MH17 crash: Dutch experts say numerous objects hit plane
Source: BBC
Dutch experts say Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crashed after being hit by "numerous objects" that "pierced the plane at high speed".
A report released by the Dutch Safety Board said there was "no evidence of technical or human error". ...
Read more: http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-29119024
...
Pattern of damage
As yet it has not been possible to conduct a detailed study of the wreckage. However, the available images show that the pieces of wreckage were pierced in numerous places. The pattern of damage to the aircraft fuselage and the cockpit is consistent with that which may be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside. It’s likely that this damage resulted in a loss of structural integrity of the aircraft, leading to an in-flight break up. This also explains the abrupt end to the data registration on the recorders, the simultaneous loss of contact with air traffic control and the aircraft's disappearance from radar.
Further investigation
In its preliminary report, the Safety Board presents the initial findings of an investigation that is still fully underway. More research will be necessary to determine more precisely what caused the crash and how the airplane disintegrated. The Board believes that additional evidence will become available in the period ahead. From this point on, the research team will start working towards producing the definitive investigation report. The Board aims to publish the report within one year of the date of the crash.
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onderzoek/2049/investigation-crash-mh17-17-july-2014/preliminary-report/1562/preliminary-report-points-towards-external-cause-of-mh17-crash#fasen
Report (4.4 MB)
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)So the false flag comments that Ukraine is suppressing them appears to be objectively false.
reorg
(3,317 posts)The report says
"UkSATSE provided the recording and a transcipt of the radio (RAD) and telephone communications regarding flight MH17."
But "According to information received from the NBAAI, recorded ATC surveillance information revealed that three other commercial airliners overflew the same restricted airspace as flight MH17 around the time of the occurrence."
So the investigators received the recording of the direct communications with MH17, but information about everything else is only indirectly obtained. The presence of fighter planes is neither being confirmed nor denied, the only thing mentioned in this respect is that "state aircraft" were authorized to fly below 260 thousand feet.
About the 30 min. recording from the cockpit voice recorder we only get the information:
"The recording also included crew communication which gave no indication that there was anything abnormal with the flight. ... A replay of the CVR did not identify any aircraft aural warnings or alerts of system malfunctions. Detailed analysis is ongoing."
Would observations by the crew about, say, military planes passing by, possibly be relevant? Would such observations be considered an indication that something was "abnormal with the flight"? We can't be sure, I guess, and have to wait until the final report comes out in a year or so.
The report also mentions that the investigators did not receive primary surveillance radar from Ukraine, only from the Russians. We know the latter show military airplanes, which cannot be confirmed by the data from Ukraine since they only provided "secondary surveillance radar (SSR/Mode S: "SSR determines information about the aircrafts's identification, positioin, altitude based on the the return of a signal sent from the ground station to which the aircraft replies.)".
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)It only activates at the sounds of ATC or pilots. Looks increasingly unlikely the "Ukraine suppressed data" conspiracy theory is true.
Even then, it's proven that, given the redundant names of Ukraine cities, the rebels could have in fact been directed to down a Russian plane intentionally (as per UKR government assessment). The absurd CTs, continue, forever and ever.
Can we ever accept it was a mistake by the rebel Buk operators?
reorg
(3,317 posts)Nothing has changed. Of course, the Ukrainian conspiracy theory supported by social media "evidence" may well be true, that somehow a missile system was smuggled into Ukraine and quickly spirited across the border again once the tragic mistake was discovered. There are other, more nefarious possibilities, though, involving the theory that somebody had an interest to blame a humanitarian catastrophe on Russia, or at least deliberately put civilian airliners at risk.
The crazy idea that "the rebels could have in fact been directed to down a *Russian* plane intentionally" assumes that Russian airplanes were operating in this conflict. If this is what the Ukrainians believed, it explains why they deployed Buk missile launchers in the area themselves, a proven fact that still escapes the attention of most conspiracy theorists who want to blame everything on Russia.
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)We have confirmed UK air traffic controller data, which from the start was denied delivery from pro-Russia CT.
There is overwhelming evidence that, if the Buk was placed in the wrong city, it would have immediately shot down a Russian plane, thus allowing Russia to invade with impunity. This is Ukraine's CT and some other bloggers. If true, it would mean Putin is literally a traitor to his country. But, sorry, this would probably make you sad. I'm simply saying that is how Ukraine saw it. Note: like MH17, the Russian airliner was civilian.
Naturally, the pro-Russians blame Ukraine, either directly (psy-ops) or indirectly (victim balming).
They can't accept that any pro-Russian group could have ever done it, period.
reorg
(3,317 posts)"We", or rather the investigators, have the air traffic control recording of the few communications between the air traffic control center and MH17, no more. There was a rumor that all ATC recordings have been confiscated by the Ukrainians, the suspicion being that there may have been something the Ukrainians didn't want to get out. A Malaysian official said they hadn't received any recordings (yet).
I don't know if anything "was denied delivery". Other than news reports claiming the self defense forces denied delivery of the black boxes, which they of course never did.
As to the Ukrainian conspiracy theory: how does the supposed shoot-down of a civilian airplane "allow Russia to invade with impunity"? At best, it would have provided a pretext.
rootProbiscus
(38 posts)Does not say there is no damage to other areas of the plane, not mentioned.
So which missiles aim for the cockpit and come from above, or from the side above floor level?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Given the trajectory of the plane the front cockpit area would be the target. Buk explodes many feet from the object itself, so the trajectory of the shrapnel can easily fly above it.
I'm sure for years people will sow doubts about the reports. Especially if the full report deviates even one word from this preliminary report we don't even have access to.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)First decide who is guilty and then work backward, trying all the time to gather evidence and develop explanations to support their preconceived theory. Right?
joshcryer
(62,276 posts)Anyone sowing doubt to that fact is a piece of shit. We saw the fields littered with bodies, many children, dozens of children. The fucking plane was shot down.
And all, not some, not a few, all, eyewitness testimony placed the Buk launch on the rebels. It is a disgraced to play this vague, waffling, insulting, pathetic, denialist jargon on this event. Shameful.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I do, however strongly argue that the guilty must be proven guilty through evidence gathered in an unbiased and thorough investigation. Wishful thinking about who one may want found guilty is not only inappropriate and counterproductive, it is deeply disrespectful toward all the, "children, dozens of children," as well as hundreds of adults who were needlessly killed.
Lets support finding out who the real guilty parties are, and not continue trying to turn this into a political football, OK?
reorg
(3,317 posts)saw two planes, a military airplane and the airliner before it broke into parts in mid-air.
The reporter located the spot where a column of smoke presumably indicated the presence of a Buk missile laucher, yet they didn't find any traces.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)It is very possible that eyewitnesses could see two planes - flying at very different heights. As to the Buk missiles, weren't they a MOBILE unit?
I think that it would be better to wait until the experts do the forensic investigation. It is very unlikely that many of us (I know I am not) are experts on how BUK missiles work or on what any other means would look like. I am appalled that some here are asking for an independent evaluation - that is what the Dutch reports will be. They lost many citizens.
hack89
(39,171 posts)they fly an up and over flight path to maximize range. You would expect them to explode above the target.
quadrature
(2,049 posts)missile path does not have to be an
'intercept path' .
missile can fly to any predetermined point
and make any predetermined turn,
to converge on target
SAMs are not preprogrammed. They home off of reflect ed RF energy.
Secondly, the rocket motor burns out within seconds. It is boosted to altitude without maneuvering for max range. At apogee it pitches over and maneuvers to impact.
The Traveler
(5,632 posts)From our perspective, with data available to us, it is impossible to draw a conclusion or eliminate hypotheses.
My money, however, remains on a misidentification of the aircraft by separatist forces, who then launched a missile.
I have lost wagers of this sort before, however. And much fog of war around all this. I remain uncertain.
Trav
Anarcho-Socialist
(9,601 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)And those Ukrainian fighter jets were armed with aircraft cannon . . .
But of course we already know Russia did it. Charles Krauthammer said so in the Washington Post, so it has to be true, right?
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"But of course we already know Russia did it..."
No more and no less than you already know the Ukrainian Air Force did it. The Russian Times said so, so it has to be true, right?
(insert distinction without a difference here)
hack89
(39,171 posts)
pampango
(24,692 posts)in a field in eastern Ukraine.
The fuselage was pierced from the outside by large numbers of "high-energy objects". The cockpit seems to have been particularly badly hit, above the level of the cockpit floor. The DSB (Dutch Safety Board) investigators have not been able to recover or study any of the objects that penetrated the plane. The report does not speculate on the origin or nature of the objects, but the findings would be consistent with a fragmentation warhead, like the one carried by the Buk anti-aircraft missile, most widely thought to have been involved in the shooting down of the plane.
...the investigation has so far been a remote one. DSB investigators have not been able to visit the crash site for a forensic examination because their safety could not be guaranteed in a conflict zone largely under rebel control.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/09/mh17-five-things-dutch-safety-board-report
With the current ceasefire in effect, this should be a good time for DSB investigators to visit the crash site and see if they can recover any of "the objects that penetrated the plane". That should go a long way towards answering the question of what it was that 'penetrated the plane'.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 10:59 AM - Edit history (1)
The first Proximity Fuze was invented in 1943, it is a shell with a small radar in its fuze design to explode when it detects something within the range of the blast of the shell. Proxity fuzes were invented to reduce the number of shells needed to shot down a plane. Prior to proximity fuzes, gunners had to guess the height of the plane they were shooting at and set a time fuze to explode at that height and range. With proximity fuses all you had to do is get the shell near the plane, the fuse would explode when it was near.
All Anti Aircraft Missiles use proximity fuses, as I said above this is WWII Technology. The missile would be launched at the plane and when it was near the plane it would explode sending hundreds if not thousands of metal parts into the plane (Often referred to as "Shrapnel"
. Planes are light weight, thus have little if any armor, a small piece of metal may be all you need to knock it down. Such a shell hit an oxygen tank or a fuel tank and you have a massive explosion. Such a shell hit an engine, the engine goes out of service. All of this occurring at the same time, as a result of a shell going off near the plane, will knock that plane right out of the sky,
The reports of multiple holes is consistent with a missile "hit".
Shrapnel is named after the Charge invented in 1784 by a person of that name but since WWI the name Shrapnel has come to mean any projectile caused by the explosion of a shell, not just what the shell itself sends to a target:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shrapnel_shell
jeff47
(26,549 posts)If a military jet was intercepting and then shooting the plane down, it wouldn't be done from the front.
First, the closing speed between the planes would be extremely fast, making the window between "plane enters cannon range" and "plane passes fighter" very short. As a result, you'd expect an air-to-air intercept to be done from the rear, or possibly the side.
Second, cannon range isn't all that long. The fighter would be visible to the pilots long before it could open fire. And it would be really weird for the pilots to not say "Hey, there's a plane out there". It would be really, really, really weird for the pilots to not say "Hey, there's a plane out there that's flying right at us".
Third, lots of small energy projectiles is consistent with a proximity warhead. It isn't consistent with cannon fire. Especially cannon fire during the very small window that a frontal approach provides - it would be hard to get a lot of hits during that window.
The report backs up the "Hit by a SAM" story.
Bartlet
(172 posts)do not show bullet holes, they show shrapnel tearing. There is no evidence of any damage caused by anything but high velocity shrapnel.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Such missiles use fragmentation explosives that explode near the plane.
If the fragments struck the cockpit, that seems to indicate a missile that came from head-on, meaning rebel-controlled territory.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Or an air-to-air missile from the same source could also have come "from head on." Right?
Deciding who is guilty first and then cherry-picking evidence in support of that preconceived assumption of guilt is how Black people have always been tried and sentenced to prison in this country. Do we now really want to make such practices the norm for investigations of international air disasters?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Cannon fire on the other hand would be within a small area of damage, do to the fact cannons and machine guns can only be kept aimed for a small time period do to the speed and actions of the plane doing the firing. Furthermore most cannons in planes tend to be light weight with thin barrels, thus can only fire in short bursts. The rounds would be threw the plane or explode inside the plane for most cannons fire either solid projectiles OR have impact fuzes (i.e. explode on impact often with a delay so that any explosion occurs within the target as oppose to the metal surface of the plane).
As to "head on" that is mostly in the movies. Most attacks are from the rear or sides. In head to head fights you are talking of planes approaching each other at over 1000 mph (Fighter going 600 mph, the passenger goes 400 mph, that comes to 1000 mph on a head to head approach). At 1000 mph, you have seconds to locate the target, prepare the missiles and fire. At 1000 mph the two planes are nearing each other 1468 feet per second, that comes to about 3 seconds per MILE. 30 seconds every 10 miles. That is NOT enough time to fire with cannon or missiles. Thus attacks are from the rear or sides, rarely from the front (Possible, but rare).
In an approach from the rear, a 600 mph fighter approaching a 400 mph passenger jet would be closing in at only 200 mpg on to the passenger jet. That is 1/5 the speed and thus have five times the time as a head to head approach. You thus have time to do things, such as determine what you are nearing and set your weapons.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Last edited Tue Sep 9, 2014, 02:35 PM - Edit history (1)
Lets put those premature conclusions and unsupported assumptions away for awhile. Let the specialists discover some certain facts, then we'll all know a good deal more than we do at present. OK?
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Sorry I am an old red leg arterrymen and I am familiar with Proximity fuses, times fuses and impact fuses. While I did NOT work on AA weapons or aircraft weapons, the fuses tend to be similar for the purpose of each fuse is the same, to go off when it does the most damage to something you want to hit.
My comment is the reports of blast is consistent with a warhead going off near the plane and hitting the plane with pieces of metal from the warhead. Who launched that warhead is something I avoiding discussing for those facts are NOT in the public domain.
The reports of damage is NOT consistent with Cannon or Machine Gun Fire for those are done in bursts of no more then 8 or 9 rounds (Weapons heat up to much if fired to much unless water cooled and the water has to be added all the time in such water cooled weapons, the main reason they were replaced as ground weapons in the 1960s, through the Russians did have an AA gun that used water cool cannons that they put into service in the 1960s).
Those two restrictions, the need to use water to cool down any fast shooting weapon if fired more then a few rounds at a time AND that targets are rarely within sight for more then a few seconds at a time, cannons and machine guns on planes rarely are fired for more then a few rounds at a time. To get the number of holes in the plane that has been reported takes a warhead, either a missile or a shell.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)I'll wait for the official investigation's conclusions. Until then its just a politically-driven kangaroo court.
Igel
(35,323 posts)Stenin was killed. We must hurry to a conclusion because it suits us.
But Pskov burial of soldiers? No, we must assemble an objective committee to collect evidence and evaluate all the data in an unbiased manner.
The bias is clear: When it damns one side, it must be delayed for a full investigation. When it damns the other side, we rush to bury justice.
Even as we claim impartiality.
It's like the dead civilians in Mariupol. From Russian and rebel artillery fire. If it were Ukrainian artillery fire, the dead people would matter. But Russian and rebels artillery fire can only kill soldiers. Anything else would spoil the purity of the beautiful minds' perception of what is Just and Good.
Like Night Wolve's and swastikas (or the wolf symbolism itself ... Wolf's hook anyone?). Or having Serbian fascists whose predecessors massacred civilians in ethnic cleansing for a greater, purer ethnic polity ... precisely as did the Banderites, but Banderites evil, Serbs good and just and pure and kind. And they even like puppies, albeit it sour cream and mushrooms on the side.
Litsemer.
Bartlet
(172 posts)all your posts?
jeff47
(26,549 posts)First, a fighter would come from the rear or possibly the sides. The planes would be traveling way too fast for an easy head-on approach. But it would be really easy to fly up behind the plane.
Second, windows. The pilots would see the fighter approaching from far outside the fighter's cannon range. It would be really weird for the pilots to not say "Hey, there's a plane out there". It would be really, really, really weird for the pilots to not say "Hey, there's a plane out there, and it's flying right at us".
Do I need to quote your post below where you claim the Koch brothers caused the plane to get shot down?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)Or you must believe you are at least, so let me put one question to you: Since when does a modern jet fighter need to be within visual range of a target to launch an air-to-air missile at it?
More to the point, no one on this chat board yet knows what really happened. I'm for letting the specialists investigate and judge the evidence for themselves before we start to punish those only presumed to be guilty.
BTW: As to my reply which mentions the Koch brothers, you are clearly misreading my personal interpretation of the situation for a statement of fact. There is a rather big difference.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)You asked about cannons. You got an answer about cannons. Shocking!!!!
As for air-to-air missile, again hitting the front of the plane is odd. The approach is still much easier from the rear, so you wouldn't expect the missile to hit the front of the aircraft. And there's really no reason for the fighter to not fly around to the back of the airliner.
OTOH, it's a lot harder to move a SAM to the rear of the airliner.
And everyone else here is doing the same thing. But apparently that's only OK for you to do. Everyone else is wrong for providing their "personal interpretation of the situation". Or you brought up "no one knows what really happened" for entertainment value instead of an attack.
parkia00
(572 posts)The Ukrainian fighter jet you keep referring to were Su-25 ground attack fighters. Although they can be armed with basic air to air missiles that is NOT the role for this aircraft. The Su-25 has an UNPRESSURIZED cockpit which limits it's operational altitude. Why? Because it's role is a GROUND ATTACK aircraft. Max operational height is 23k feet unloaded and 16k feet loaded. Now how high was MH17 flying? I'm sure you know. SO for this plane to attack the airliner head on shooting bullets at 31k feet defies logical explanation even though it's what you really prefer to have happened cause you really want the Ukrainians to be the guilty party and whatever puppet masters you envision to be the string pullers. So PLEASE stop with this fighter plane fantasy.
You accuse others of cherry picking the evidence, are you not doing the same?
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The Kiev government?
We might all save a good deal of embarrassment if we wait a bit to see what the official investigation discovers regarding all of this. Our debating highly technical and specialized information is kind of a dog-chasing-tail effort at best.
parkia00
(572 posts)Either the Russian radar showed the presence of a jetfighter “gaining height” as it closed to within three to five kilometers of the passenger plane – as the Russians claimed in a July 21 press conference – or it didn’t. The Kiev authorities insisted that they had no military aircraft in the area at the time.
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/09/malaysia-airlines-whodunnit-still-a-mystery/
***********************************************************************************
If you bother to read it. Lots on a easy Google search if you bother to search it. For seconds or thirds, there are many sources out there more relevant than RT. Heck even they threw the Ukrainian fighter scenario for those who like to chew those bones. Remember earlier it was supposed to be an blotched assassination of dear Puti but the silly Kiev government got the target mixed up....
Then again it's possible for the Su-25 to shoot at the Boeing from over 12,000 feet away from below with it's 30mm cannons, have the bullets fly pass the plane, do a 180 turn and strike from above. Either that or the MH17 was flying upside down. Do you really still want to flog this dead horse? I mean the horse is really dead. It has rotten leaving a carcass and you are on it screaming "Giddy Up Horsie! Yeee Haww!
Bartlet
(172 posts)damage in the photos of the fuselage, the damage was caused by high velocity none uniform projectiles. The report is pretty specific about this.
elias49
(4,259 posts)and analyzed? The boxes are in friendly hands. What's the hold up? The info isn't favorable to Kiev (and Washington)? We can all do our CSI dances - the angle of the dangle - but nothing says "Hello" like the black box flight recorders. BRING THEM FORTH and get this bullshit over with.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)another_liberal
(8,821 posts)The Separatists' counter offensive had pushed the fighting line back quite a distance West from the crash site. They have also invited international investigators to return and finish their work at the site.
reorg
(3,317 posts)"The recording also included crew communication which gave no indication that there was anything abnormal with the flight. ... A replay of the CVR did not identify any aircraft aural warnings or alerts of system malfunctions. Detailed analysis is ongoing."
The complete black box recordings have not been made available to the public and won't be until the final report is published, if then.
elias49
(4,259 posts)What's up with that?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)But just for fun, research the difference, ok??
Then get back to me. Or not.
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)A flight recorder is an electronic recording device placed in an aircraft for the purpose of facilitating the investigation of aviation accidents and incidents. Commonly referred to as a black box,[1] there are two common types of flight recorder, the flight data recorder (FDR) and the cockpit voice recorder (CVR). In some cases, the two recorders may be combined in a single unit.
elias49
(4,259 posts)the CVR which is referenced in the OP, and then there's that other gnarly thing, the FDR which, from what I've read, is in, or headed to England, for analysis. If I'm wrong on this, please direct me to proof. Are the FDRs NOT in England?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)elias49
(4,259 posts)still want to know why the FDRs were sent away "for further analysis". This troubles me.
If there were sufficient evidence/proof to accuse Russia outright, why hasn't that occurred?
If there isn't, why dick around with sending the FDRs to England? Why not just ship the fuckers here to the US and let the NTSB get "to the bottom of it" as they did with TWA Flight 800?
geek tragedy
(68,868 posts)Flight data will need to be cross - referenced against external evidence.
IronGate
(2,186 posts)You have 2 black boxes, the Flight Data Recorder and the Voice Cockpit Recorder.
So, yes, the Voice Cockpit Recorder is classified as a black box.
another_liberal
(8,821 posts)How else can we be made to willingly accept higher natural gas prices this Fall and Winter, as the Koch brothers and their ilk start to ship a sizable portion of our national production to more lucrative new markets in the gas-starved regions of eastern Europe and Ukraine?
After all, they can't just say, "Hey, we've got a great chance to haul in extra billions in profits if you peons just agree to turn your thermostats back ten or fifteen degrees and pay a dollar or two more for your next gallon of gasoline."
pampango
(24,692 posts)That is in part because it is a preliminary report, intended to outline the progress of the investigation, not draw conclusions. It is also because it is authored by a safety board and intended primarily to draw lessons for general aviation safety rather than apportion blame. Most importantly, the investigation has so far been a remote one. DSB investigators have not been able to visit the crash site for a forensic examination because their safety could not be guaranteed in a conflict zone largely under rebel control. However, the report does put an official imprimatur on some aspects of the disaster that have been unofficially surmised up to now, and fills in some of the details of the last minutes of MH17.
1. The pilots were not told to fly lower
As the plane approached eastern Ukraine at 12.53pm, responsibility for its flight path passed to air traffic control at Dnipropetrovsk. The controllers asked the pilots to climb from 33,000 feet to 35,000ft to keep away from other airliners in the area but the "crew replied they were unable to comply and requested to maintain at [33,000 feet]". As a result, other air traffic was asked to climb to 35,000 feet. The reason for MH17 not being able to climb is not spelled out, but it could be because of weather. There were some thunderstorms in the area. In fact, at 13.00, according to the report, the flight turned slightly to the left "due to weather", 20 minutes before it was brought down. This contradicts at least one of the conspiracy theories in circulation that the plane was told to fly lower than planned by Ukrainian air traffic control.
2. MH17 made no distress signals
The flight data recorder and digital cockpit voice recorder both stopped at 20 seconds past 13.20. No alerts or alarms can be heard or any sign of distress. The last voice communication from the cockpit came 24 seconds earlier – an acknowledgement of the latest routine course instructions from air traffic control. Unable to raise MH17, Dnipropetrovsk asked the next air traffic control centre along the route, at Rostov, if it could see the plane on its screens. Controllers replied: "No, it seems that its target started falling apart."
3. 'High-energy objects' brought the flight down
The fuselage was pierced from the outside by large numbers of "high-energy objects". The cockpit seems to have been particularly badly hit, above the level of the cockpit floor. The DSB investigators have not been able to recover or study any of the objects that penetrated the plane. The report does not speculate on the origin or nature of the objects, but the findings would be consistent with a fragmentation warhead, like the one carried by the Buk anti-aircraft missile, most widely thought to have been involved in the shooting down of the plane.
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/sep/09/mh17-five-things-dutch-safety-board-report
Findings 4 and 5 dealt with the front fell to the ground first and that MH17 was flying above the minimum altitude.
It sounds like "the objects that penetrated the plane" could still be recoverable at the site of the crash. Those might go a long way to showing whether it was cannon fire from a jet fighter or fragments from an anti-aircraft missile warhead that brought it down. Perhaps with the current ceasefire in place, investigators can get to the crash site and look for this evidence.
reorg
(3,317 posts)According to ATC data, at 12.53 hrs the aircraft was flying ... at FL330, controlled by Dnipro Control. At that time, Dnipro Control asked whether MH17 wa able to climb to FL350 in accordance with the flight plan of MH17 and also to clear a potential separation conflict with other traffic in the area, another Boeing 777 flying at FL330 and approaching from behind.
The crew replied they were unable to comply and requested to maintain at FL330. This was agreed by Dnipro Control. As an alternative to solve the separation conflict, the other traffic climbed to FL350. According to ATC data, at 13.00 hrs the crew of flight MH17 requested to divert the track 20 NM to the left, due to weather. This also was agreed by Dnipro Control, after which the crew requested whether FL340 was available. Dnipro control informed MH17 that FL340 was not availble at that moment and instructed the flight to maintain FL330 for a while.
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/uploads/phase-docs/701/b3923acad0ceprem-rapport-mh-17-en-interactief.pdf
So, 7 minutes after the crew said they were unable to climb to 35,000 feet, the problem was apparently resolved, and they requested to climb 1,000 feet higher but were told not to.
Still, this finding by the investigation is in conflict with a statement by Malaysia Airlines a day after the crash:
In a statement here, MAS explained that MH17 had initially filed a flight plan requesting to fly at 35,000 feet above Ukrainian territory, which it described as close to the “optimum altitude”.
“However, an aircraft’s altitude in flight is determined by air traffic control on the ground.
“Upon entering Ukrainian airspace, MH17 was instructed by Ukrainian air traffic control to fly at 33,000 feet,” the national carrier said.
The decision by MH17’s pilots to skim closely to the prohibited air zone — which is 32,000 feet, according to Europe’s aviation authority Eurocontrol — has prompted numerous questions whether this may have contributed to what is believed to be a case of mistaken identity.
http://www.themalaymailonline.com/malaysia/article/ukraine-traffic-controllers-instructed-mh17-to-fly-lower-mas-says
According to the preliminary report, the MAS statement appears only half true: yes, Ukrainian air traffic control instructed MH17 to fly at 33,000 feet and keep that altitude, but seven minutes earlier they had requested MH17 to climb and the pilot said it was not possible at that moment, for reasons unknown.
Demeter
(85,373 posts)a Sac'OLies....
but if one has been paying attention to the alternate sources of information (like, actual witnessess), one already knew that.
ballyhoo
(2,060 posts)doing the investigation and not State.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)if by "utterly demolish" you mean "completely supports". 
muriel_volestrangler
(101,326 posts)The pilots were proceeding as normal; there was no sign of any non-civilian aircraft anywhere near them.
Witnesses claimed the DPR brought down a Ukrainian military transport in the same place at the same time: http://en.itar-tass.com/world/741164 ; but no such An-26 has ever been found. It looks like the DPR, or Russians fighting with them, thought they were attacking a Ukrainian plane when it was really the airliner.
hack89
(39,171 posts)isn't that in line with the State Department's statements?
dotymed
(5,610 posts)is not hampered by politics but that seems unlikely.
Also, one year seems an excessive amount of time but i believe that time period is pretty standard to investigate these types of incidences.
olegramps
(8,200 posts)Aside from the apparent intentional downing of the plane by a missile because of mistaken identification, what appalls me is the actions of the separatists not allowing access to the area and allowing the local people and separatists to scavenge to bodies like hyenas as the rotted in the heat. The immorality of what took place is inexcusable.
In the limited number of pictures that were available they looked like ghouls picking the corpses clean without a shred of human decency. It only compounded just how hideous the entire situation was in their disregard of the sanctity of human beings.
JDPriestly
(57,936 posts)One side or the other knows what really happened. That side needs to save face and try to negotiate its way out of the horrible reaction that will occur when the public learns for sure which side did this. I bet it was a Russian Buk based on the politics and the current maneuvering in the negotiations. Don't know a thing about the technology or military aspects.
Of course, it could have been a Ukrainian hit. But judging from the politics of it, probably not. If it were the Ukraine, the rebels would be falling over themselves to expose the damning evidence at the site where the plane fell. The rebels are hiding the evidence at the crash site. So, I think it is the rebels with Russian equipment.
meMeMEEEE
(40 posts)Actually hitting a plane travelling at 800+ km/h using Buk requires trained personnel (and getting the actual Buk)
If it was a Buk the options are limited to just Ukrainian or Russian military
hitting an aircraft requires no training since the missile once launched uses it's onboard radar to track the target. It does require a trained operator to launch. The Rebels claimed to have had a BUK and there are several videos of a BUK launcher in the rebel controlled area. Whatever the outcome of the investigation, this report only outlines the facts that the aircraft was flying on a normal flight path and the crew was not aware of any hostile actions being taken against the aircraft.
meMeMEEEE
(40 posts)I was referring to operating the Buk (I understand that it is a sophisticated unit consisting of five separate modules that requires trained personnel), not guiding the missile
IF the investigation concludes that it is a Buk, then I still maintain that the options are limited to either UA or RU military. The reason for discounting the rebels is that even if they had a genuine homegrown team capable of operating a Buk, there is still a question of where did the Buk come from. Unless they stole the unit from either of the two countries' armed forces (I am not aware of any reports to support that), it was handed over to them, hence my assertion that the ultimate responsibility lies either with Ukrainian or Russian Gov
Tommy_Carcetti
(43,185 posts)Say, a country that has its interests in the outcome but wants its involvement to remain in a state of plausible deniability.
I wonder who that would be....
jeff47
(26,549 posts)My understanding was that the Ukrainian fighters shot down prior to the incident have been flying at lower altitudes, there was no need for a Buk to hit those
jeff47
(26,549 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)they shot down an An-27, and instead shot down MH17. Giant smoke trail indicates it wasn't a handheld SAM, but it also wasn't shot at the fighters.
meMeMEEEE
(40 posts)If you are referring to the rebels' announcements about the downed planes prior to Jul 17th, those have been shot down using portable devices (like Russian Igla), e.g. the military plane that was shot down when it was landing in Luhansk on Jun 14th. These devices are much smaller
The Buk came in from Russia shortly before MH-17 incident (assuming you believe the intercepted phone conversation between rebel leaders that has been made public by the Ukrainian authorities). When the rebels acknowledged shooting down some plane on Jul 17th before realising what they've done, they have not admitted to using a Buk to do so, neither have they ever publically acknowledged being in a possession of a Buk
It would be extremely hard to pin this one on just the rebels and leaving the Russian Gov out of it
meMeMEEEE
(40 posts)There will be a lawsuit by the victims' families once the investigation is over, likely to be a sizeable amount, it will bring the attention back to the perpetrators
EX500rider
(10,849 posts)BEA's (Bureau d'Enquêtes et d'Analyses pour la Sécurité de l'Aviation Civile) final report, released at a news conference on 5 July 2012...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Air_France_Flight_447
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)of that U.S. cover-up, which so many DUers swore that was in play...
Igel
(35,323 posts)The cover up was believed, and therefore it needs not to just not have any support for further belief but to have positive and convincing evidence that there was no cover up. Not a preponderance, but beyond a reasonable doubt.
The cover up idea will continue for a long time. When you have an enemy, they don't make mistakes: They only have intentional bad acts. If there's something they might have done that's bad, it's a slam-dunk that they did it. Because they're enemies, and that's what they do.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)reorg
(3,317 posts)So why hasn’t Washington been more forthcoming with the information they have? Why are they basing their judgment on the nonsense they’ve gleaned from social media and Twitter feeds instead of spy-in-the-sky photos and satellite imagery? Why are they dragging their feet and obstructing the investigation? And why, for God sakes, why has Europe agreed to go along with this charade when they know there’s not a scintilla of evidence linking Russia to the downed plane?
These are just some of the questions that remain unanswered a full two weeks after MH17 was downed by what appears to have been a surface-to-air missile launched from a BUK platform somewhere in east Ukraine. (Although even that fact is now in dispute given that MH17 was being allegedly being shadowed by two Ukrainian warplanes. Some analysts believe the aircraft was actually destroyed by air-to-air missiles fired from one of the two Su25 interceptors.)
http://www.unz.com/mwhitney/the-unanswered-questions-of-mh17/
The preliminary report doesn't mention any of this, I doubt they have received the satellite images allegedly in the possession of US intelligence.
The Russians had a lot of specific questions and requests which don't seem to have been answered by the preliminary report either.
Questions to Ukraine regarding the investigation of Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 crash
The following data shall be requested:
1. Video and audio recording of the air traffic control center communications.
2. Tape recordings of radio exchanges between the air traffic controller and adjacent air traffic control centers inter alia covering the entry into the Ukrainian airspace.
3. Recordings of radio exchanges and phone calls between the air traffic controllers and the military air traffic control sector or Ukraine Air Defense.
...
http://rt.com/politics/official-word/175584-russia-agency-questions-mh17/
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)If the U.S. wasn't helping, the Dutch would be making a very public case about it...
Oh, and since you're only getting your information from "certain sources", here's a fun tidbit you probably missed: Once the Dutch *officially* confirm beyond a doubt that the device was an anti-air missile, British intelligence said they can re-trace the trajectory to it's original launch location, accurate to plus/minus FIVE meters...So you and Putin should be shitting yourselves in the very near future...
reorg
(3,317 posts)Where did you debunk that the US has satellite images revealing where the supposed ground-to-air missile was launched? Or did you mean such images were provided to "the Dutch" - who don't even investigate where the assumed missile came from?
Either the Russian radar showed the presence of a jetfighter “gaining height” as it closed to within three to five kilometers of the passenger plane – as the Russians claimed in a July 21 press conference – or it didn’t. The Kiev authorities insisted that they had no military aircraft in the area at the time.
But the 34-page Dutch report is silent on the jetfighter question, although noting that the investigators had received Air Traffic Control “surveillance data from the Russian Federation.”
The report is also silent on the “dog-not-barking” issue of whether the U.S. government had satellite surveillance that revealed exactly where the supposed ground-to-air missile was launched and who may have fired it.
http://consortiumnews.com/2014/09/09/malaysia-airlines-whodunnit-still-a-mystery/
And what's stopping the British to re-trace the trajectory of the supposed missile to its original location right now?
Myrina
(12,296 posts) reorg
(3,317 posts)They go on to write, however, on the basis of no evidence at all, that the preliminary report "...gave some indirect support to assertions by the United States and Ukraine that pro-Russian rebels shot down the aircraft with an SA-11, or Buk, surface-to-air missile."
Both paragraphs are completely at odds with the report, and that supposed "indirect support" is never mentioned. And no wonder: it doesn't exist in the report.
http://www.opednews.com/articles/Making-the-news-fit-the-po-by-Dave-Lindorff-Flight-17_Media-New-York-Times_Propaganda_Reporters-140910-813.html
"Shed no clear light", but "gave some indirect support"? Clearly, some wishful thinking found its way into the NYT report.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The first paragraph is in no way at odds with the report. They are saying that the report's description of the damage is consistent with a SAM attack. From detailed, informed comments here from people who understand how these missiles work, that is the case. The next part says the blame was not assigned. IMO this paragraph is completely accurate and unbiased. (Note that saying the report is consistent with a SAM attack does NOT mean that ONLY a SAM attack could have caused this.)
As to giving "indirect support" to US and Ukrainian claims -- it absolutely does because as the first sentence says the damage is consistent with a SAM missile attacking. Whether you have a problem with this sentence depends on what you think "indirect support" means. Note that they qualify it as INDIRECT support. Had the report DEFINITIVELY said it was a SAM missile, ruling out everything else AND they made the case that it HAD to have come from Separatist controlled areas that would have been direct support. Even stronger direct support would have been something like - "everything points to the plane having been shot down with a SAM fired from a separatist controlled area."
This report, as a preliminary report, not written to assign blame, actually is just what the NYT says - it indirectly supports what the State Department says when combined with assessing what could have led to the results described. However, there will be a more detailed forensic investigation with its own report. THAT report might include far more evidence of what kind of SAM (if it ultimately is seen to be a SAM) and likely a definition of the locus of points from which it could have been fired given the way it hit.
reorg
(3,317 posts)He doesn't add any interpretations, he just shows that the NYT makes claims that are not in the report.
The report describes some of the damage you can see on photos, and at the same time points out that they still need to collect and analyze the evidence on the ground. It doesn't even mention SAMs or missiles anywhere, that's not editorializing, it's a fact. They describe the cause of the damage as "high-energy objects" which could be consistent with a lot of things, but the investigating experts don't mention them. The exact wording in the report:
"The pattern of damage observed in the forward fuselage and cockpit section of the aircraft was consistent with the damage that would be expected from a large number of high-energy objects that penetrated the aircraft from outside."
The NYT, without mentioning which other experts they may have consulted, turn this into "consistent with an attack by a surface-to-air missile". Then they add their interpretation "indirect support to assertions by the United States and Ukraine that pro-Russia rebels shot down the aircraft with an SA-11, or Buk, surface-to-air missile."
If the report lends "indirect support" to this very specific claim, then how about the report's "indirect support" for other claims, indicating Ukrainian culpability? Why were airliners allowed to fly over a region where military planes had already been shot down, several times, in the days prior to the accident? The report confirms that 4 airliners were cruising above the war zone at the same time, so that not every plane could fly as high as they would have wanted in order to avoid risk.
Ukrainian military planes were allegedly flying in the shadow of airliners, using them as human shields. After the incident, the Ukrainians claimed they had known that the self-defense forces had acquired a Buk missile launcher, they even presented intercepted phone calls as proof. The Ukrainians had Buk missile launchers in the region themselves, to defend against possible (and allegedly already happening) air attacks from Russia. The report doesn't mention any of this, naturally. So, by providing "indirect support" to the claim that the plane was shot down by a missile, does this mean it also provides "indirect support" to the allegation of Ukrainian culpability or even provoking the incident?
Another bummer in the NYT report is this, I think David Lindorff didn't mention it:
"Its findings also debunked several theories circulated by Russian media and on the Internet, including reports that moments before the disaster the pilots of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 reported to air traffic controllers that they were being tailed by a Ukrainian military jet."
I never heard about these theories, what I read was that the Russians have radar data showing that MH17 was being tailed. That was not debunked by the Dutch investigation, it wasn't mentioned.
There were some reports (originating with Interfax, I believe) claiming that the air traffic audio and transcripts had been confiscated by the Ukrainian intelligence service. That may or may not be true, fact is these transcripts and audio recordings were never published. (Even now, the report only cites the final communications with "Dnipropetrovs'k CTA 4", UTC 13.07 - 13.20 hrs.) What these recordings and transcripts might contain was therefore subject to speculation and questions. Again, the NYT editorializes when they are saying that the report "debunks several theories". All it does is showing that the pilots didn't mention "that they were being tailed". Some people may have assumed that they did, I don't know, but in no way does this "debunk" that military planes have been close to the airliner, which is the actual claim by the Russians, confirmed by their radar recordings. I guess we could even state that the report "indirectly confirms" the Russian claims, since the don't actually "debunk" them.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)something previously said. There are any number of experts who have said that the description is consistent with the damage you would expect from a SAM. As to the theories debunked, it would include any that would not result in that damage pattern- like the idea that the plane was shot at by another plane.
As to the article NOT addressing every Russian conspiracy theory, why would they? For instance, the fact that the international air traffic authorities continued to fly over that area was NOT in the report. It is not even in dispute. That will, of course, be part of what is in a final report where all the blame will be given.
As to reports - that seem mostly based in CT - that the Ukrainians were shadowing the plane or that there were things things said by the pilots, there has been no credible source of that. They do have a lot on what the air traffic controls, both Ukrainian and Russian, said when they lost sight of the plane.
Look, while it is NOT what YOU would report, it is valid reporting - far more than reporting things that some dude wrote on the internet.
reorg
(3,317 posts)ed·i·to·ri·al·ize
verb \ˌe-də-ˈtȯr-ē-ə-ˌlīz\
ed·i·to·ri·al·izeded·i·to·ri·al·iz·ing
Definition of EDITORIALIZE
intransitive verb
1 : to express an opinion in the form of an editorial
2 : to introduce opinion into the reporting of facts
3 : to express an opinion (as on a controversial issue)
If you present facts (like what the report actually says or doesn't say) and at the same time make opinionated conclusions (like: see, like we said all along, it must have been a Russian missile), it is called editorializing. The NYT did not say that it was conclusively proven that it was a missile of said kind, they said it was "consistent with", IOW it still could have been something else. So why mention just one possibility and not others? Editorializing.
Then they pick something that somebody might have said, I don't know - although I read quite a few RT reports, I never saw the claim that there were communications between pilots and air control "in the last moments" about a military plane. Factual, objective reporting would precisely point out who allegedly said that, the NYT does'nt. They also don't mention the radar data (facts, not conspiracy theories) submitted by the Russians showing these planes.
That is editorializing, heavily slanted towards: see, we told you so, these BS theories by the Russian media are already proven to be false! However, the report points out that the only primary radar data they received were those of the Russians. Since the report does not mention them any further and doesn't draw any conclusions, are we supposed to realize it "indirectly supports" the Russian claims about military planes in the vicinity? And, if so, why doesn't the NYT mention this?
As to the damage pattern and whether it proves that the plane was not shot down by gun fire, the report doesn't say anything about it either. I don't have the expertise to form an opinion. The NYT doesn't mention any experts, next to their babble about "being consistent with". YOU have drawn conclusions, based on what somebody else may have said on DU. I don't know if the idea that gun fire may have caused the damage has been debunked, and, frankly, I don't really care. I trust that real experts will deal with this question and that there will be valid conclusions at some point in time.
The observation that Ukrainian military planes were using airliners as human shields may have been inconclusive, but there are credible sources that the DPR self-defense believed they did, and stated so. They uploaded a video stating this observation several days or weeks before the incident, so unless YouTube is in on it, they didn't come up with a "conspiracy theory", they saw the military planes while they shot some of them down, and apparently observed that airliners flew right over them. Make of that what you will.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)The article is about the release of the report, but it answers the first question that most readers would have - Is this be consistent with the US comments? Note what "consistent with means" and no you should not have to run to get a dictionary. It is NOT the same as saying that the report concludes it WAS a SAM, as the US has said is most likely. Consistent simply means that the report does not rule it out. Further - later on - it does say that it does rule out some internet conspiracies - specifically that it was gunfire from a jet. (PS There were experts - not on DU - who said similar things to those on DU. )
What is interesting is that you first fault them for going further than just reporting - stand alone - the Dutch report. Then, you criticize them for NOT covering things that were NOT in the report - ie claims of Ukrainian planes being in the area.
The ONLY thing that the beliefs of the DPR rebels change is motivation. In fact, the point where that becomes an issue at all is when and if they are identified conclusively as having shot down the plane. It is interesting that they are putting out excuses that suggest they are conceding they DID shoot down the plane. Maybe there would already be mainstream coverage dealing with motivation had they soon after the crash admitted they had done it in error and explained why.
It is rather odd that you are willing to believe internet claims as to Ukrainian planes "shadowing" passenger planes - though they fly at different speeds and altitudes (!) and any other suggestion that suggests blame for anyone but the DPR. You even blamed the plane and the air traffic controllers for the plane being there -- as if its presence necessitated the DPR shooting it down!
There will be a second report that actually looks at everything available and tries to analyse whether they can definitively say that what shot down the plane, from where and by who. That report is not yet written - and I suspect the analysis is not complete.
reorg
(3,317 posts)does it say anything we didn't already know?
The answer, I believe, is no.
I don't know why you keep defending the NYT and its speculations, everybody knows it's the US version of RT.
I didn't defend the latter, nor do I "hold on to" its alleged "lies". I only mentioned RT because I did NOT read about any "conspiracy theories" there that would have been disproven by the report.
It is "consistent" with the report that the DPR self-defense shot down the plane. Also "consistent" with the report is that
- the Ukrainians used their Buk missile batteries which were launched in the region
- a Ukrainian military plane shot an air-to-air missile / plus gun fire
I haven't heard of any other theories, so, as far as I know, nothing that was speculated about before has been ruled out.
However it happened, the Ukrainians are to blame in any case for not closing the airspace over the war zone.
karynnj
(59,504 posts)Yes, I am sure that part of the blame will go to both Ukraine and the international traffic control system for not closing the air space .... however the BIGGEST blame will go to whomever actually shot down the plane and it does not matter what they thought the plane they shot down was.
As to the NYT being like America's RT, that is completely laughable.
reorg
(3,317 posts)so far, so I have to agree with you here: the NYT is far worse.
And yes, all possibilities mentioned are still consistent with the report's findings.
If someone shot down this plane deliberately, in full knowledge that it was an airliner, then they should be held accountable by the international community - they probably were not Americans who can commit war crimes with impunity.
If the shoot-down occurred in error, in the course of the legitimate defense against a military attack, I'm not so sure who is culpable. Mostly those who did not close the airspace for civilian traffic, I think, although they apparently knew that missiles were in the area and might be launched.