Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

MH 777 shot down by Russian backed separatists in Ukraine

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    First of all, my thoughts are with the families and close friends of the loved ones lost in this horrific incident.

    SQ really have not handled themelves at all well in the media it seems, firstly jumping to their own defence to say they don't use this path (well if that's the case, they use one very similar for many european destinations - I distinctly remember being over that exact area on an SQ flight to and from LHR earlier this month) before having any type of message of sadness.

    I've spent most of the day checking flightradar24 in regards to operaters who use this area heavily, mainly MH, SQ and TG. Regretably SQ seem to be the carrier still flying closest to this area. Understandly MH are operating similar routes much much further to the south, and TG heading much further north through Russia and up to the north of Poland before dropping into mainland Europe.

    Like I say if SQ haven't been using this path where the MH plane was shot down, they have been travelling on something awfully close to that.

    Comment


    • #32
      http://www.theguardian.com/world/vid...disaster-video

      The Security Service of Ukraine has released a recording of what it says are conversations involving a rebel fighter named 'Bes', Russian Colonel Vasyl Mykolaiovych Geranin and Cossack military leader Mykola Kozitsyn discussing the downing of a Malaysia Airlines jet over eastern Ukraine. The transcript with this video was obtained independently by the Guardian

      Comment


      • #33
        Shocked by the events of yesterday/today. My thoughts and prayers are with those onboard MH17, and their loved ones.

        Plane Talking by Ben Sandilands: MH17: Three jets crossed that war zone, one didn’t make it
        Last edited by yflyer; 18 July 2014, 04:04 PM.

        Comment


        • #34
          Reported in Australia today:

          Singapore Airlines would not say whether it had been flying over Ukraine until the incident occurred. “We generally have a number of pre-existing flight paths for our flights to and from the destinations that we are operating to,” a Singapore spokeswoman said. “At this point, we are no longer using Ukrainian airspace and have re-routed all our flights to alternative flight paths that are away from the region."

          Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/aviation/malaysia-airlines-mh17-australian-expert-questions-flights-ukraine-route-20140718-zuilw.html#ixzz37nvMcELr

          Comment


          • #35
            This is horrific...
            My heart and prayers go out to the families and friends of the victims.

            Comment


            • #36
              I think SQ's messages refers to "from now on" as they have been flying over Ukraine previously. SQ25/26 usually used that route with just SQ26 last need being diverted.
              But it's not uncommon to fly over ground conflict regions. I've been crossing Afghanistan or Iraq as well in flight altitude. You just never expected somebody to use sophisticated missiles suddendly.
              No matter what happened, I doubt it was anybody's plan to really ground MH17. Still terrible news.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by yflyer View Post
                Shocked by the events of yesterday/today. My thoughts and prayers are with those onboard MH17, and their loved ones.

                Plane Talking by Ben Sandilands: MH17: Three jets crossed that war zone, one didn’t make it

                That guy really rips shreds into SQ, I think quite unfairly.

                I just took exactly the same routing a couple of weeks ago, as many of us probably have, so without proper information, if a route is declared open, airlines will use it.

                Let's hope something good in Ukraine comes from this appalling and life realizing event.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by scooby5 View Post
                  That guy really rips shreds into SQ, I think quite unfairly.

                  I just took exactly the same routing a couple of weeks ago, as many of us probably have, so without proper information, if a route is declared open, airlines will use it.

                  Let's hope something good in Ukraine comes from this appalling and life realizing event.
                  Why unfairly?

                  They have continued to use a corridor, which the majority of airliners have deserted when this conflict commenced back in March. Of course, no one would have expected this to happen, but when flying over an area of high conflict you run that risk. Is that a risk that SQ and MH (and others?) took, worth less than the cost of fuel and time? Unfortunately in this case, the answer seems to be yes.

                  Yes, the area was deemed "safe" - why then, did the majority of airlines divert and in some case even cancel services, which would have originally crossed this airspace?

                  I don't believe he has treated SQ unfairly. SQ can count themselves extremely lucky in my opinion. I have flown the same corridor (I hate to think how many times) this year with SQ, and was not aware they were in the minority when choosing to continue with that flight path.

                  They have knowingly flown over an area of conflict, also knowning that several of their competitors decided against doing the same. To achieve what? to save time? to keep fuel costs down? Is that more important than the risk to human life and the reputation of the airline?

                  MH now faces an incredibly difficult time, with two well publicised 'accidents'. We will never know if they have any responsibility over the disappearance of 370 (doubtful), and cane we blame them for this horrific incident this morning? Some will say yes, some will say no. But the question is, did they take everything into account when deciding to carry on using this flight corridor, or did they merely look at the profitability?

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Truly saddened

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      It's an open corridor and there were quite a few other airlines flying the same route, including European ones.

                      Hindsight is a great advantage when ripping into someone.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by scooby5 View Post
                        It's an open corridor and there were quite a few other airlines flying the same route, including European ones.

                        Hindsight is a great advantage when ripping into someone.
                        Agreed. "Crikey!" is not widely regarded as a reputable source of journalism in Australia. It has it's place as an open forum or debate and opinion and was begun with a 'whistleblower' mentality, but nobody goes to the site for rational, impartial analysis of complex situations. (That said, there are plenty of 'newspapers' that are even less credible!) This is just one person's rantings based on what they saw on a website that we at SQTalk are all as capable of accessing and understanding.

                        When the Icelandic ash cloud grounded Europe's airspace in 2010, I was booked to fly out of LHR on the first night of the closures. The prevailing judgement was that it was not safe to fly planes in that airspace, so I was stranded in London. After several days, many experts began to question whether or not it was indeed safe to fly, and when it was announced that flights would resume, I went out to SQ's London offices and begged for a seat on a flight home, which I was given for the very next day, much to my relief and amazement. I knew there was still some danger in what was being proposed and that some experts were still arguing against the re-opening, but it was a risk I was prepared to take and I'm still alive and well today.

                        There's always going to be a disputed threshhold in matters of safety and differences of opinion and nothing is ever truly safe. Acts of aggression are unpredictable in their very essence and by the laws of probability this may never have happened in which case nobody would be wielding any criticism or blame and we'd all be going about our daily lives in peace. I wish this same peace on the souls of those killed and to their families and loved ones.

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by SQ228 View Post
                          Agreed. "Crikey!" is not widely regarded as a reputable source of journalism in Australia. It has it's place as an open forum or debate and opinion and was begun with a 'whistleblower' mentality, but nobody goes to the site for rational, impartial analysis of complex situations. (That said, there are plenty of 'newspapers' that are even less credible!)
                          I thought the piece was a little over-the-top as well, but my personal opinion is that it is better to hear different points of view, and then make up your mind. At least the author is willing to put his name on the article.

                          I would not want to go back to the days before the internet or social media and hear about these incidents only through mainstream media.

                          When incidents like this happen, I also scan PPRUNE and the airliners.net forums, and wade through tons of rubbish just for that little nugget of useful info from the few credible folks on those forums.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by ycp81 View Post
                            According to sources, SQ351 was just behind at a higher altitude. If SQ351 had departed earlier....
                            SQ was not at higher altitude than MH. MH was at 33,000 feet. SQ was probably at 31,000 feet or 31,000 to 33,000 feet. SQ was at a higher latitude.
                            According to flightware, at 1419 BST, SQ location was estimated at 51.2810 deg Lat & 40.9030 deg Long? MH 48.1350 deg Lat & 38.5030 deg Long?
                            This is in contrast to the coordinates as shown by flightradar24??
                            Last edited by SQFM; 19 July 2014, 06:47 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              FWIW, the USA's FAA earlier banned USA carriers from using this airspace. Some nonUSA carriers apparently voluntarily followed this advice. There have been reports that BA and AF avoided the Ukraine (except for their flights to/from Ukraine airports such as Kiev) while KLM did not (until now. Flights between Europe and Japan and Korea don't naturally use these flight paths, so it wasn't an issue for KE, OZ, JAL, ANA, etc.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Originally posted by yflyer View Post
                                When incidents like this happen, I also scan PPRUNE and the airliners.net forums, and wade through tons of rubbish just for that little nugget of useful info from the few credible folks on those forums.
                                Indeed there're an incredible amount of noise in those forums. Some of those posters should go work for Hollywood, they will be great for way-off plots.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X