How do these two quotes relate?!?   :blink:

 

Had KLM not acted responsibly on their own, but instead had waited for authorities to regulate, despite the fact that responsible alternative flightplanning would have caused only minimal delays (read: minimal extra cost)?   :angry:

 

"Why did KLM fly along this route despite warnings that the region was no longer safe, while Qantas and other airlines were avoiding the region?
(...) It is up to the air traffic control authorities to regulate airspace for operations and decide on closure/opening."

 

"Will avoidance of the area in question have consequences for KLM, such as delays and connecting flights at Schiphol?
The alternative flight path can result in minimal delays and will have no consequences for connecting flights at Schiphol."

 

http://news.klm.com/incident-with-malaysia-airlines-flight-mh017-e/

In my mind, if evidence shows the plane was shot down by rebels, the "litigation" should be towards the people supplying the rebels with advanced AA missile systems capable of taking out an international airliner at 33 000 feet.

^{I hope this isn't true, but I've heard  stories of people at the crash site looting passengers! Sad if that is the case, those poor souls can't even rest!}

^{I hope this isn't true, but I've heard  stories of people at the crash site looting passengers! Sad if that is the case, those poor souls can't even rest!}

 

 

If those thieves take the cameras, cell phones and stuff, crash investigation will be even harder. Maybe that's exactly the purpose of the looting, just like people have reported mercenaries' statements, claiming to have shot down an enemy's aircraft, on social media sites have been removed.

The following investigation in theory will be simple. We know what happened already, what is needed now are identifiable pieces of the missile itself and what are the chances of the Russian backed forces handing them over.......ZIP!

Exactly! ICAO and MAS did not fire anything...

 

ICAO doesn't have authority for anything. The organization make decision no one really have to follow.

 

In my mind, if evidence shows the plane was shot down by rebels, the "litigation" should be towards the people supplying the rebels with advanced AA missile systems capable of taking out an international airliner at 33 000 feet.

 

Take it easy with conclusions. We don't even know if aircraft was hit by missile for sure yet, nor who shot it down. Let's wait for investigation and official report. If the aircraft is shot down, investigation should find out was it on purpose and intended, or mistake. Both are crimes for sure, but intention would implicate act of terrorism while mistake, following Iranair precedent, even could be awarded (which is sad). 

These kind of areas are not considered dangerous for civilian aircraft cruising at high altitude under radar control.  The Malaysian aircraft was most definitely shot down by mistake.   

 

also when flying over Ukraine and Russia, your DCN (diplomatic clearance permit) or in short your overflight block permit is restricted to certain entry and exits points and airways.

 

Also that air space is deemed as "safe" and the airlines insurance companies are happy for you to overfly it. 

 

 

They are going to be hard pressed to overcome the fact that the ICAO approved flight routing though that region as they considered it safe.

 

I don't believe ICAO approves any flght routes.

Take it easy with conclusions. We don't even know if aircraft was hit by missile for sure yet

I was under the impression that this is the only piece of information every relevant side has actually agreed on.

I was under the impression that this is the only piece of information every relevant side has actually agreed on.

It is highly likely that aircraft is shot down by missile, maybe even 99.99%.

 

 

We don't even know if aircraft was hit by missile for sure yet

 

This is already established. As to who and why, that is something the international community will have to investigate. Nevertheless, this is a very serious incident and a human tragedy. 

Every source possible is pointing to a missile  .USA has satellite data and no need for OBAMA to BS on that its to much of a risk

 

 

I don't believe ICAO approves any flght routes.

 

Aviation safety is at the core of ICAO’s fundamental Objectives. The organization is constantly striving, in close collaboration with the entire air transport community, to further improve aviation’s successful safety performance while maintaining a high level of capacity and efficiency.  This is achieved through:

1. 1. The development of global strategies contained in the Global Aviation Safety Plan and the Global Air Navigation Plan;
   2. The development and maintenance of Standards, Recommended Practices and Procedures applicable to international civil aviation activities which are contained in 16 Annexes and 4 PANS (Procedures for Air Navigation Services).  These standards are complemented by more than 50 Manuals and Circulars which are providing guidance on their implementation.
   3. The monitoring of safety trends and indicators.  ICAO audits the implementation of its Standard, Recommended Practices and Procedures through its Universal Safety Oversight Audit Programme.  It has also developed sophisticated tools to collects and analyse a vast array of safety data which allows to identify existing and emerging risks   
   4. The implementation of targeted safety programmes to address safety and infrastructure deficiencies; and
   5. An effective response to disruption of the aviation system created by natural disasters, conflicts or other causes.

"Malaysian Transport Minister Liow Tiong Lai said this morning the national airline took no undue risk in flying over Ukraine, a route he stressed was approved by the ICAO and widely used by other airlines."

 

http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/0718/631589-flight-paths/

I'd suggest everybody go and refresh their memories about the USS Vincennes shootdown of Iran Air 655. It adds an interesting perspective to current events.

Nothing to refresh here really  the captain of  the ship was defending  his ship against  a possible hostile target which was flying towards his ship,  and  his sop was  followed, and he wasn't  to know what  the target was  and only fired at the last possible  moment. Here  nothing  to consider here, the rebels or  whoever  fired  at the aircraft was  to bring it  down for what ever reason  they have 2 different stories all together

Nothing to refresh here really  the captain of  the ship was defending  his ship against  a possible hostile target which was flying towards his ship,  and  his sop was  followed, and he wasn't  to know what  the target was  and only fired at the last possible  moment. Here  nothing  to consider here, the rebels or  whoever  fired  at the aircraft was  to bring it  down for what ever reason  they have 2 different stories all together

Yeah.. right. By your words someone can say: 

"The commander of the battery was defending  his battery against  a possible hostile target which was flying towards his battery,  and  his sop was  followed, and he wasn't  to know what  the target was  and only fired at the last possible  moment." 

 

Which would be disgusting.

 

Additionally, your post is disrespectful towards victims of Iranair 655 crash. There is no excuse for shot down of any civilian aircraft.