Malaysian Airlines plane down over Ukraine/Russia border [SEE ADMIN WARNING ABOUT PICS/VIDS]

[Bob Loblaw]

I wonder how long it will take before the Australians agitate for the next World Cup to be stripped from Russia, just so their woefully own underdeveloped football infrastructure can host it.

 

Embarrassing.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

I wonder how long it will take before the Australians agitate for the next World Cup to be stripped from Russia, just so their woefully own underdeveloped football infrastructure can host it.

 

Jesus, you even live in Australia.

[deesidejambo]

Its simple - its a war zone.

 

In war zones planes are attacked.

 

The MAS pilot would have been aware it was a war zone.

 

Why was he flying directly over it?

 

The real blame here is on MAS- the rebels did not intend to bring down a passenger plane. From their perspective it was a tragic mistake and not deliberate.

 

The MAS Captain however should have known better than to route over this area.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Its simple - its a war zone.

 

In war zones planes are attacked.

 

The MAS pilot would have been aware it was a war zone.

 

Why was he flying directly over it?

 

The real blame here is on MAS- the rebels did not intend to bring down a passenger plane. From their perspective it was a tragic mistake and not deliberate.

 

The MAS Captain however should have known better than to route over this area.

 

One word - bollocks.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

One word - bollocks.

 

Correct

[rossthejambo]

Its simple - its a war zone.

 

In war zones planes are attacked.

 

The MAS pilot would have been aware it was a war zone.

 

Why was he flying directly over it?

 

The real blame here is on MAS- the rebels did not intend to bring down a passenger plane. From their perspective it was a tragic mistake and not deliberate.

 

The MAS Captain however should have known better than to route over this area.

 

What a load of shite.

[deesidejambo]

One word - bollocks.

 

Why? You think the rebels deliberately targetted a plane, knowing it was a civilian jet?

[Guest GhostHunter]

Its simple - its a war zone.

 

In war zones planes are attacked.

 

The MAS pilot would have been aware it was a war zone.

 

Why was he flying directly over it?

 

The real blame here is on MAS- the rebels did not intend to bring down a passenger plane. From their perspective it was a tragic mistake and not deliberate.

 

The MAS Captain however should have known better than to route over this area.

 

Oh good grief.

 

One of the most ridiculous posts I've read this year.

[Dusk_Till_Dawn]

Leeds student among the dead.

[Guest GhostHunter]

Leeds student among the dead.

 

It was the pilots fault.

 

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Why? You think the rebels deliberately targetted a plane, knowing it was a civilian jet?

 

I think they deliberately targeted a plane.

 

However, they didn't know it was a civilian jet.

[Boris]

Its simple - its a war zone.

 

In war zones planes are attacked.

 

The MAS pilot would have been aware it was a war zone.

 

Why was he flying directly over it?

 

The real blame here is on MAS- the rebels did not intend to bring down a passenger plane. From their perspective it was a tragic mistake and not deliberate.

 

The MAS Captain however should have known better than to route over this area.

One word - bollocks.

Correct

What a load of shite.

 

While ultimate blame lies with who pulled the trigger, I can see the argument that civil aircraft should not have been flying through a war zone just in case an event like this happened.

 

I heard an interesting piece on this topic this morning. Far cheaper for the airlines to take this route due to fuel.

 

So while the airline aren't to blame as such, you have to question the logic in flying over Ukraine at this point in time.

[Guest GhostHunter]

While ultimate blame lies with who pulled the trigger, I can see the argument that civil aircraft should not have been flying through a war zone just in case an event like this happened.

 

I heard an interesting piece on this topic this morning. Far cheaper for the airlines to take this route due to fuel.

 

So while the airline aren't to blame as such, you have to question the logic in flying over Ukraine at this point in time.

 

The route was cleared by the authorities, so why wouldn't they fly over it ?

[Boris]

The route was cleared by the authorities, so why wouldn't they fly over it ?

 

In case what happened, happened? US & European air agencies had issued warnings regards flying over Ukraine as far back as April.

[rossthejambo]

In case what happened, happened? US & European air agencies had issued warnings regards flying over Ukraine as far back as April.

 

From what I heard yesterday and have read since, there has been absolutely no suggestion that there would be anything other than fighter jets going about., which is what the warnings were about.

[deesidejambo]

I think they deliberately targeted a plane.

 

However, they didn't know it was a civilian jet.

 

Correct. So, again, from their perspective, they have made a mistake. That is agreed. Mistakes happen in war. Everyone knows this.

 

So again, the captain, knowing that this was a war zone, and knowing that mistakes happen in wars, chose to fly directly over it.

 

This accident could have simply been avoided by not flying over a war zone in the first place.

 

Sorry if this simple truth is not acceptable to you on this thread but it is correct nevertherless.

[blairdin]

Its simple - its a war zone.

 

In war zones planes are attacked.

 

The MAS pilot would have been aware it was a war zone.

 

Why was he flying directly over it?

 

The real blame here is on MAS- the rebels did not intend to bring down a passenger plane. From their perspective it was a tragic mistake and not deliberate.

 

The MAS Captain however should have known better than to route over this area.

 

You're not seriously blaming the flight crew for flying along an internationally recognised air corridor? You know, the corridor that commercial airliners are supposed to fly through?

 

Unbelievable...

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

In case what happened, happened? US & European air agencies had issued warnings regards flying over Ukraine as far back as April.

 

Based on the info they had, 33,000 feet was a safe cruising height.

 

That info was, tragically, wrong.

 

I feel sorry for Malaysian Airlines in this. Apportioning blame to them is ridiculous.

[Boris]

From what I heard yesterday and have read since, there has been absolutely no suggestion that there would be anything other than fighter jets going about., which is what the warnings were about.

 

That would be enough for me to take a diversion, to be honest. And if fighter jets, a logical step to reasonably expect SAM's?

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Correct. So, again, from their perspective, they have made a mistake. That is agreed. Mistakes happen in war. Everyone knows this.

 

So again, the captain, knowing that this was a war zone, and knowing that mistakes happen in wars, chose to fly directly over it.

 

This accident could have simply been avoided by not flying over a war zone in the first place.

 

Sorry if this simple truth is not acceptable to you on this thread but it is correct nevertherless.

 

Oh FFS! This is an international air corridor. No height regulations were broken, nor were they off course.

 

As I said above, the info that all airlines had was that this was a safe cruising height. Apparently, that info is wrong.

 

In context, I last flew home in 2010. Obviously Ukraine hadn't blown up then but we did fly over Afghanistan. Whilst flying over it, I thought nothing of the chances of something on the ground affecting our aircraft. I'm sure this was the same for this flight.

[Ibrahim Tall]

Right I might be being daft here but the "excuse" is that they mistook it for a Ukrainian military transport plane? Why exactly would a Ukrainian military transport be flying toward Russia a very short distance from the border? And they would have known this as from what I've read the system tracks the target it's not just a case of aiming and shooting.

[blairdin]

Correct. So, again, from their perspective, they have made a mistake. That is agreed. Mistakes happen in war. Everyone knows this.

 

So again, the captain, knowing that this was a war zone, and knowing that mistakes happen in wars, chose to fly directly over it.

 

This accident could have simply been avoided by not flying over a war zone in the first place.

 

Sorry if this simple truth is not acceptable to you on this thread but it is correct nevertherless.

 

The one people we can say with absolute certainty who are completely blameless are the flight crew. What part of that are you struggling with? He flies the route given to him by air traffic control first, and by his airline second.

 

I hope that is simple enough for you.

[rossthejambo]

That would be enough for me to take a diversion, to be honest. And if fighter jets, a logical step to reasonably expect SAM's?

 

Fair point.

 

I still think it's poor to be blaming anyone in connection with the airline with this, not that I'm saying you are. They were above the advised height, in supposed safe airspace.

[deesidejambo]

You're not seriously blaming the flight crew for flying along an internationally recognised air corridor? You know, the corridor that commercial airliners are supposed to fly through?

 

Unbelievable...

 

Yes I am. The Captain and the Captain alone is ultimately responsible for the safety of the plane. The Captain has ultimate say in the flight path, whether its internationally recognised or not. The Captain knew it was a war zone. The Captain took the risk.

 

So would you now be happy to board a plane to Asia and fly the same route? Answer - No- because you now know what was obvious from the outset - that flying over a war zone incurs risk. The Captain knew that and took that chance.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Yes I am. The Captain and the Captain alone is ultimately responsible for the safety of the plane. The Captain has ultimate say in the flight path, whether its internationally recognised or not. The Captain knew it was a war zone. The Captain took the risk.

 

So would you now be happy to board a plane to Asia and fly the same route? Answer - No- because you now know what was obvious from the outset - that flying over a war zone incurs risk. The Captain knew that and took that chance.

 

I'd actually be happier flying this route. The chances of it happening again are non-existent.

[Swarlos]

 

 

Yes I am. The Captain and the Captain alone is ultimately responsible for the safety of the plane. The Captain has ultimate say in the flight path, whether its internationally recognised or not. The Captain knew it was a war zone. The Captain took the risk.

 

So would you now be happy to board a plane to Asia and fly the same route? Answer - No- because you now know what was obvious from the outset - that flying over a war zone incurs risk. The Captain knew that and took that chance.

 

Please stop.

[jambo1185]

Yes I am. The Captain and the Captain alone is ultimately responsible for the safety of the plane. The Captain has ultimate say in the flight path, whether its internationally recognised or not. The Captain knew it was a war zone. The Captain took the risk.

 

So would you now be happy to board a plane to Asia and fly the same route? Answer - No- because you now know what was obvious from the outset - that flying over a war zone incurs risk. The Captain knew that and took that chance.

 

 

Wrong. The flight path has to be approved before take-off and planes can be required to change course during flight. The captain can't just fly wherever the hell he likes on the his way to the destination (assuming he's not trying to take the plane down).

[269miles]

Its simple - its a war zone.

 

In war zones planes are attacked.

 

The MAS pilot would have been aware it was a war zone.

 

Why was he flying directly over it?

 

The real blame here is on MAS- the rebels did not intend to bring down a passenger plane. From their perspective it was a tragic mistake and not deliberate.

 

The MAS Captain however should have known better than to route over this area.

According to C4 news last night there were 3 other commercial airliners in the vicinity of the one shot down - Etihad, Lufthansa & Kazhakstan. They were all thought to be "safe" as there was no intel that the Russian backed terrorists had been supplied with anything that could down a jet at that height. But now we have a game changer and Putin has some explaining to do.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

Wrong. The flight path has to be approved before take-off and planes can be required to change course during flight. The captain can't just fly wherever the hell he likes on the his way to the destination (assuming he's not trying to take the plane down).

 

Indeed. The argument is nonsense in any case. It is like saying that by driving through Niddrie and getting carjacked it is your fault for driving through Niddrie in the first place!

[deesidejambo]

I'd actually be happier flying this route. The chances of it happening again are non-existent.

 

Thats most likely the case now, but only because the risk they were taking has tragically materialised and mitigations will be put in place.

 

Sorry if its unacceptable to all on this thread, but they did knowingly take a risk.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Thats most likely the case now, but only because the risk they were taking has tragically materialised and mitigations will be put in place.

 

Sorry if its unacceptable to all on this thread, but they did knowingly take a risk.

 

Just stop.

[bertracoon]

Thats most likely the case now, but only because the risk they were taking has tragically materialised and mitigations will be put in place.

 

Sorry if its unacceptable to all on this thread, but they did knowingly take a risk.

 

no they didn't.

 

Stop it.

 

Now

[blairdin]

Thats most likely the case now, but only because the risk they were taking has tragically materialised and mitigations will be put in place.

 

Sorry if its unacceptable to all on this thread, but they did knowingly take a risk.

 

Please step away from the keyboard...

[deesidejambo]

Indeed. The argument is nonsense in any case. It is like saying that by driving through Niddrie and getting carjacked it is your fault for driving through Niddrie in the first place!

 

Sort of. You need to personally assess the risk. Using your own example, if you had to drive through Niddrie, and in the news there were reports of increased carjacking in Niddrie, would you still go? It would be your call based on your own assesment of risk at the time, just like it was the Captains call to accept a flight route over Ukraine in this case. Whether he was routed over that area or not, he still has ultimate decision on whether to even take off or not.

 

If you went to Niddrie in full knowledge that there were increased carjackings, and you were indeed carjacked, then you would have to accept at least some culpability for your actions. No?

[Guest GhostHunter]

Thats most likely the case now, but only because the risk they were taking has tragically materialised and mitigations will be put in place.

 

Sorry if its unacceptable to all on this thread, but they did knowingly take a risk.

 

So, to clarify...are you blaming the pilot of the Malaysian Airlines plane for what happened ?

[Guest GhostHunter]

 

If you went to Niddrie in full knowledge that there were increased carjackings, and you were indeed carjacked, then you would have to accept at least some culpability for your actions. No?

 

Say what ??

 

Are you for real ?

[deesidejambo]

Please step away from the keyboard...

 

Please just put me on your ignore list. thanks.

[deesidejambo]

no they didn't.

 

Stop it.

 

Now

 

Or what? No need to threaten. just put me on your ignore list. Thanks.

[deesidejambo]

Say what ??

 

Are you for real ?

 

I believe we all have personal responsibility for the risks we take, in everyday life, even crossing the road.

 

You seem to think otherwise. You presumably believe anything that happens to you would be someone elses fault.

 

Anyway just put me on your ignore list as well. Thanks.

[Guest GhostHunter]

I believe we all have personal responsibility for the risks we take, in everyday life, even crossing the road.

 

You seem to think otherwise. You presumably believe anything that happens to you would be someone elses fault.

 

Anyway just put me on your ignore list as well. Thanks.

 

What if you live in Niddrie ??

 

And, unfortunately for me, I can't put you on my ignore list.

 

You just keep digging that hole.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Sort of. You need to personally assess the risk. Using your own example, if you had to drive through Niddrie, and in the news there were reports of increased carjacking in Niddrie, would you still go? It would be your call based on your own assesment of risk at the time, just like it was the Captains call to accept a flight route over Ukraine in this case. Whether he was routed over that area or not, he still has ultimate decision on whether to even take off or not.

 

If you went to Niddrie in full knowledge that there were increased carjackings, and you were indeed carjacked, then you would have to accept at least some culpability for your actions. No?

 

 

I grew up in Northern Ireland. When travelling, if we were advised by security forces NOT to go somewhere, we didn't go. However, if we weren't told, we would go. Why? Because you can't live your life with the fear that something might happen.

 

This pilot was told it was safe to fly. He followed the instructions.

[jambo1185]

Sort of. You need to personally assess the risk. Using your own example, if you had to drive through Niddrie, and in the news there were reports of increased carjacking in Niddrie, would you still go? It would be your call based on your own assesment of risk at the time, just like it was the Captains call to accept a flight route over Ukraine in this case. Whether he was routed over that area or not, he still has ultimate decision on whether to even take off or not.

 

If you went to Niddrie in full knowledge that there were increased carjackings, and you were indeed carjacked, then you would have to accept at least some culpability for your actions. No?

 

Your example falls down for the very simple reason that there had been no reports of increased shooting down of commercial airplanes.

 

There's a risk that every time you step on public transport someone else has a backpack full of explosives. Presumably since 9/11 you have never been on a plane or since 7/7 and Barcelona you have never been on a train? Or do you consider that if you were to be blown up on your next journey it would be your own fault, because following your logic you have "culpability" for getting on board in the first place?

 

This whole thing is absolutely horrendous, and no lives are more valuable than others, but to have lost some of the greatest medical minds in the fight against HIV is a huge set-back.

Edited July 18, 2014 by jambo1185

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

And also on "personal responsibility". Who is responsible for pulling the trigger? The guy actually firing the missile or the superior officer?

 

In addition, does this "personal responsibility" also apply to women who get raped? Should they take "personal responsibility" for their actions too?

[jambo1185]

And also on "personal responsibility". Who is responsible for pulling the trigger? The guy actually firing the missile or the superior officer?

 

In addition, does this "personal responsibility" also apply to women who get raped? Should they take "personal responsibility" for their actions too?

 

Following his logic I believe it must actually be the passengers fault for getting on the plane in the first place.

[Deevers]

 

 

 

Sort of. You need to personally assess the risk. Using your own example, if you had to drive through Niddrie, and in the news there were reports of increased carjacking in Niddrie, would you still go? It would be your call based on your own assesment of risk at the time, just like it was the Captains call to accept a flight route over Ukraine in this case. Whether he was routed over that area or not, he still has ultimate decision on whether to even take off or not.

 

If you went to Niddrie in full knowledge that there were increased carjackings, and you were indeed carjacked, then you would have to accept at least some culpability for your actions. No?

Sorry this arguement is flawed in so many ways. I think you should stop digging now!

[scottish_chicP]

 

If you went to Niddrie in full knowledge that there were increased carjackings, and you were indeed carjacked, then you would have to accept at least some culpability for your actions. No?

 

By far the most stupid logic I have ever heard.

[deesidejambo]

What if you live in Niddrie ??

 

And, unfortunately for me, I can't put you on my ignore list.

 

You just keep digging that hole.

 

Same principle applies, if you live in Niddrie, and there are reports in the news of increased carjackings in Niddrie, you have to assess, personally, when and where to go out. You may have many options -

 

Juyst go anyway and hope for the best.

Don't go at all.

Only go at certain times

Take the bus

Move to Sighthill. Cue joke.

etc

 

The point I am making is that, whether you like it or not, we make decisions all the time in life and we take risks, some go well, others don't, but at the end of the day, we have to bear some personal culpability. Its not always someone elses fault.

 

I know that you cant spend your whole life in a cocoon - taking risks, however small, are part of daily life.

 

The MAS flight, and incidentally any other Commercial Airlines on that route, evaluated the risks, decided they were acceptable in light of fuel cost saving, and made their decision. Sadly for MAS the dice rolled against them in this instance but they did make the call to go that route, knowing there was a war on directly underneath it.

[Ibrahim Tall]

Your waiting to cross at a set of traffic lights, the green light comes on so you begin to cross - a drunk driver runs a red light and runs you over. Is it your fault for crossing the road?

 

The pilot took the correct route, maintained the correct altitude, speed and time. That some lunatic decided he wanted to murder dozens if not hundreds of people isn't his fault. Which is the point being missed here, even if it wasnt the intended target they were still trying to murder a passenger jet sized plane full of people.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

Your waiting to cross at a set of traffic lights, the green light comes on so you begin to cross - a drunk driver runs a red light and runs you over. Is it your fault for crossing the road?

 

The pilot took the correct route, maintained the correct altitude, speed and time. That some lunatic decided he wanted to murder dozens if not hundreds of people isn't his fault. Which is the point being missed here, even if it wasnt the intended target they were still trying to murder a passenger jet sized plane full of people.

[deesidejambo]

Sorry this arguement is flawed in so many ways. I think you should stop digging now!

 

No I'm happy to respond to the discussion. I am allowed to.

 

So everyone here thinks there is no such thing as personal culpability, so that everything bad that happens to them is someone elses fault.

 

On the logical extension that all the passengers are therefore to blame - its slighlty different. If the passengers were told that this flight was going to overfly Ukraine, and that there was a war on, but everything should be OK, do you think they would have boarded?

 

Seriously - to the people that are flaming me on this thread - if you had been told the route was going directly over a war zone, with protagonists having access to sophisticated military technology, would you still have boarded the plane?

 

Based on your flaming me, you will all have to answer Yes, in which case you would all have died. Myself, I would most definately not have boarded that plane.