Other The downing of flight MH17

[David Brent]

Yep.

OK, so you'll know which airway the pilot filed?

 

[WBarnes]

OK, so you'll know which airway the pilot filed?

I know which one the idiot ATC permitted.

 

[David Brent]

The route chosen by the airline and the pilot did not take them over the war zone, the redirection did and you don't see that as negligent? Wow!

I've asked you a simple question. What route, filed by the airline and the captain, meant they wouldn't have flown over a war zone? You're certain the airline and the pilot chose a route that didn't take them over a war zone, in which case you should be able to tell me the name of the ATS route?

I know which one the idiot ATC permitted.

Which is?

Presumably you're aware of TRAs, CDRs, Danger Areas? What about route availability at different flight levels? If an airway is unavailable, would it be unavailable at all flight levels? If it's not, what is the minimum flight level it would be available? What about RVSM airspace? What about the air pressure at the time? Would that have an affect on route availability? Come on, you're making out like you know what you're talking about, so these should be very simple questions to answer. I'm not asking you any trick questions here.

I'm not holding my breath. I asked you five times about the role of ATC and their responsibilities. I even told you which document you would find it. I never did get an answer. I'm not going to let you off the hook until you admit you have no idea what you're talking about. You're making factually incorrect statements regarding MH17, and I'm not going to let you get away with it.

 

[WBarnes]

I've asked you a simple question. What route, filed by the airline and the captain, meant they wouldn't have flown over a war zone? You're certain the airline and the pilot chose a route that didn't take them over a war zone, in which case you should be able to tell me the name of the ATS route?




Which is?

Presumably you're aware of TRAs, CDRs, Danger Areas? What about route availability at different flight levels? If an airway is unavailable, would it be unavailable at all flight levels? If it's not, what is the minimum flight level it would be available? What about RVSM airspace? What about the air pressure at the time? Would that have an affect on route availability? Come on, you're making out like you know what you're talking about, so these should be very simple questions to answer. I'm not asking you any trick questions here.

I'm not holding my breath. I asked you five times about the role of ATC and their responsibilities. I even told you which document you would find it. I never did get an answer. I'm not going to let you off the hook until you admit you have no idea what you're talking about. You're making factually incorrect statements regarding MH17, and I'm not going to let you get away with it.

The route flew south of the warzone. They were redirected because of a storm.

On the new route they wanted to ascend but were denied.

Basically these are strawmans and diversion tactics, I'm sticking to the facts about what happened.

 

[David Brent]

Basically these are strawmans and diversion tactics, I'm sticking to the facts about what happened.

Well, let me tell you about the facts...

The route flew south of the warzone.

No it didn't. The filed flight plan (via route L980) took the flight right over the area of conflict, which covered hundreds of miles. However, the airspace was only closed below FL320. The blue line (see image below) is the track MH17 flew. The red hatched line shows the extent of the airspace closure. Everything to the East of the red hatched line was closed below FL320 (32,000ft in layman's terms). MH17 was at FL330 (33,000ft), and was therefore not flying in closed airspace, but was most certainly flying above the conflict zone, as were several other airliners, including those from Singapore Airlines, Air France, EVA Air. In fact, a total of 62 airlines were regularly using that airspace.

The picture below shows the filed route of MH17 via L980 (the yellow line), the 5nm corridor either side of the ATS route (shaded in grey), and the ACTUAL track of MH17 (the black line). The aircraft deviated north of the centreline by 6.5nm. I'm telling you this as a factual record, not because it had any consequnces to the safety of the flight.

They were redirected because of a storm.

Incorrect. MH17 was not directed anywhere to avoid a storm, as that is not how it works. Area radar air traffic controllers don't have enough information about weather on their radar, and instead act on requests of pilots, who have much more accurate information on the dimensions and intensity of a storm, using both the on-board weather radar and, in daylight hours, their eyeballs. (Approach controllers near airports have much better radar systems, but their unsuitable for upper area control).

What happened is MH17 requested to deviate north of track to avoid the weather, and the controller approved this, the basis of which is made ENTIRELY on whether that would cause a conflict with other aircraft in the vicinity. Again, this turn to avoid weather was completely inconsequential to the accident, as it didn't enter any closed airspace, and nor did it take it over an area of conflict it wasn't previously flying over. The deviation was only 6.5nm for God's sake, which is practically nothing considering the speed aircraft fly at.

On the new route they wanted to ascend but were denied.

"New route"? As I've said above, the "new route" was a slight deviation of a few miles. And to say "route" is not correct terminology, as that means something different and refers to the ATS route. The correct terminology is to say "track".

As for being "denied" a climb, that is correct, but it's completely inconsequential to the accident. MH17 requested FL340, but it wasn't available, likely due to it not complying with the semi-circular FL allocation rule, as traffic heading eastbound usually needs to use "odd" flight levels. FL350 was occupied by a Singapore Airlines aircraft. MH17 was offered FL350 on contacting Ukraine ATC, but they rejected it as the aircraft was too heavy at that stage of the flight. Instead SQ351 was asked if they could climb from FL330 to FL350 in order to provide separation with MH17, and they accepted. Pilots asking for different flight levels is perfectly common and mundane, as is being denied the request. It's part and parcel of being a pilot and controller. Busy airspace means not every aircraft can get their perfect altitude, so it's often a game of compromise.

After the accident happened, these two facts (aircraft deviating north, and a climb request being rejected by air traffic control) were picked up by the media as being significant, but they were completely inconsequential, and just an example of journalists not understanding air traffic control or aviation in general, but still trying to write an article that grabs people's attention. The problem is, laymen like yourself read their reports and take them as factual, when usually they're so full of inaccuracies and misunderstandings it's laughable.


The official Dutch Safety Board report is here, and you're welcome to check anything I've said.

https://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/page/3546/crash-mh17-17-july-2014

 

[David Brent]

Thanks to the mods for moving this discussion to a dedicated thread.

 

[David Brent]

As a qualified air traffic controller, instructor, and examiner of over 20 years, I find it astounding that I'm even having this discussion, but I'm not going to have anybody making false accusations about my profession, especially when they have no knowledge of the subject being discussed. It's clear that WBarnes has based his entire argument on headlines of newspapers, and articles written by novices who have zero understanding of aviation or air traffic control specficially. It's obviously the same approach he's taken with Brexit, and it explains a LOT of his posts in that thread too.

I can imagine WBarnes is the sort of person who, on meeting an F1 driver, would explain to them how to gain an extra tenth of a second per lap by taking a different racing line. Such unchecked confidence, and a complete lack of self-awareness makes dealing with people like this a tedious experience, but sadly they walk among us.

 

[David Brent]

"but their unsuitable for upper area control"

Yes, I am aware of the difference between "they're" and "their". Obviously I've had a brain fart but the 15 minute period where I can edit my post has long past.

 

[WBarnes]

It isn't a false accusation, the ATC were guilty of anything you hold Boris Johnson guilty of. He didn't direct people to go on holidays or mix at Christmas, he merely permitted it. Could not permitting it have saved lives, well maybe, even probably, assuming people adhered to such rules, which is a big question given disobedience levels. Could ATC have avoided the MH17 disaster by not allowing flights over the warzone? Definitely, that's not even questionable.

So basically you're a hypocrite, as is true of so many Remainers. And no, your strawmans cannot detract from that fact.

 

[David Brent]

Could ATC have avoided the MH17 disaster by not allowing flights over the warzone? Definitely, that's not even questionable.

Air Traffic Control are not the authority deciding whether flights can cross war zones. I've told you this numerous times, so I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand? Air Traffic Control don't decide whether airspace is safe or not. They control airspace that is open, but they have no say in this risk assessment. That is done at state level.

The responsibility for a flight's safety is in the hands of the airline operator. This is made clear in the accident report. The airline should liase with ICAO and other agencies which specialise in assessing risk, but none of them are air traffic control, because that's not what they do!! It's like complaining to the Highways Agency because a drunk driver crashed into you.

Having flights cross that part of Ukraine was clearly a mistake. It happened for three main reasons. 1) Poor intelligence and risk assessment. 2) The mistaken belief that the only weapons being used in the conflict at the time could not reach the altiudes commercial aircraft were flying at. 3) Operators wanted to fly over Ukraine because it was the shortest and therefore cheapest route to fly.

The two screenshots are directly lifted from the final accident report.

Seriously man, just give it up. You're making an utter fool of yourself.

 

[WBarnes]

Air Traffic Control are not the authority deciding whether flights can cross war zones. I've told you this numerous times, so I'm not sure what part of this you don't understand? Air Traffic Control don't decide whether airspace is safe or not. They control airspace that is open, but they have no say in this risk assessment. That is done at state level.

The responsibility for a flight's safety is in the hands of the airline operator. This is made clear in the accident report. The airline should liase with ICAO and other agencies which specialise in assessing risk, but none of them are air traffic control, because that's not what they do!! It's like complaining to the Highways Agency because a drunk driver crashed into you.

Having flights cross that part of Ukraine was clearly a mistake. It happened for three main reasons. 1) Poor intelligence and risk assessment. 2) The mistaken belief that the only weapons being used in the conflict at the time could not reach the altiudes commercial aircraft were flying at. 3) Operators wanted to fly over Ukraine because it was the shortest and therefore cheapest route to fly.

The two screenshots are directly lifted from the final accident report.

Seriously man, just give it up. You're making an utter fool of yourself.

So basically your get out of jail free card is the denial of having any responsibility. Well I guess Boris can use that card too, hell everyone can. Utterly shameless. What exactly do ATC do exactly if not ensuring safe flight routes?

 

[klier]

So basically your get out of jail free card is the denial of having any responsibility. Well I guess Boris can use that card too, hell everyone can. Utterly shameless. What exactly do ATC do exactly if not ensuring safe flight routes?

Why don't you just STFU?

Mods, threads like this are horrible, don't add anything, create hostility and overall have nothing to do on a car forum. Lock this, and let the people here have their discussion in a private chat.

 

[WBarnes]

Why don't you just STFU?

Mods, threads like this are horrible, don't add anything, create hostility and overall have nothing to do on a car forum. Lock this, and let the people here have their discussion in a private chat.

David Brent creates hostility with everyone, so why don't both of you STFU? He has an extremely abrasive holier than thou attitude and gets away with direct insults over and over and over again. It's as if forum rules don't even apply to him.

https://germancarforum.com/threads/off-topic-from-bev-technology.60950/

 

[David Brent]

Why don't you just STFU?

Mods, threads like this are horrible, don't add anything, create hostility and overall have nothing to do on a car forum. Lock this, and let the people here have their discussion in a private chat.

I agree. I'd rather not have to discuss MH17, but when someone writes complete lies about my profession with the intention of provoking me, it's hard not to respond. I've explained to him why it's not ATC's responsibility, and they don't assess military threats as that's the domain of departments with actual military intelligence, and yet he's still saying above that it's a "get out of jail card", and "utterly shameless". The guy is toxic. Imagine bringing up the disaster purely to wind someone up and attempt to get one over on someone, even though it had nothing to do with me? What sort of a sick individual does that? The only thing he knew about me is that I'm an ATCO, so imagine the thought process he's gone through to then think, "I'm going to bring up MH17 being shot down because he's an ATCO". Mental. He's already had a post removed due to racist and hateful speech content. Of course, it's a complete coincidence he supports Brexit. No connection there whatsoever.

 

[David Brent]

I've destroyed every point he's made about MH17. He got his info from the headlines in a newspaper, and yet he's tried to lecture me on something which is literally my job. He could have quietly let the thread die after I posted my thorough explanation yesterday, with photos, and people would just forget about it. Yet he keeps coming back for more. Some people just don't know when they're being humiliated.

 

[WBarnes]

I've destroyed every point he's made about MH17. He got his info from the headlines in a newspaper, and yet he's tried to lecture me on something which is literally my job. He could have quietly let the thread die after I posted my thorough explanation yesterday, with photos, and people would just forget about it. Yet he keeps coming back for more. Some people just don't know when they're being humiliated.

ATC could have directed traffic around the war zone. That's a fact, any number of bodies could have for that matter, but they chose to go through it just to save some gas. Meanwhile you lecture politicians on lockdown measures when an entire economy is at stake as if you're some kind of guru on good judgment, when in fact the exact opposite is true. As a defence he uses the fact that there were 62 other planes in a position to be shot down too. What kind of a defence is that?

and they don't assess military threats as that's the domain of departments with actual military intelligence

Military intelligence? By the time of the disaster it was public knowledge that a Buk M1 was operating in the area and that several aircraft had been shot down well above 20,000ft, one above 25,000ft. You don't assess these threats, and yet reading the Coronavirus thread I thought threat assessment was your speciality?

 

[chonkoa]

So basically your get out of jail free card is the denial of having any responsibility. Well I guess Boris can use that card too, hell everyone can. Utterly shameless. What exactly do ATC do exactly if not ensuring safe flight routes?

Sometimes I see the point you make, but there are times I just scratch my head and this one of them.
Why are you in the God's name are you trying to box David into something that he had nothing to do with? Okay there was an error with routing MH17 through that particular airspace but I still cannot fathom how that crept into the BREXIT/Coronvirus (wherever this animosity started) discussion and eventually here.
What you seemed to have displayed in your continuance in antagonistic stance towards David is that he seems to live rent-free in your head.
I do not agree with David(Betty) on everything, we have clashed in the past but I respect his opinion just as I respect yours. Let us focus on adding value rather than taking the other person down.

 

[David Brent]

Sometimes I see the point you make, but there are times I just scratch my head and this one of them.

The guy is completely unstable.

Why are you in the God's name are you trying to box David into something that he had nothing to do with?

Because the only thing he knows about me is that I'm an air traffic controller, so he latched onto that and picked something where he believed air traffic control were at fault. He thought this because he reads newspaper headlines and little else. Even now he keeps persisting with "air traffic control could have routed the aircraft around the war zone", despite the fact I've told him MANY, MANY times that a different body, not air traffic control, decide whether airspace should be closed or not, and the airlines liase with their own agencies to decide where their aircraft can fly. There are specialised bodies who do this, not because ATC are trying to shirk responsibility, but because they're not in a position to give reliable info. The accident report explains this and I've even posted it above, but does this evidence matter to him? Does it bollocks. He's and idiot and a complete nutcase. He's not interested in facts or the truth. Just look at the beginning of this thread where he said he was "absolutely certain" ATC directed MH17 into a warzone, when it is demonstrably untrue, as shown in the accident report and the photos I've posted.

I hope this shines a light on the rubbish he's posted in the Brexit thread. He's not interested in facts or the truth there either, and like most Brexiters now, he's so invested in it that to make a u-turn now would mean he loses face to such a degree, that it's better just to pigheadedly carry on with the argument. A bit like this argument too.

 

[WBarnes]

It's simple really, David is an expert when it comes to criticising other people who are actually managing complex decisions, but when it comes to simple decisions made by his affiliates, not so much, just a denial of any responsibility. It's up to someone else to close an airspace off but not to close a country off from holidays isn't it? Up to airlines to decide if a route is safe but not travel agents to determine if a country is safe. Let's have civilian airliners flying near Su-25 attack jets while they strike ground targets in the middle of a SAM defence network. The guy perfectly illustrates the inability of Remainers to join up simple facts and see equivalences.

 

[WBarnes]

Why are you in the God's name are you trying to box David into something that he had nothing to do with?

I'm merely supplying him with a dose of his own medicine from the coronavirus thread. The fact is that it ultimately isn't the government's responsibility to determine is travel is safe as regards coronavirus either. Ultimately there is law and good sense

But such revelations do pose a question. He isn't responsible for determining safe routes, closing off airspace or ensuring safe separation from combat flights....