paths as tracked
by Flightaware and shows that while all ten most recent paths pass
safely well south of the Donetsk region, and cross the zone above the
Sea of Azov, it was only today's tragic flight that passed straight
Why is the diversion from the traditional flight path and passage over
the highlighted zone a concern? Because as the following map from the
WSJ shows this is precisely where the restricted airspace is.
So perhaps before coming to "certain" conclusion about the involvement
of this rebel or that, the key questions one should ask before casting
blame, is why did the pilot divert from his usual flight plan, why did
he fly above restricted airspace, and just what, if any instructions,
did Kiev air control give the pilot in the minutes before the tragic
On Friday, July 18, 2014 9:14:17 AM UTC-4, H o m e G u y wrote:
The fallacy here is that the south is the "safe" area. Actually, AFAIK,
all of the Ukraine airspace was open to air traffic above 32,000 ft. And
in fact it was the southern portion of the airspace,
that the USA and UK civil aviation authorities had issued NOTAMs to
avoid at any flight level. That concern apparently was over who controlled
that airspace, which includes Crimea, rather than concern about missles.
Russia was claiming that it now controlled that space. And those NOTAMs
only applied to USA, UK airlines or any other countries that might choose
to follow them.
If those flight paths are indeed true, I agree it should be determined
why the flight path was more northerly. But all you have there are 10
previous flight paths, not hundreds covering months. Not a whole lot
to base anything on, at this point.
That map is totally lame. They just put the word restricted on it without
any deliniation whatever. My understanding is the restriction from European
authorities was over *all* the eastern Ukraine airspace *below* 32,000ft.
And above 32,000ft it was not restricted.
Yes, all that should and will be investigated. One of the most basic
questions is why airspace was open at all in a conflict region where
planes have been shot down with SAMs and where there is reason to believe
forces involved have missles of unknown max capibility.
Meanwhile, where is your concern about some of the obvious things:
The Russian rebels have shot down several planes in recent weeks,
boldy taking public credit for it. They also proclaimed "Don't fly
in our skies". Just a week or so ago, before that started happening,
they proclaimed that they had acquired the Buk missle system from
a Ukranian military base they captured. And they have gleefully
claimed that they have the black boxes and they are on their way to
Moscow. At the same time, they are denying access to the crash site.
That is just what they themselves have freely admitted, there is even
more intelligence data that shows what they were up to.
Instead of starting to come up with possible conspiracy angles that
involve air traffic control intentionally sending the plane to it's doom,
how about focusing on the 12 ft elephant in the room?
On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 07:00:00 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
The story that the news was reporting yesterday is they requested the
northerly path to avoid weather.
The NOTAM issued by the US may have been because we knew the
insurgents were getting the BUK systems but it was not common
I don't see much mystery here. It just looks like the fog of war and a
bad decision by MAL to fly too close to a war zone. It is apparent now
that with the systems available, there is no safe altitude above a war
On Friday, July 18, 2014 10:43:06 AM UTC-4, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
From what I have seen the NOTAM had nothing to do with missles
period. It was because both Ukraine and Russia were claiming control
over the airspace around Crimea. If you don't know which authority
controls the airspace, it would make sense to stay out of it. And
the NOTAM area is fairly small, around Crimea.
Who exactly made the decision that it was safe to fly above 32,000 but
not below it, and how, is an interesting one. It just seems incredible
that some aviation authorities would determine that it was safe. On
what basis? The rebels had openly taken credit for shooting down several
planes and I think the highest one was over 20,000 ft. So, how does
anyone decide that 32,000 is safe? How could they know what exact
missles the rebels do or don't have?
But I agree there is no need to go to vast conspiracy theories when just
dumb, bad decisions have been found as the root cause almost all of the
time. I was watching a show on NAt Geographic about past aviation disasters.
They had a crash at the airport in Taiwan where a 747 tried to take off
at night in heavy rain, wind close to the max permitted, during a monsoon.
They were so caught up in worrying about all that, they managed to turn
off too soon onto a closed runway and struck eqpt near their rotation point.
The thing there that was incredibly dumb was that the runway had been closed
for repairs for months. Yet there was no barracade, nothing at the entry
point to indicate that it was closed. And they also had it lit with the
normal runway lights..... That would seem to be about as dumb and totally
irresponsible as you can get, but they did it.
A good question in the current case is whoever fired the missle, what
exactly did they think they were shooting at? If they targeted that
plane, IDK why they would think it was a Ukranian military plane. It
was at 33,000, heading into Russia, just 50KM from crossing the border
on it's way out.
The bottom line here is that the guy with his finger on the Launch
button violated the First Law of gun ownership, which is:
If you're not 100% certain of what you're aiming at, DON'T SHOOT!!!
Put this one in the same bag as "I thought he was a deer."
The US paid some blood money but never apologized for the 'I thought it was
a tomcat' moment. Of course, the crew of the Vincennes were fine, upstanding
sailors who made a tragic mistake, and the Ukrainian separatists are
I think the reality is something like if Jeeter and Cletus stole a Patriot
system and started pushing buttons without RTFM. Zapping a Malaysian
commercial liner full of Dutchmen isn't a win in anybody's book withoit
spinning out some very convoluted false flag operation.
I don't think there is much mystery here. We seem to know what
happened and all of this investigation is just gee whiz information
about what happens when a Buk missile hits a 777
I wouldn't be surprised if there was some quick "Russian justice"
where they grab a couple rebel fighters, give them a quick "trial" and
shoot them. Then Putin can say "case closed, we took care of it".
How's you eBay account?
You probably can pick up a low mileage Tu-95 cheap. The neighbors might be
upset since those counter-rotating props make it one on the noisiest planes
ever built but it's a real workhorse.
I wouldn't fly it over easern Ukraine though.
Well put. It's also a good reminder about who we're dealing with. Some are
terrorists willing to die (and make others die) to promote their cause.
Then, we're also dealing with the double-dealing Sovs, who have a history of
subterfuge which they're continuing by using soldiers without insignia and
shadowy operations as far as the eye can see. I'd consider people on all
sides (it's hardly just two sides ever anymore) are rash thinkers. So many
people could be behind this. It will probably never be adequately sorted
I treat this the way I treat computer evidence. Unless you actually see
someone typing specific keys or pressing the launch button on a video, it's
very, VERY hard to prove beyond a reasonable doubt who really did what. I
see computer evidence entered into court that's completely untrustworthy yet
it passes muster because no one knows any better. We could get lucky and
the idiots who did this videoed themselves pushing the buttons and watching
the missile strike but short of that, that crime scene is mobile, multiple
and extremely contaminated.
I suspect that there are two or three guys on a major shi+ list that will
find themselves accused and convicted of the offense as Gfretwell suggested.
Law enforcement over there is a little lax and a lot bribed.
This is also the kind of stupid act one side would just love to "pin" on the
other to discredit them. It could be so many different things that it's
sadly inevitable that convoluted explanations will be growing like mushrooms
on a wet log.
I'll bet that part of the world is literally crawling with people who are
not who the say they are. Every intelligence agency in Europe and the CIA
probably has clandestine assets on the ground, there are Russians pretending
to be Ukranians and I am sure vice-versa. On top of that, we have
journalists interpreting almost everything we know.
This is actually a wake up call that this conflict has gotten out of hand
and needs to be resolved. Rope off Putin and Russia and the Ukraine from
the rest of the world for a while and let their oligarchs whine about how
bad business and travel has become for them. That will do it. Putin rules
because they support him despite what he makes it look like.
Fortunately modern air travel has lessened the number of casualties from
such incidents so it's hard to turn a downed aircraft into a cause for war
the way the Lusitania was. Now, no passenger planes should be allowed to
fly into either country until the legitimate governments of both countries
reach (and enforce) an agreement.
Of course, I could be easily persuaded that it was a Sov missile launcher
and so it was the Sovs who are ultimately responsible. I wonder what it
takes to ensure these systems can NEVER be used to target a civilian air
liner? Probably a bad idea, anyway in case you have to shoot down a
kamikaze attacker like 9/11.
KAL007, the Iranian Airbus and many other airliners have gone down as
mis-perceived threats or "deliberate" accidents. I think another might be
joining that list.
Yeah, it's just a bunch of guys that got together with the latest Russian
military hardware (that the rank and file Russian soldiers don't even have)
and who somehow ALL forgot to put their nation's insignia on their uniform.
That's if you believe Putin and I don't even think Putin believes Putin
You pretty much hit the nail on the head there.
When you fly MAS you are not flying on a normal airline. You are
flying on a bankrupt vessel of the Malaysian Government. A Government
that makes the Third Reich look like a teddy bear's picnic.
I disagree though about your comment about 'would have happened to any
other airline departing from Malaysia'. Don't understand that bit.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 06:14:41 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:55:01 PM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
Are you really sure you want to make that comparison? And from what I
understand it's a publicly traded company, the govt owns about half of it.
In international aviation, I don't think that's unusual at all.
I went a little off track there. My point was that most of the bungling
of important matters with MA370 was coming from the Malaysian govt officials
in charge of the investigation, not the airline. They had control of the response and the crash investigation, not the airline. So, for example, the initial confusion
that followed for several days, where the Malaysian govt pointed the search
in the South China Sea, could have and likely would have happened without
regard to what carrier it was. If it was a Korean Air, Singapore Airline
or Lufthansa, that took off from KL, the response in the hours that followed,
would likely have been pretty much the same. They would have had to rely
on what Malaysia was saying their civilian and military radar showed. And
initially, Malaysia said that the civilian radar ended exactly when
everything else went dark, so it seems very reasonable that the search
would have started at the same place, which turned out to be totally wrong.
Where I went off track was that had it been a foreign airline, then that
country would have been in charge of the subsequent investigation. That
probably could have saved much of the public missteps, backtracking, etc.
Not sure how much time it would have cut off the search though. They still
would have been at the mercy of the Malaysians, who for example were
reluctant to allow anyone to see their military radar tracks of the flight.
They may have taken exactly the same position if it was Lufthansa that
was running the investigation, ie they may have refused for days to allow
them to see it too.
Back to the main issue of what airspace is cleared, deemed safe and by
who, I had CNN on today. Their reporter said that the organization that
represents most of the international carriers, (think it was IATA), issued
a statement a few days ago that said the position of it's member airlines
is that they don't determine which airspace is safe, that it's entirely up
to civilian govt aviation authorities.
And I'm sure you'll love this. On the news last night they showed the
flight path taken yesterday by Malaysian Airlines from KL to London.
It went right over Iraq and Syria. And again, I think if you look, you'll
see that most, maybe all airlines that fly routes where that is the shortest
path, do the same. It's deemed safe by whatever govt authorities have
control over it and permitted.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:17:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Yes very very sure. Racial discrimination is not only considered
normal in Malaysia it is actively encouraged by government policy.
Denialists either disappear or when they are too well known are put in
jail on a variety of dubious charges. I think the only major
difference I can see between the Malaysian Government and the Third
Reich is that the Third Reich only lasted just over 10 years whereas
the Malaysian Reich has lasted nearly 60. In part because it has been
propped up by 'the west' in the mistaken belief that it is 'friendly'.
Reminds me of a certain Mr. Chamberlain.
I would be interested to know which half of MAS the government owns. I
know about the 52 % that Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad (Malaysian
Government) owns and the 17% Khazanah Nasional (Malaysian Government)
owns and the 11% the Employees Provident Fund (Malaysian Government)
owns and the 6% Amanah Raya Nominees (Malaysian Government) owns and
the 3% State Financial Secretary Sarawak (Malaysian Government) owns
and the 2.5% Warisan Harta Sabah (Malaysian Government) owns........
Actually when I think about it the major gap in my knowledge is
exactly which shares the Malaysian Government does not own. They claim
that 5% belongs to what they refer to as 'foreign shareholders'. If
you can find out who they are then I would be very interested. In the
absence of information to the contrary I am tempted to assume that the
'foreign shareholdes' are part of the Malaysian Fuhrer's untaxed
offshore 'pension fund'. If I am right then we can at least take
comfort from the fact that at the end of the day he will be lucky to
get a few magic beans for them.
Personally I do not think that is usual for an airline. Particularly
one that tries to sell itself as living in the real world.
I admit that the Malaysian Government would have tried to hamper any
airline's attempts but I think to generalize like this is may be going
a bit too far. I like to think that after a short while any reputable
airline would have told Hishammuddin where to stick his phony press
conferences and just gone public. Considering their insurance and
other responsibilities it is difficult to imagine how the CEO of a
normal public company could have avoided doing so without risking a
The primary radar data is a good example. It was not Malaysian primary
radar data that initiated a series of questions that forced the
Malaysians to begin telling more of the story. It was THAI primary
radar data. The Thais released it to the airline (MAS). The airline
released it to their bosses (the Malaysian Government) and then kept
schtum. Their bosses (the Malaysian Government) then encouraged
several other countries to waste time and effort and put their own
lives at risk looking for an airliner where they knew themselves it
was not. What kind of airline/government does that for goodness sake?
I have performed several operational audits of (civilian) Thai Air
Traffic control and I have been told that the only reason the
Malaysians went public about their own primary radar data was because
the Thai Military gave them an ultimatum. Release your data in 24
hours or we will release ours.
If this information had been released to a 'normal' airline and the
Malaysian Government chose to keep quiet about it in their press
conferences do you honestly think a normal airline would just let it
go? Alarm bells would have been ringing right left and Centre and they
would have read the Malaysian Government the riot act. If the
Malaysians had continued to obfuscate then some whistle blower at the
airline would have released the details (after having been secretly
ordered to do so by the CEO).
But MAS? What choice does it have?
It IS the Government.
As said above the Malaysian radar data was not significant. It was
only released after they were threatened with exposure. By the time
the Malaysians (sort of*) released their own radar data everyone
already knew what had happened. The key fact was that MAS being owned
by the Malaysian Government was not willing to say anything that went
against Government Policy and so kept quiet about critical information
that had nothing to with national security only national trying to
save egg on face.
*I say sort of because the Malaysian Government has still not actually
released it, along with most other things concerned with MH370
(Particular the cargo - they have released dribs and drabs but not the
full details. National security? ROTFLMAO).
I think I said previously that I am not too much bothered about routes
unless some volcano is blowing it's top. There is always going to be a
risk. When I choose an airline (in general) the route is not going to
feature much in my selection process. I focus on is it non stop and
the airline not the route. And IMO anyone that would fly MAS needs to
seriously reconsider their selection criteria.
I don't know if it's relevant but if I am totally totally honest the
reason I told my employer that I would never fly MAS ever again (at
the risk of losing my job) was just a feeling. Malaysians and
Singaporeans can be very similar in my opinion. They are arrogant,
rude, loud and obnoxious. But SQ seem to have it right when they hire
staff. I would fly with them any time. But MAS? Sorry, no way. If you
want to fly Malaysian Government Airways then good luck. You'll need
There are only 2 airlines that I can think of that are worse than MAS.
- British Airways
If I was given the choice between flying MAS, BA or QF I honestly
think my head would explode.
On Wednesday, July 23, 2014 3:00:29 AM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
If that is the only difference you see, you need a history lesson.
I'm sure I'm not the only one here that finds the comparison offensive.
I was unaware that the other companies were also Malaysian govt agencies.
So, you're right that the airline is owned almost entirely by the
Malaysian govt, through one agency or another. Not that it's unusual
or really matters.
Even if MA was a private company based in Malaysia, the same Malaysian
officials would have been in charge of the crash investigation.
And see their business booted out of the country? And gone public with
what exactly? The Malaysian govt had almost all the pertinent data:
civilian and military radar tracks that were critical, communication with
ATC, communication with other countries, ie Thailand, Vietnam, Chinaa
Considering their insurance and
Jail sentence? There is nothing criminal in following the law that says
the Malaysian govt officials run the investigation. On the one hand you
claim that the Malaysian govt is like the third reich, then you expect
airline execs to overrule them, interfere in the investigation? Sounds
like that is far more likely to get you a jail sentence.
AFAIK that is incorrect. In fact, why aren't you blaming Thailand for
incompetence and/or lying too? For 10 days they said they had no radar
the missing plane. By the time they changed their story, the search had
already moved to the Straits of Malacca anyway and all they did was confirm
that they had a radar track of an unknown plane going that route.
"Thailand Shares MH370 Radar Data That Could Have Been Really Helpful a Week Ago"
I've never heard this version and it makes no sense. Why would Thailand
be talking to the airline, instead of Malaysian govt investigators leading
Their bosses (the Malaysian Government) then encouraged
If you have credible evidence that Thailand actually told Malaysians
early in the investigation that they had radar contact I'd be happy to
see it. AFAIK Thailand vigorously denied having anything, until about
10 days after the plane went missing, by which time the search had already
moved to the Straits. And why no blame for Thailand? Either they didn't
know they had a radar track or they didn't tell Malaysia for 10 days,
(the correct version AFAIK), or else they told them much earlier and sat back
and watched the world search in the wrong place for 10 days (your version).
Which still says nothing about the timeline. Was that at day 1, 2, 10?
I don't believe that data is normally released to the airline period.
It would be by Thai aviation/govt authorities to Malaysian investigators
conducting the investigation.
Alarm bells would have been ringing right left and Centre and they
I'd like to see an example of another crash or missing plane investigation
where the airline took on the govt of the country that it's operating in,
regardless of who actually owns the airline. Maybe it's happened, somewhere,
but I've never seen it and there are obvious reasons why any airline would
be very reluctant to do so.
OF course it was significant. Good grief. It's what showed the plane
had turned back and flown across the Straits.
Not from the stories I followed at the time. The sequence of events was:
The search area started in the South China Sea, because that is where
all normal contact with the plane was suddenly lost. After several
days of searching there, Malaysian officials announced that their military
radar showed an unknown target that could be MA370 heading across to
the Straits. The search moved there on day 4. Thailand continued to say
it had no radar contact data. Only 10 days later did Thailand finally say
they did have data and by then the search had been going on in the Straits
and Indian Ocean for almost a week.
And assuming Malaysians did have the Thai radar data early on, as
you claim, what exactly is the rational motive for searching in the
The key fact was that MAS being owned
You're assuming that Malaysian airline officials had some Thai radar
data that the govt did not. Already discussed why that scenario makes
no sense to me. But if you have some credible evidence that shows that,
I'd be happy to see it.
Which again they could do with any crash investigation that they control
regardless of the carrier.
Well then your logic makes no sense. You said the passengers of the MH17
should take some of the responsibility for the crash because they chose to
fly on Malaysian Airlines. The fact that it was MA was purely by chance.
It was the fact that it was flying over the Ukraine, in airspace that was
open by European authorities, that lead to the crash, not actions by
MA that were any different than those of any other airline. At least AFAIK
and you've come up with nothing here to refute that. To be responsible
and avoid the crash, passengers would have to vette the safety of the
flight path of the flights they are going to take.
I focus on is it non stop and
Then you would have avoided the doomed flight by *chance* not by
some act of being responsible.
None of which has anything to do with the plane being shot down.
Similary, if a BA plane went down, shot out of the sky, would you be
saying the passengers on it deserve the blame, they should have been
responsible, because you don't like BA? Good grief.
On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 05:39:57 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
Not the only difference, but really how much do you want me to write
about the disgusting Malaysian dictatorship?
One 'party' that wins every 'free' 'election' in 60 years? Please. If
they are that good then why don't we just get them to run the world?
Most countries don't seem to be happy with what they have. Why not
just have the Malaysian system instead?
You may not be the only one here who finds the comparison offensive
(although I am failing to see anyone rushing to your defence) but (and
I am trying to break this gently) you know sometimes crazy despots do
take offense to things they don't like being told.
I know many many people who would NOT take offense to what I said.
They are mostly* Malaysian.
*For the record every (and I mean EVERY) Indonesian I know would agree
with me. I just wish they had the guts to do something about it, and
Let's invade Afghanistan, let's invade Syria, Let's invade Libya, Lets
invade Iran, Let's invade Iraq (again) let's invade ...... in order to
give them democracy. But let's just conveniently forget about
It is not unusual and does not matter
I am sorry if I am losing my rag here but (remember to breathe,
remember to breathe) after an airline disaster there is something
called an air crash investigation. National Geographic have done a
pretty good series on it which is available on You Tube if you are
As with all investigations the CRITICAL CRITICAL CRITICAL (did I
emphasize critical enough?) thing is INDEPENDENCE. If there is any
potential conflict of interest then any investigation results are
So a Malaysian airliner belonging to the Malaysian Government goes
missing and the Malaysian Air craft Investigation (department of
Malaysian Government) are charged with investigating.
AND YOU DO NOT THINK THAT MATTERS???????????????????
What ******* planet are you on?
Agreed but you forgot to say incompetent, corrupt Malaysian officials.
And I know FOR A FACT there is no Malaysian on this earth who is not
in the Malaysian Government that would disagree with me on that. In
fact most (if not all) of the Malaysian Government would agree with me
also but they would probably not want to go public with it. That is
why it is better to avoid MAS. With other airlines there is a much
better chance that following an incident more information will leak
out, despite the Malaysian Government's attempts at stopping it; and
hopefully that would lead to more effective corrective action being
taken and less likelihood of recurrences.
If you fly MAS then you are trusting your life to an organisation that
literally does not care whether you live or die. Particularly if you
are of Chinese descent.
That is why I said reputable. There are airlines that are bigger than
tin pot dictatorships like Malaysia. They would no doubt try to reason
with the Malaysian ****holes for a while but eventually they would
pull the plug if their internal processes were being seriously
The jail sentence I was referring to was for telling lies to an
insurance company. All airlines that fly internationally have to have
insurance. It is a basic requirement. A requirement of insurance
validity is that you tell the truth. If you do not then it is possible
(to put it mildly) that your insurance cover goes whoopsy down the
If any CEO (even in Malaysia) started to tell porkies like the
Malaysians then they would run the risk that their insurance would not
pay out. One of the potential consequences would be bankruptcy of the
airline and prosecution of the staff for false representation.
I am perfectly willing to admit that this is possibly one aspect of
the MAS tragedies that actually works in the passengers' favour. Since
I assume the insurance was with a Malaysian Government agency and even
if the insurance company refuse to pay out the Malaysian Government
probably will to save face.
So maybe more likely to die but at least your kids will get an
education. Maybe they could use that in their next advertising
campaign. I hope I get some royalties. I'm thinking 'we've only just
begun' for the music.
OK so I am privy to a little bit more information than you.
I don't think I would be in a rush to accuse Thailand of lying or
incompetence. In fact I would congratulate them for kicking Malaysia
up the ****. They negotiated with Malaysia for a long time. OK Maybe
they left it too long. But at least at the end of the day they did the
right thing and it resulted in Malaysia finally coming a little bit
What Malaysian Investigators? Are you referring to Hishammuddin (i.e.
the guy that lied his ass off since the beginning?). I have to admit
that I do not know the international protocol that is supposed to be
followed in such situations. All I have been told is that the Thai
Military got sick and tired of trying to deal with the Malaysian
Government and told the airline directly.
I have no objective evidence what so ever. Just word of mouth from
people at Thai ATC that I have known for a very long time and have
learned to trust.
They DID tell them. Immediately as far as I can make out. What exactly
went on behind the scenes meanwhile I am afraid I do not know.
I am not sure what you mean by no blame for Thailand(?). It was a
Malaysian aircraft departing from Malaysia and not going to Thailand.
(Did it even enter Thai airspace at any point?) Why not blame Myanmar
and Vietnam? They probably had some radar data too but were too afraid
to stand up and be counted. At least Thailand did something albeit
I thought we were discussing why not to fly MAS. Not why to not fly
MAS if it's flying anywhere near Thailand. Should we include
Madagascar possibly? Mexico? Portugal?
I have to admit I do not know. From the impression I got it was given
to MAS on the day the aircraft went missing.
I refer to my comments above.
It is not normally the function of the airline to take on a
government. The airline normally stands back and tells the truth while
an independent investigation team try to work out what happened.
Air crash investigators occasionally take on governments (Silk Air 185
comes to mind) but not normally airlines. The airline is just expected
to provide all information and tell the truth.
However I think the point you are missing is that when it comes to MAS
and Malaysia that is where the whole process breaks down. It is NOT
NORMAL. It is a freak airline in a freak jurisdiction and the truth is
the last thing that is likely to happen.
No the Thai data did that. The Malaysian data simply confirmed it once
they had been forced to reveal it. I expect you also believe it was
only carrying Mangosteens.
And these 'stories that you followed at the time' were coming from
where exactly? Did they smell of Mangosteens at all?
I wish I knew. I assume it was a delay tactic to let them try to work
out what the official story was going to be.
No no no no no. Sorry to be a bit aggressive but that is simply false
and frankly an attempted manipulation.
I assume a lot.
I assume MAS knew what the cargo was before lying about it.
I assume MAS did not keep quiet for hours after it's disappearance
because they were afraid to wake up any babies on board
I assume MAS were furnished with Malaysian Government primary radar
I assume MAS knew about the Inmarsat data long before the Wall Street
Journal confronted them
I assume they knew that the last communication was not the co pilot
saying 'all right good night'
All I remember saying was that MAS kept quiet about critical
information that was nothing to do with National Security. It was you
that assumed everything else and you know what they say about assume -
it makes a complete ******* *** out of MAS and the Malaysian
PS regarding the radar data I am not really assuming it. I might not
have documented objective evidence but I trust the people that have
told me and while that may not hold much sway with you there is no
question in my mind that it is factual and I do not consider myself a
complete idiot when it comes to talking to people I have been an
auditor for more than 30 years and it would take a very fly auditee to
get one past me. Not impossible but pretty unlikely IMO.
That is just an argument for not going anywhere near Malaysia let
alone MAS. I have no disagreement with that.
Glad we agree on something at last.
You could very well be correct regarding MH17. But how will we ever
reliably know? The data recorders will probably tell us ***BOOM***.
When what we really need to know is the exact details of what they did
and why they did it. Maybe it was all perfectly innocent and normal
and just a tragic event that MAS are in no way responsible for. But as
I hope I have explained that would rely on concise, factual,
objective, truthful explanations from MAS and the Malaysian
Government. But I am afraid if this comes as a shock to you but it
really does rain in Indianapolis in the summer time.
So you already have the results of the MH17 air crash investigation?
Sorry to bother you but would it be possible for you to post a PDF
copy to this site or some file sharing sire. Thanks.
I know. I did say I don't know if it's relevant. OK so I knew it was
not relevant but I always like to give BA and Qantas a dig whenever
possible. The reason being that although they are (relatively) safe,
they are complete, total and utter ****. I will save my explanation
for another thread since I see someone else has asked why I hate them
On Friday, July 18, 2014 9:18:32 PM UTC-4, rbowman wrote:
I'd say until we know who exactly was operating the missile system, who gave
the order, what the intentions were, it's a bit early to draw comparisons.
One obvious difference already is that the USA quickly admitted that it was
the Vincennes that shot it down. We didn't try to claim that the Iranians
shot the plane down. And if those intelligence intercepts of communications
between the rebels and Russian military are accurate, you also have them realizing they shot down a civilian plane, looking at bodies, and dismissing it, saying "F... them, they were sending us spies...." At this point, we
don't know that the intention wasn't to just shoot down *any* plane, without regard to what it actually was.
Like a little kid playing with grown up's toy? Another bottom line,
air lines always try to save fuel, take shortest course. Even there
was a rumor, pilots get bonus if (s)he saves fuel. If my plane is
flying, I'd avoid danger zone at all cost.
HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.