Missing planes

[StanBalaban]

 

No overly knowledgeable about the radar on a commercial plane ....but would it be able to pick up two fighter jets tailing it ?

no. Many commercial a/© don't have radar. Some may have weather radar, but that would be facing forward. TCAS works via IFF and requires both aircraft to have it, and again isn't an identifier in terms of "that's a fighter" of other vehicles it just gives avoidance steering commands where there's risk of flight paths converging. Dunno whether Ukraine fighters would have TCAS anyway. Unlikely.

 

Even if the Ukraine fighters did have TCAS, they would still have to be turned on for there to be any chance of detection - which they're not going to do in any situation where they wanted to go unnoticed. 

[blandy]

And there is no credible reason for any Ukraine Fighters to be anywhere near the airliner. it's total (deliberate) red herring IMO.

[peterms]

And there is no credible reason for any Ukraine Fighters to be anywhere near the airliner. it's total (deliberate) red herring IMO.

 

Surely an airliner flying over a war zone on a deviation from its normal flight path would always attract attention from the relevant air force?

[peterms]

There's something doing the rounds claiming to be live footage of the airliner being shot down, which apparently is a link that contains malware.

[leviramsey]

And there is no credible reason for any Ukraine Fighters to be anywhere near the airliner. it's total (deliberate) red herring IMO.

 

Surely an airliner flying over a war zone on a deviation from its normal flight path would always attract attention from the relevant air force?

Why would it?

It wasn't deviating from its filed flight plan as approved by Ukraine ATC. If it's a deviation from the flight plan, that's something else.

[peterms]

 

 

And there is no credible reason for any Ukraine Fighters to be anywhere near the airliner. it's total (deliberate) red herring IMO.

 

Surely an airliner flying over a war zone on a deviation from its normal flight path would always attract attention from the relevant air force?

 

Why would it?

It wasn't deviating from its filed flight plan as approved by Ukraine ATC. If it's a deviation from the flight plan, that's something else.

 

 

Reports are saying the plane was instructed by ATC to deviate from the filed flight path and altitude.  Not sure there is definitive proof either way, though.

[TrinityRoadSteps]

MH17 was not instructed to deviate course while in Ukrainian airspace. It came within 25-30km of flight SQ351 flying at the same altitude and SQ351 was instructed to climb to FL350 but MH17 stayed at FL330

[peterms]

MH17 was not instructed to deviate course while in Ukrainian airspace. It came within 25-30km of flight SQ351 flying at the same altitude and SQ351 was instructed to climb to FL350 but MH17 stayed at FL330

 

But it seems it was on a flight path which was different to the one previously used by the same flight.  It was suggested it may have diverted because of bad weather, but the airline say not.

 

 

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was guided off its most recently used course as its pilots hoped to avoid thunderstorms brewing in the south of Ukraine, it has been claimed.

 

When it was shot down, the doomed jet was many miles north of the flight paths it had used on previous days to Kuala Lumpur from Amsterdam's Schiphol airport.

 

Nico Voorbach, a pilot who flew the same journey earlier this summer for KLM, and who is president of the European Cockpit Association, said poor weather might have been the reason why flight MH17 found itself in the sights of a surface-to-air missile launcher. The aircraft was shot down in the separatist Donetsk region of east Ukraine.

 

Voorbach said: "I heard that they were diverting from some showers. I think there were thunderclouds. You would ask air traffic control to divert left or right, and they would give you the permission."

 

It also emerged that flight MH17 had initially filed a flight plan requesting to fly at 35,000ft above Ukrainian territory. On entering Ukrainian airspace, however, the plane's pilots were instructed to fly at 33,000ft by the local air traffic control due to other traffic. Malaysia Airlines said the pilots had to follow the lead of the local authorities...

 

...In response to claims that weather led to MH17 changing its flight plan, Malaysia Airlines director of operations Izham Ismail said that it had no reports from the pilot to suggest that this was the case

 

From here: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/19/mh17-changing-course-storms-pilot

 

I gather the recordings of contact between the aircraft and ATC have not been released, and could answer the question about what discussion took place about the route.

[peterms]

So Russia has released some military monitoring data and is asking some questions which arise from the data, here.

 

 

Russia has released military monitoring data, which shows Kiev military jets tracking the MH17 plane shortly before the crash - and posed yet another set of questions to Ukraine and the US over the circumstances of the tragedy.

Military officials – chief of General Staff of the Armed Forces Lt. Gen. Andrey Kartopolov and chief of the Air Force Main Staff Lt. Gen. Igor Makushev - posed a number of questions to Kiev and Washington concerning the possible causes of the catastrophe in Eastern Ukraine that killed almost 300 people last Thursday.

1. Why did the MH17 plane leave the international corridor?

“Please note that the plane stayed within the corridor until it reached Donetsk but then it deviated from the route to the north,” said Kartopolov.

2. Was MH17 leaving the route a navigation mistake or was the crew following instructions by Ukrainian air traffic controllers in Dnepropetrovsk?

“The maximum deviation from the left border of the corridor was 14 km. Following that, we can see the plane maneuvering to return to the corridor, yet the Malaysian crew did not get a chance to complete the maneuver. At 17.20, the plane began to lose speed, and at 17.23 it disappeared from Russian radars.”

3. Why was a large group of air defense systems deployed to the militia-held area if the self-defense forces have no planes?

“As far as we know, the Ukrainian military had three or four air defense battalions equipped with Buk-M1 SAM systems deployed in the vicinity of Donetsk on the day of the crash. This system is capable of hitting targets within the range of 35 km at the altitude of up to 22 km.”

 

There is a full list of questions and some of the photos in the linked story.

 

 

[Ponky]

I just found out that a former work colleague of mine lost her father and her two nephews and niece on that plane (her sister's kids). It really rams it home when you can put actual people and families to this thing.

[TrentVilla]

Claims emerging that the wreckage has been altered and 'cut into' since it was first viewed.

[blandy]

 

And there is no credible reason for any Ukraine Fighters to be anywhere near the airliner. it's total (deliberate) red herring IMO.

 

Surely an airliner flying over a war zone on a deviation from its normal flight path would always attract attention from the relevant air force?

 

No, not at all. As Levi implies, deviating from flight plans is a common occurrence, due to weather, wind conditions and other circumstances such as technical failure, or passenger or crew illness. Pilot's can request a change with the relevant ATC, and it's normally granted if safe.

 

I imagine (without being arsed to find out), that an airliner at 30k+ feet over Ukraine/Russia etc. would be under local AT Control and thus could request and be given permission to change route to avoid (say) weather, or to pick up tailwinds or whatever. That would be utterly normal.

 

The situation is different if/where an unauthorised deviation occurs and that deviation takes the aircraft in an unwanted/unexpected direction or towards Military air traffic zones...or all kinds of other stuff where the overflown nation doesn't want to have air traffic. There's a kind of universal set of guidelines set out by the ICAO on how (civil) airspace is managed.

 

I suppose in a war situation, where enemy forces possess air power, things would be managed more cautiously and perhaps differently for overflying civil traffic - largely on a "keep away" basis - total exclusion of an area(s) to all traffic. That way anything "in" the barred area is either friendly or foe - no neutrals.  And the military have much more sophisticated systems for knowing who is who between "their" aircraft and "not their" aircraft. Any civil aircraft heading towards or encroaching into such airspace would then be subject to intense scrutiny, warnings, and so on. Even then an aircraft not responding (such as an airliner) would not be shot down immediately. It would be subjected to identification by fighters, by intelligence (where has it come from?) and so on. And then escorted away. It would not be shot down until or unless it was known to be a danger, rather than an aircraft with loss of comms or technical failure rendering it in distress etc.

[peterms]

So, from the piece I linked above, what the Russians say about the presence of military aircraft is this:

 

 

“At 17:21’35, with [the Boeing’s] velocity having dropped to 200 kilometers per hour, a new mark detecting an airborne object appears at the spot of the Boeing’s destruction. This new airborne object was continuously detected for the duration of four minutes by the radar stations Ust-Donetsk and Buturinskaya. An air traffic controller requested the characteristics of the new airborne object, but was unable to get any readings on its parameters – most likely due to the fact that the new aircraft was not equipped with a secondary surveillance radar transponder, which is a distinctive feature of military aircraft,” said Makushev.

“Detecting the new aircraft became possible as it started to ascend. Further changes in the airborne object’s coordinates suggest that it was hovering above the Boeing 777’s crash site, monitoring of the situation.

“Ukrainian officials earlier claimed that there were no Ukrainian military aircraft in the area of the crash that day. As you can see, that is not true.”

 

[TrinityRoadSteps]

 

Flight routings for various flights over the region for days leading up to the crash.

MH17 is pretty consistent in the route it follows 

[blandy]

 

So, from the piece I linked above, what the Russians say about the presence of military aircraft is this:

 

 

“At 17:21’35, with [the Boeing’s] velocity having dropped to 200 kilometers per hour, a new mark detecting an airborne object appears at the spot of the Boeing’s destruction. This new airborne object was continuously detected for the duration of four minutes by the radar stations Ust-Donetsk and Buturinskaya. An air traffic controller requested the characteristics of the new airborne object, but was unable to get any readings on its parameters – most likely due to the fact that the new aircraft was not equipped with a secondary surveillance radar transponder, which is a distinctive feature of military aircraft,” said Makushev.

“Detecting the new aircraft became possible as it started to ascend. Further changes in the airborne object’s coordinates suggest that it was hovering above the Boeing 777’s crash site, monitoring of the situation.

“Ukrainian officials earlier claimed that there were no Ukrainian military aircraft in the area of the crash that day. As you can see, that is not true.”

 

That makes no sense, unless I've misread it.

 

It seems to be saying the airliner slowed to 200kmh - which is 100 kts, or thereabouts - close to or more probably below, stall speed - seems highly unlikely, unless it's an indication that the airliner was at that very point breaking up - but then you'd expect the radar to detect the break up and it be mentioned.

 

Then it's saying an aircraft with no IFF/SSR was "suddenly" detected. 2 things here - how did it just appear without having been previously detected? secondly (unless I'm mistaken) Military aircraft have IFF/SSR (apart from experimental aircraft limited to restricted airspace)  - they need to navigate civil and military airspace. of course it can be turned off, but that is high risk, as neither friendly nor unfriendly forces or weapons systems can tell what/who it is. A (alleged) Ukraine "Military" aircraft over Ukraine airspace and alleged Ukraine (presumably) plan to shoot something down deliberately making itself a target??

 

The there's the claim it's military whilst providing a statement about SSR as evidence which seems to be saying the opposite, to me. SSR is the means by which aircraft automatically reply with their identity and altitude to interrogation signals from air traffic and other interrogators.

 

The they are saying the "new" aircraft was a helicopter ("hovering") - so how did a helicopter go undetected by their radar up to the point it appeared next to the boeing which was "flying" at or below stall speed? And how would a helicopter get anywhere near an airliner at 30K ft + ? to force it to do something - it's just not possible. They can't get that high or go fast enough. Max Heli altitude is probably around 20kft for an advanced beast. Older ones much lower - 10,000 ft being typical, I think. To quote my sig - that's the science law.

 

smells like utter bull to me, that one.

[blandy]

 

So, this article says the aircraft was being escorted by two Ukrainian fighter jets, and suggests it may have been shot down in the belief that it was "...a high-value plane of the Ukrainian Air Force. On their radar screens, the sight of a large plane with two accompanying (or circling in CAP not too far away) fighter jets was completely new and may only mean the Ukrainians were escorting an important plane. And that would be the reason why they downed it without spending too much time analysing its transponder code and altitude".

 

Absolutely possible, there have been claims that Ukraine airforce plans have been hiding behind commercial flights to avoid detection. Similar has happened before.

 

I might be wrong, but I don't think so. It makes no operational sense in this context, and the idea of "hiding" at that altitude is kind of pointless. Yes at low level, for example the RAF Buccaneer pilots used to fly underneath Vulcan bombers at (extremely) low level to practise sneaking in (on exercises). At high altitude though, although it's possible to avoid detection by older Radar by flying very close, under or above, what's to gain? Why would a CAP fighter (say) wish to hide for a period, where there's no threat to them from anything? Why indeed would they even be flying Combat Air Patrol with no fighter threat to "combat"? It doesn't make sense to me, again.

[islingtonclaret]

Ah, good...I see that the 'United front' of Europe has descended into us criticising the French for their arms deals and the French criticising us for the oligarchs in the UK.

 

That will really scare the Russians.

[Risso]

Too many initials and abbreviations in these posts!

[peterms]

So the US is watering down its previous claims of Russian involvement, and now says it is likely the plane was shot down by accident by the rebel forces.  They have not released the satellite photos they said several days ago prove where the missile was fired from.  The previously released photographic evidence of a BUK with one missile missing being moved back to Russia turns out to be a picture of a BUK in a town controlled by the Kiev regime (but we're not hearing questions about that any more, nor the missing missile).  The tapes of conversations between Air Traffic Control and the plane have not been released yet.

 

The stories we were given in the press about the rebels obstructing access to the site by investigators were not true (they hadn't left Kiev).  We were told the crash site was plagued by roaming drunks who were tampering with evidence and either/both leaving the bodies to rot or else hauling them disrespectfully across fields, though according to the Dutch lead investigator "he was impressed with the work done at the site of the MH17 airliner crash in Ukraine.  Forensics expert Peter Van Vliet said: "I think they did a hell of a job in a hell of a place". "  We heard that the black boxes had been spirited away, presumably to be destroyed or tampered with, but that turned out not to be true either.

 

A few days ago, we had a mad rush to impose sanctions on Russia, based on unproven assertions by the US that Russia was behind this, in the absence of any proper investigation or proof, backed with lies about the rebels conspiring to prevent an investigation taking place.  It seems pretty clear now that the wish for damaging sanctions exists quite independent of this incident and does not arise from it.  We are left with the unanswered questions about what brought the plane down, who did it, and why.

 

It might be nice if there were a little more concentration on finding out the truth, rather than ramping up the rhetoric in pursuit of the US' wider regional strategy.

[Ads]

The line changed to Russia creating the conditions for the shooting. I suppose we are to infer that they supplied the weaponry.