Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Air travel and safety » MH17 blown up or finding God over the Ukraine

MH17 blown up or finding God over the Ukraine

click for source

click for source

As if we need reminding this is a horrible consequence of war, any kind of war can result in the death of anyone who gets too close to the battle ground. my question is why was a commercial aircraft over a “no fly zone” at all? Even if it was a thousand feet above the ceiling of that exclusion zone it was obviously not enough to avoid being targeted and shot down. As we are talking about the former Soviet Union here the assumption that the combatants would not have access to  sophisticated anti aircraft ordnance  capable of  downing high flying  aircraft  is obviously  catastrophically wrong.

Its also a horrible coincidence that the aircraft belongs to Malaysian Airlines, the company that brought you that disappearing plane trick not so long ago. Anyone want to predict the airline’s chances of survival now?  You might get better odds on them serving bacon sarnies on future flights.

Then again this might not have been a missile strike at all, it could be the result of the old favorite of a “bomb on the plane” itself and its location of destruction could be nothing more than a coincidence. Time will tell and reveal the truth, but by the time it happens we will have buried the bodies and largely forgotten the whole thing.

Cheers Comrades

image by request

image by request


  1. Ray Dixon says:

    it could be the result of the old favorite of a “bomb on the plane”

    So Iain, do you suspect …… Islamists !!!

    Seriously mate, how many planes have been blown up mid-air by an internal bomb, as opposed to ones being shot down by missiles? Missiles is ‘the old favourite”.

    On another note, it makes me wonder if MH370 sufferred the same fate, which was my initial thought at the time. Pretty dangerous area that South China Sea.

  2. Matt Patchon says:

    Hi Iain, I agree with your initial question: what was Flight MH17 doing on that flight path anyway? The strife in the Ukraine has been going for a few months now, so all commercial flights that would ordinarily use that route should have been rereouting since then. Well, I assume that would be the common sense thing to do.

    I suspect that this particular route was probably the shortest for MH17 to take, and that Malaysian Airlines has simply been playing Russian Roulette. Admittedly it is too early to be sure, but all the News outlets are looking to blame a military or rebel force.

    No, no, no the question that needs to be asked first, is why was Flight MH17 on that route in the first place?

  3. Ray Dixon says:

    Malaysian Airlines has simply been playing Russian Roulette

    Literally, Matt, according to our not-so-diplomatic Prime Minister who has already said he believes it was shot down by “Russian-backed rebels”. He sure knows how to put other nations offside – I wonder what Mr Putin thinks of that accusation? I also wonder what goes on in Abbott’s head. Let’s see, so far he’s offended China & Russia … that ain’t clever.

  4. Iain Hall says:

    My guess is that the decision will have been made on the simple basis of saving fuel on the most direct route sadly that has cost nearly 300 lives

  5. Matt Patchon says:

    Yep, Iain,

    Option A, take a longer more expensive route, but minimise the risk to lives
    Option B, take the most economical, shortest route, no matter the risk

    If Malaysian Air has deliberately chosen Option B, that’s where a large chunk (but how much?) of the culpability lies, surely, especially when Option A was available to you. Not all, of course, but apparently briefly a message was up on a Russian site that claimed it had taken out a Ukrainian cargo plane in the same area as MH17. That info has quickly come down.

    How much blame will Malaysia Air end up being assigned? Time will tell, but such questions about MA’s flightpath are taking a back seat in the Media. They’re there, but secondarily.

  6. Ray Dixon says:

    Wait on, how many other airlines avoid that air space? You guys are shooting from the hip, as well as shooting the victim here. Who has already been shot … to pieces.

    And Abbott’s been on the air again condemning the Russian Govt. Putin denies any involvement and I’d suggest that’s right. Sure, it appears that the plane was shot down by pro-Russian (Ukranian) rebels, and sure, they may have used Russian-supplied anti-aircraft missiles but … do you seriously believe Russia & Putin authorised, condoned and/or had any prior knowledge of what appears to be some on-the-ground rebel’s mistake (apparently they ‘thought’ it was a Ukraine freight plane)?

    Abbott’s acting like an ignorant bull-at-the-gate over this and is damaging relations with Russia. No other world leader is pointing the finger like he is.

  7. richard ryan says:

    This was a God-Send for our beloved PM Tony Abbott, it takes domestic politics off the front pages for the time being. I see our Aussie freedom fighters (terrorists) are shaking things up in Iraq. Maybe the man with the flak-jacket, Andrew Bolt should pay another visit to Iraq, in the safety of the “green zone” of course, and tell these Aussies to come home.

  8. Matt Patchon says:

    Ray, the passengers and crew are the victims, but not Malaysia Air.

    From SMH today: “Ron Bartsch, who now heads international aviation consultancy AvLaw International, said airline network planners had a choice over whether they wanted to fly over dangerous areas or to go around them, even if it would require more fuel. ‘Ultimately it was up to the airlines themselves to determine whether potential hazards on their routes were within “an acceptable level of safety’, he said. Qantas and Emirates both stopped using that route, while Singapore Air had not verified.”

    Clearly MA had chosen not to alter its flightpaths.

    Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/malaysia-airlines-mh17-australian-expert-questions-flights-ukraine-route-20140718-zuilw.html#ixzz37p3T3PBG

  9. Ray Dixon says:

    airline network planners had a choice over whether they wanted to fly over dangerous areas or to go around them

    So they chose the less safe option then, Matt. As you have stated. How does that then make them the main culprit, as you seem to be implying? Or, at least, you’re trying to say it should be the main focus of news reports. I disagree. If I decide to walk closer to a pub that is full of thugs and one of them wanders out and attacks me, should the media report it thus: “Dumb arse failed to avoid dangerous drunkards and got belted”?

  10. Matt Patchon says:

    Hi Ray, what I have stated, rather than implied, is that there is a level of culpability on the side of MA, but that I do not know, nor begin to presume to know, to what percentage that is. I explain that back up a couple of posts. I deliberately do not quantify this, as MA’s decision-making process is not known. As to MA’s culpability, I have mentioned “secondarily”, so I am by no means even attempting to claim they are the main culprit.

    What I have implied, is that MA’s choices shouldn’t be ignored (in an investigation), not that they should be the main focus.

  11. Matt Patchon says:

    Oh, and Ray, if you followed the earliest reports they were all about “who shot the plane down”, not “why was the plane in that airspace”, so if anything I was having a dig at that ordered-ness of reporting. It wasn’t until later in the day that the question of “what was the MA flight doing in that airspace anyway?”

    That could simply be a case of reporters scrambling to contact and wake up experts!

  12. richard ryan says:

    AS Tony Abbott would say,”shit happens”.

  13. Ray Dixon says:

    Fair enough, Matt. I See Russia is none too happy with our PM:


    Russia furious at ‘unacceptable’ Tony Abbott comments

    Moscow has voiced anger over being blamed by Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott for the downing of a Malaysia passenger jet over eastern Ukraine that killed all 298 people on board, calling his comments “unacceptable”.

    “Without bothering himself about evidence and operating only on speculation, Mr T. Abbott assigned guilt,” the foreign ministry said in a statement. “Abbott’s statements are unacceptable.

    He’s idiocy in foreign affairs is only exceeded by his idiocy in matters economic. Tony Abbott – idiot PM.

  14. richard ryan says:

    “Tony Abbott-idiotPM”. Ray Dixon. Tony Abbott-Climate Terrorist. Richard Ryan.

  15. Ray Dixon says:

    That’s another of his idiocies, Richard. Which makes the over-arching description of TONY ABBOTT IDIOT PM all the more fitting.

    I might trademark it. I think it’s better than Phony Tony don’t you? Let’s call him for the fool of a PM that he really his.

    As for a tag line:

    Tony Abbott Idiot PM F*cking our economy one day, f*cking our international relationships the next.

  16. GD says:

    Ray said:

    I See Russia is none too happy with our PM:

    Putin denies any involvement and I’d suggest that’s right.

    Tony Abbott Idiot PM – F*cking our economy one day, f*cking our international relationships the next.

    It’s looking like you got that wrong Ray. Tony Abbott’s response has been echoed by Holland, Britain, New Zealand and belatedly by the Obama administration.

    Tony Abbott and his British and New Zealand counterparts as well as the US Secretary of State John Kerry and Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte are united in their demands for Mr Putin to co-operate, with Mr Rutte saying he had told the Russian leader “time is running out for you to show the world that you have good intentions.

    Thankfully we have a strong, incisive Prime Minister determined to do his best for the families of the Australians killed on that tragic flight, rather than an apologist prepared to cow-tow to terrorists and communists.

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    Yes, other world leaders are wanting Russia to assist in the investigations. But none of them – except Abbott – has blatantly pointed the finger of blame directly at Russia. Abbott has as good as said that Russia shot down the plane, or at least was actively involved in it. That’s not being “strong & incisive”, it’s being stupid and provocative.

  18. Paul Murray says:

    ” why was a commercial aircraft over a “no fly zone” at all?”
    They were directed there by air traffic control. My money is on “they were sent in as bait”. It’s our friends, our NATO allies chumming the water.

  19. GD says:

    it’s being stupid and provocative.

    Well that’s not what the USA is saying:

    US Republican senator John McCain is singing Abbott’s praises. McCain is still the most influential Republican voice on foreign policy.

    Abbott is also earning similar rave reviews on both sides of politics in the US. Earlier this week I interviewed the US Assistant Secretary of State for East Asia and the Pacific, Danny Russel. He too was full of praise for Abbott, and Foreign Minister Julie Bishop, and their response to the tragedy in Ukraine.

    And now, as is virtually universally acknowledged in the US, he has responded as well as any national government possibly could to the tragedy in Ukraine.

    Australia can be very proud of our Prime Minister in this time of tragedy.

  20. Ray Dixon says:

    All you’re really claiming is that Abbott has used this terrible situation and tragedy (involving the deaths of 28 Australians) to raise his own international profile. I agree with that part but not with how it’s going down.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: