Russia, pariah of the world again

aurvandil · Jul 19, 2014

When you board a plane, the airline will do a great show about how "safety conscious" they are. The flight attendants will scold you if your seat is not upright, your tray table is not stowed, your hand phone not switched off etc.

To save on fuel, these same "safety conscious" airlines will then happily fly you over a war zone with live SAMs.

Does someone see something wrong with this picture?

scroobal said:
They falsely assumed that those missiles were in the hands of qualified and professional soldiers who had a proper command and control structure. Its a lesson to the world.

zhihau · Jul 19, 2014

seems like the Rooskies screw anything that moves... :eek:

kryonlight · Jul 19, 2014

aurvandil said:
When you board a plane, the airline will do a great show about how "safety conscious" they are. The flight attendants will scold you if your seat is not upright, your tray table is not stowed, your hand phone not switched off etc.

To save on fuel, these same "safety conscious" airlines will then happily fly you over a war zone with live SAMs.

Does someone see something wrong with this picture?

Yes, they forgot to instruct you on the safety procedure to follow when airplane is hit by missile.

Satyr · Jul 19, 2014

scroobal said:
So far no Govt have armed separatist and rebels that they support with high altitude SAMs. These have been available since the late 60s. This is to avoid putting dangerous weapons in the hands of monkeys. They are well aware that civilian aircraft operate at high altitude. Guess the Russians had nothing between the ears.

The routes are authorised and acceptable as many areas of such routes are in conflict zones. This is really a first. Civilian aircraft and other aviation authorities will specify height so that aircraft do not below a certain limit in these zones.

If we have to avoid flying over conflict zones there would be very few routes left.

Satyr · Jul 19, 2014

aurvandil said:
When you board a plane, the airline will do a great show about how "safety conscious" they are. The flight attendants will scold you if your seat is not upright, your tray table is not stowed, your hand phone not switched off etc.

To save on fuel, these same "safety conscious" airlines will then happily fly you over a war zone with live SAMs.

Does someone see something wrong with this picture?

SQ was just lucky. Bet I they put profits first.

Satyr · Jul 19, 2014

scroobal said:
They shot a civilian airliner with totally innocent people including children. Caught red handed by intelligence intercept and broadcast to the world, the only humour in all this is the excited eager separatist reporting his kill to Russian Military Intelligence handler only to realise his folly. Also caught is the BUK missile mobile system seen in the vicinity the day before by journalists is seen scrambling across the border to Russia.

Putin in his press conference today appeared sheepish and looked like a deer caught in the headlights of a car. The same hero who liked to show the world his bared torso while riding his horse.

These are the same jokers responsible for downing a Korean Airlines jet which strayed into Russian territory. Bunch of nutjobs.

frenchbriefs · Jul 19, 2014

Satyr said:
These are the same jokers responsible for downing a Korean Airlines jet which strayed into Russian territory. Bunch of nutjobs.

same american jokers downed a airliner....and it wasnt even during the cold war,and it wasnt even over american airspace,they were in the middle of nowhere poking their nose in other people business.....paranoid muthafarkers ultra nationalistic trigger happy nutjobs.

eatshitndie · Jul 19, 2014

Satyr said:
If we have to avoid flying over conflict zones there would be very few routes left.

there are several possible routes to explore going south in the indian ocean until fuel runs out. :p

yellowarse · Jul 19, 2014

scroobal said:
High altitude SAMs have being in use for the last 40 years. Civilian aircraft has flown these routes with ceiling heights restrictions even during some period of intense conflicts.

Until recently I understand that civil aircraft were not allowed to fly below 26,000 ft in this zone.On 14th July, the no fly height was increased to 32,000 ft by aviation authorities due to incidents in the vicinity. MH17 was at 33,000 ft. The BUK can go all the way to 70,000ft. I guess the morons in Russia are indeed morons. What is interesting is the Aeroflot stopped using the route for sometime.

The height restrictions were set by the Ukraine authorities. Setting height restrictions at 32,000 feet doesn't make sense when the BUK can reach 70,000 ft. Not in an intensive conflict zone where 2 military aircraft were downed in the previous week.

The reason why this hadn't happened before is because rebels and insurgents are not normally equipped with high-altitude SAMs. They usually use portable shoulder-launched weapons which can only reach 15,000 ft.

Anyway, the Ukrainian authorities have now expanded the no-fly zone to entire airspace above the conflict zone. Egg on their faces.

Height of Ukraine No-Fly Zone Faces Scrutiny

Investigators to Probe Officials' Decision That Left Plane Vulnerable to Missiles

By JACK NICAS and
ROBERT WALL
July 17, 2014 7:27 p.m. ET
Investigators into Thursday's crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 will scrutinize a decision by Ukrainian officials this week to set the height of their no-fly zone over conflict-torn eastern Ukraine to 32,000 feet—when many ground-to-air missiles can easily surpass 40,000 feet.

Flight 17 was flying around 33,000 feet over the restricted airspace before it crashed, officials said. After the crash, Ukrainian officials expanded the no-fly zone to all airspace above the region.

Investigators are going to want "to hear how they determined that the risk was acceptable. [Ukrainian officials] should have done a formal risk assessment," said air-safety consultant John Cox, a former union crash investigator and safety official.

neddy · Jul 19, 2014

Ignorant fools. Stop scaring yourselves, how many types of SAMs can lock a target at 10,000m.

JHolmesJr · Jul 19, 2014

Have any of you bozodohs heard about alls fair in love and war?

The onus is on the airlines to make prudent flying decisions....i don't care how many airlines are flying through that deathtrap....MAS copped the flak and they are solely to blame. Hope the bastards go out of business.

frenchbriefs · Jul 19, 2014

how can they be sure of that?many of the older SAM systems can easily reach altitudes of 21,000 to 40,000 ft.....and they were used extensively in the middle eastern theaters of war and in the israeli and eygpt and palestinian wars from the 1960s to 1990s....

and since when are ukrainian authorities responsible for aviation safety???isnt that the responsibility of the various aviation organistions and airlines companies???

yellowarse said:
The height restrictions were set by the Ukraine authorities. Setting height restrictions at 32,000 feet doesn't make sense when the BUK can reach 70,000 ft. Not in an intensive conflict zone where 2 military aircraft were downed in the previous week.

The reason why this hadn't happened before is because rebels and insurgents are not normally equipped with high-altitude SAMs. They usually use portable shoulder-launched weapons which can only reach 15,000 ft.

Anyway, the Ukrainian authorities have now expanded the no-fly zone to entire airspace above the conflict zone. Egg on their faces.

Height of Ukraine No-Fly Zone Faces Scrutiny

Investigators to Probe Officials' Decision That Left Plane Vulnerable to Missiles

By JACK NICAS and
ROBERT WALL
July 17, 2014 7:27 p.m. ET
Investigators into Thursday's crash of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 will scrutinize a decision by Ukrainian officials this week to set the height of their no-fly zone over conflict-torn eastern Ukraine to 32,000 feet—when many ground-to-air missiles can easily surpass 40,000 feet.

Flight 17 was flying around 33,000 feet over the restricted airspace before it crashed, officials said. After the crash, Ukrainian officials expanded the no-fly zone to all airspace above the region.

Investigators are going to want "to hear how they determined that the risk was acceptable. [Ukrainian officials] should have done a formal risk assessment," said air-safety consultant John Cox, a former union crash investigator and safety official.

yellowarse · Jul 19, 2014

aurvandil said:
How can increasing the ceiling to just 32000 feet be considered "safe" when the weapon can hit something at 70000 feet?

It can't. That's why the Ukrainian authorities have a lot to answer for it.

The various civil aviation authorities should also shoulder part of the blame for giving clearance to fly over eastern Ukraine, knowing very well that a raging conflict was going on there and that insurgents had hi-tech SAMs.

For instance, the UK CAA on 14 June sent a NOTAM urging all carriers to avoid overflying Crimea and southern Ukraine due to safety concerns, but no mention at all of eastern Ukraine, except that "operations are normal in all other Ukrainian FIRs" and airlines flying into the Dnepropetrovsk region should "review current security/threat information". Ditto for the US regulators.

You don't fucking fly into a war zone where missiles go up to 70,000 ft, especially when 2 military transport planes had just been shot down in the past week.

yellowarse · Jul 19, 2014

frenchbriefs said:
and since when are ukrainian authorities responsible for aviation safety???isnt that the responsibility of the various aviation organistions and airlines companies???

The Ukrainian authorities are responsible for declaring no-fly zones over their own country, which is engaged in civil war.

The various civil aviation authorities are responsible for aviation safety by advising their national carriers where not to fly when routing their trips. They boo-booed too. (See my post above.)

Both are responsible.

frenchbriefs · Jul 19, 2014

neddy said:
Ignorant fools. Stop scaring yourselves, how many types of SAMs can lock a target at 10,000m.

bro 10,000m is nothing SAMs have been doing that since 1960s even during vietnam war.....SA 5,SA 6,SA 8(nato designations of russian SAM systems) used during yom kippur war,israeli/egyptian war,vietnam war all can do that......and thats ancient technology.....since then we already have SA10,SA 12, up to SA 20(s300 PMU) and SA 21 (s400 growler) and even s500,the best SAM system in the world.....

s300 has already been sold to god knows how many countries in the world and those things are 10 times deadlier than BUK.s300 PMU has been proven in NATO excercise to be capable of semi defeating up to 11 ECCM aircraft at once.....

neddy · Jul 19, 2014

yellowarse said:
It can't. That's why the Ukrainian authorities have a lot to answer for it.

The various civil aviation authorities should also shoulder part of the blame for giving clearance to fly over eastern Ukraine, knowing very well that a raging conflict was going on there and that insurgents had hi-tech SAMs.

For instance, the UK CAA on 14 June sent a NOTAM urging all carriers to avoid overflying Crimea and southern Ukraine due to safety concerns, but no mention at all of eastern Ukraine, except that "operations are normal in all other Ukrainian FIRs" and airlines flying into the Dnepropetrovsk region should "review current security/threat information". Ditto for the US regulators.

You don't fucking fly into a war zone where missiles go up to 70,000 ft.

Ukraine asked MH17 to drop its height from Level 350 to Level 330. According to China Phoenix news.

yellowarse · Jul 19, 2014

frenchbriefs said:
how can they be sure of that?many of the older SAM systems can easily reach altitudes of 21,000 to 40,000 ft.....and they were used extensively in the middle eastern theaters of war and in the israeli and eygpt and palestinian wars from the 1960s to 1990s....

Not shoulder-launched missiles which can reach 20,000 ft at most, and can barely lock at 10,000 ft. Remember, insurgency and guerilla groups don't have access to sophisticated SAM systems.

People forget that this is not just a war of ragtag rebels against Ukraine; it's a proxy war of Russia vs NATO.

yellowarse · Jul 19, 2014

neddy said:
Ukraine asked MH17 to drop its height from Level 350 to Level 330. According to China Phoenix news.

Which doesn't make sense. 33,000 ft, 35,000 ft, you're sitting duck for target practice. Some say the Ukraine chose FL 320 ceiling not for safety but to clear airspace below 32,000 ft for their own govt and military craft to operate.

frenchbriefs · Jul 19, 2014

yellowarse said:
Not shoulder-launched missiles which can reach 20,000 ft at most, and can barely lock at 10,000 ft. Remember, insurgency and guerilla groups don't have access to sophisticated SAM systems.

People forget that this is not just a war of ragtag rebels against Ukraine; it's a proxy war of Russia vs NATO.

but how can anyone be sure?theres tons of these old SAM systems lieing around and god knows where they are now after all these years....its not hard to track one down and capture it.and we are talking about old junk here...not sophisticated systems like s300 and above and BUK.....

neddy · Jul 19, 2014

frenchbriefs said:
bro 10,000m is nothing SAMs have been doing that since 1960s even during vietnam war.....SA 5,SA 6,SA 8(nato designations of russian SAM systems) used during yom kippur war,israeli/egyptian war,vietnam war all can do that......and thats ancient technology.....since then we already have SA10,SA 12, up to SA 20(s300 PMU) and SA 21 (s400 growler) and even s500,the best SAM system in the world.....

s300 has already been sold to god knows how many countries in the world and those things are 10 times deadlier than BUK.s300 PMU has been proven in NATO excercise to be capable of semi defeating up to 11 ECCM aircraft at once.....

Tbese are sophisticated weapons that will lock targets. No govt will let monkeys use them, except those rule by psychopaths.

Usually, countries will use 3,500m height ones like this.

Russia, pariah of the world again

Alfrescian

Super Moderator

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Alfrescian (Inf)

Similar threads