This is a horrible tragedy. What's wrong with people? Why can't we get along?

 

 

#PutAnEndToWar

 

 

- Joe

This is the begining i believe. The war will not end until a large of human die. We and the rest nations are victim. Very very sad.

"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/ne...9-flight-paths/

 

The Malaysian Transport Minister was wrong. Your own link states:

 

"Airlines including Qantas Airways and Air Berlin altered their flight paths months ago to avoid Ukrainian airspace after fighting flared up in the region, raising questions about why others did not do the same."

 

The fact is that:

 

"ICAO does not open or close routes. We do not have an operational role,"

 

"It is up to countries to implement them or not, most countries do ... but ICAO standards are more or less equivalent to a treaty, you can either comply or not as you see fit,"

 

http://www.trust.org/item/20140718132837-hjfhj

By ICAO regulations, aircraft was made in USA and there were US citizens onboard, so USA is allowed to take part in investigation.

 

It doesn't matter there are US citizens on board or not. The ICAO regulations state:

 

"The State of Registry, the State of the Operator, the

State of Design and the State of Manufacture shall each be

entitled to appoint an accredited representative to participate in

the investigation."

It doesn't matter there are US citizens on board or not. The ICAO regulations state:

 

"The State of Registry, the State of the Operator, the

State of Design and the State of Manufacture shall each be

entitled to appoint an accredited representative to participate in

the investigation."

 

Correct.  See ICAO Annex 13. 

 

A State which has a special interest in an accident by

virtue of fatalities or serious injuries to its citizens shall, upon

making a request to do so, be permitted by the State conducting

the investigation to appoint an expert who shall be

entitled to:

a) visit the scene of the accident;

b) have access to the relevant factual information;

c) participate in the identification of the victims;

d) assist in questioning surviving passengers who are

citizens of the expert’s State; and

e) receive a copy of the Final Report.

 

scott s.

.

The fact is that:

 

I am very aware that ICAO does not have operational authority over airspace or airlines. Each individual member state of ICAO has that authority. However, the ICAO has a mandate to make safety recommendations to air operators, also when it comes to matters of flying in conflict areas. In this case they didn't recommend aircraft to stay clear of Ukrainian airspace. In other words the ICAO said "go ahead" - that's an approval.

 

This last week alone 830 aircraft used the same air corridor MAS17 did. That's over a hundred airplanes daily. 

 

Hindsight is 20 / 20.

Right, so in WW2 if you're not a belligerent just don't sail the Atlantic, or the Pacific, or the Indian or Arctic Oceans. Its reckless to sail from North America to Europe. North America to Asia. South America to Europe. From Africa to Gibraltar, anywhere in the Mediterranean, South America to Africa... uh I think you get it.

 

The Lusitania was sunk in World War 1 and not World War 2 by an early model German U-Boat and at that time the Germans had never fired on a passenger liner before with them, this was a first. The warning signs where there that if the Captain sailed the English Channel the Germans would attack as they declared this region an exclusion zone, they thought the Germans would never do it. 

 

I see this kind of the same with these companies allowing their assets to fly over a rebel controlled area not recognizing the risks. It is a damn shame it had to come to this sort of disaster to recognize the risks (even at this day and age). This is the reason why I called this a modern day Lusitania

The Lusitania was sunk in World War 1 and not World War 2 by an early model German U-Boat and at that time the Germans had never fired on a passenger liner before with them, this was a first. The warning signs where there that if the Captain sailed the English Channel the Germans would attack as they declared this region an exclusion zone, they thought the Germans would never do it. 

 

I see this kind of the same with these companies allowing their assets to fly over a rebel controlled area not recognizing the risks. It is a damn shame it had to come to this sort of disaster to recognize the risks (even at this day and age). This is the reason why I called this a modern day Lusitania

Yes, I conflated that with a similar experience with one American ship in particular early in WW2 that mirrored it closely.

 

It still stands that its hard to justify not sailing to the major commerce sectors of the world. In general its worth noting that the precedent of attacking ships of the kind broke some assumed courtesies and 'rules' much the same way we view air travel. Interestingly the orders given for taking care with facing neutrals early in WW2's u-boat war showed that the high command was very concerned with the politics of it as well. As in the Crimea situation sinking American neutrals didn't serve Germany any good.

In this case they didn't recommend aircraft to stay clear of Ukrainian airspace. In other words the ICAO said "go ahead" - that's an approval.

 

ICAO didn't say "go ahead" or approve anything - that's not how it works.    That's the duty of the National Aviation Authorities and its aircraft operators to do that.  It's certainly not ICAO's role to warn of terrorist attacks or other similar acts of war.

 

Also, remember your source  is a politician from the Malaysian Malaysian Transport Ministry -  that has its own agenda. Also it didn't cover itself with glory in the investigation of Flight MH370 either.

ICAO didn't say "go ahead" or approve anything - that's not how it works.    That's the duty of the National Aviation Authorities and its aircraft operators to do that.  It's certainly not ICAO's role to warn of terrorist attacks or other similar acts of war.

 

Also, remember your source  is a politician from the Malaysian Malaysian Transport Ministry -  that has its own agenda. Also it didn't cover itself with glory in the investigation of Flight MH370 either.

 

 

Gerry, you're right of course about ICAO itself not having a responsibility for issuing warnings about conflict areas. Diving a bit deeper into the matter, ICAO doesn't do any analysis into which areas are safe or unsafe to fly. They only make the guide lines. I had a brain fart..

 

However, please don't get too hung up in the single statement from the Malaysian minister.

 

Lufthansa, Virgin Atlantic, Thai, Air India, Singapore Airlines, KLM, Aeroflot and some 60 additional airlines also routinely used the airspace over Eastern Ukraine before the shootdown.

 

The point of the matter is that the airspace was open for traffic above FL320 - which tragically proved to be a big mistake.

 

If fingers needs to be pointed, I feel it isn't at Malaysian Airlines first and foremost. Agree?

It doesn't matter there are US citizens on board or not. The ICAO regulations state:

 

"The State of Registry, the State of the Operator, the

State of Design and the State of Manufacture shall each be

entitled to appoint an accredited representative to participate in

the investigation."

Yea, that's correct, but as Scott S. added, country that lost or had seriously injured citizen onboard has limited rights to participate. 

 

 

 

If fingers needs to be pointed, I feel it isn't at Malaysian Airlines first and foremost. Agree?

Unfortunately the Malaysian is the airline that lost the aircraft there, not Lufthansa, not KLM, not anyone else. Bad luck, but all other airlines will slip aside as they do not have death toll of 300.

gp You are right about that. End of the day the others got away through sheer luck and its now only MA that needs to explain why they were there.

 

Interestingly the world media have been very easy on MA, no doubt no point laying in the boot when they are were down to begin with

To all the people blaming MA for flying in unrestricted airspace like hundreds of other operators that day... What about British Airways, United, EK, GF, SQ etc etc flying over Iraq while ISIS run riot below? What about those same airlines flying over hotspots in Africa & Afghanistan?   

Latest number of passengers and nationalities:

Nationality Total

Netherlands 192 (including 1 dual Netherlands/USA citizen)

Malaysia 44 (including 15 crew & 2 infants)

Australia 27

Indonesia 12 (including 1 infant)

United Kingdom 10 (including 1 dual UK/S. Africa citizen)

Germany 4

Belgium 4

Philippines 3

Canada 1

New Zealand 1

The Families couldn't care less about the others that flew over it. What they will want to know is why did MA fly over a war zone when there airliners that did not

 

why wasn't MA a part of the group that DIDNT.  There lies the problem MA faces, in the eyes of the Families MA joined the bad guys . Why? There can only be 2 reasons.

 

a. They felt safe

b. To save money

 

Now since MA came out themselves and stated they requested a higher altitude but it was denied kind of eliminates option (a)

The Families couldn't care less about the others that flew over it. What they will want to know is why did MA fly over a war zone when there airliners that did not

 

why wasn't MA a part of the group that DIDNT.  There lies the problem MA faces, in the eyes of the Families MA joined the bad guys . Why? There can only be 2 reasons.

 

a. They felt safe

b. To save money

 

Now since MA came out themselves and stated they requested a higher altitude but it was denied kind of eliminates option (a)

 

Zoran, first off a higher altitude request is perfectly normal.  Optimum cruise altitude would likely have been FL350, ATC was only able to give them FL330... No big conspiracy there and nothing to do with safety, it happens every day!  I really do wish people would do at least some basic research before commenting. I except drivel from tabloid newspapers but not on an aviation website.

 

Once again, we have airliners flying over hotspot areas globally right now. As of a few day's ago no 'major' threat to 'Civilian Airliners' flying the approved corridor under radar control was deemed to exist.  By major threat I mean none of the sides involved had stated any intention of targeting a civilian aircraft flying over it's airspace.  

 

What we have here is group of untrained individuals operating outdated technology resulting in a major screw up.  No sides will benefit from this. I guarantee  behind the scenes heads will roll 'literally' among those responsible. 

 

If you want to start putting blame on MA for this, you had better start blaming every airline doing the same thing globally.