Boingboing bodly went where neither The Sun nor Daily Mirror would.
Stay classy.
1 Like
What I donât understand is, that couldnât have been the first flight on that flight path. And whatâs the frequency on that flight path? Did they just miss the previous planes? Just seems odd that they shot down a random plane on a regular flight path of frequency.
Itâs been noted that the % of dutch lost in terms as their population is the same as that lost by the USA in 9/11.
2 Likes
As for Boingboing displaying these images. Itâs a story that needs to be told. If it gains traction and can prevent future disasters like this then i think itâs valid.
1 Like
Wired say there were two flights ânext toâ the MAS aircraft. Air India and Singapore Airlines.
Given that you or I could identify pretty precisely the location of any flight in the world on flightradar24, it does seem odd doesnât it?
The internet connectivity in the area may have sucked at that time. Do war zones have reliable broadband these days?
I doubt very seriously that the NTSB, Boeing, Malaysia Airlines, etc. are willing to send investigators into a war zone. I also doubt that a cease fire could realistically be negotiated to allow for a proper investigation.
Not that it matters, the scene has already been compromised as these pictures clearly show. Reports also say Russia has the black boxes. 
They have mobile missile launchers that wander back and forth across sovereign boundaries. Launchers that can take down an aircraft at 72,000 feet.
Iâd be pretty confident accessing data isnât an issue.
The word is that this battery was acquired from Ukrainian forces earlier. No need to move it in from Russia. Further investigations will show.
I saw some quite bizarre combinations of resource availability and nonavailability, in much less complex settings than a war zone is. Having A is not a proof of also having B, however tempting it is.
Then there is the issue of whatever hothead greenhorn just not getting the idea that there could be a non-bogey target out there. Having equipment with a capability is worthless when the operators donât know how to use it or do not even have the idea they should.
That assumes the version that it was the rebels who did it. There is other version hanging in the air that it was the Ukrainian forces themselves, likely also by mistake. Iâd consider it less probable but would not remove it from the table entirely.
Also, consider that Poroshenko is more than likely no better than Putin.
News is the separatists captured an air defence site, with fixed, not mobile, missile launchers. There were other mobile units moved in by Russia, and Ukraine has said the unit used vs MH317 is already back over the border, for âdestructionâ. Could be propaganda, but if itâs true - the unit is sophisticated and presumably logs its activity - that Buk launcher might just tell exactly what went on.
Wired.com report that there were two other aircraft in relative proximity at the time - Air India, and Singapore Airlines. If thatâs so, why did the nation with the least potential political, economic or military response vs Russia lose its aircraft? The missile operators would have been unaware of the passenger manifest, so would not have known the nationalities of the deceased passengers.
Iâd say that MH317 was selected from the overflying craft, and the log of the Buk launcher would show the targetting choices made. Thatâs why Ukraine says itâs back over the border for destruction - somewhat meaningless to the mass media, but the clear implication is that there are tracks to be covered.
There is imagery / accounts of the movements of the mobile launchers. Such an orchestrated propaganda campaign by Ukraine would be seized on by Russia / the separatists, and require the complicity of the worldâs media.
There is evidence and testimony - uncontradicted, note - that Russia has moved immense amounts of materiel into Ukraine. This against a backdrop of Crimea, and ongoing efforts by the Russians to provoke Ukraine into military response. This view is uncontested, anywhere.
Hothead greehorn - best case: trained in how to use the equipment, by ⊠Russians or previously trained personnel (a Buk launcher is not an iPad - no military force would make it so easy to wield such a powerful weapon [it can track, target, and destroy six different aircraft on six different vectors, altitudes and speeds - that is pretty damn dangerous] that a greenhorn can just hit a big red button - theyâd be too likely to take down their own aircraft, transponders or not).
Worst case - deiberate takedown by Putin to draw the world further into the mire of his argument.
The USA analysts have confirmed the source of the missile as, I recall, the Donetsk reason. Not many Ukrainian Buk teams in there, eh?
Consider the world response. Utter dismay, and concordant expressions of anger with Russia from the top level. At the highest political level, there appears to be no ambiguity of response - and even with the allied attack on Iraq, you didnât see that level of consolidated co-operation. Additionally, the international response lacks a feel of being staged. Maybe theyâve improved their PR, maybe itâs real.
Whatever way you cut it, this was no greenhorn accident.
Consider the training involved in using the weapon. Indepth, technical, detailed. Read this:
http://www.janes.com/article/40907/missile-profile-9k37-buk
Sound easy? No. This thing is built for full-on war - itâs a flexible, component-based system that can have its overall system or regiment shot to pieces and keep functioning - it can keep losing bits of its optimal capability profile and carry on, until youâre right down its simple forward-looking radar. Itâs an amazing weapon.
But to use it, youâve got to be trained. And someone might mention in training that there are over-flying civilian aircraft, no? Just might. To prevent a tragedy.
Anyway.
Itâs all very Russian.
My view is that Putin unleashed the dogs, put the materiel into Ukraine, and the volatile mix ended up with the inevitable. Move the materiel back out - consider the possibility it was Russian soldiers operating it - and blame Ukraine.
In military and political terms, this would be so audacious that the great majority of the world would have difficulty believing it. And therein would lie the strategic brains, and it would suit Putinâs character to a T.
No-one wants war with Russia. But no-one. The day before this happened, Putin effectively told the west that if we messed with him any more, he was going to make us sorry. Sanctions increased, then airliner came down.
The timing is neat - too neat. The rebels captured the air defence base at the end of June. About three weeks ago. What took them so long to start shooting things out of the sky?
Besides, Russia has gotten away with this before (and so have Ukraine, as it happens). The international response to a downed civilian aircraft is not likely to lead to war.
But the one thing I donât buy is that it was a mistake. There is not a big red button. A Buk is utterly, utterly different to an RPG. This was not a mistake.
Edit: You know why the world is in unity in the condemnation of Russia and Putin? Because, all other discussions aside, as a head of state and as a sovereign nation, they are held to the highest standards of accountability. So even if the rebels stole the vehicle from Russia in a miliary attack, Russia would still have a degree of accountability for failing to prevent it falling into the wrong hands.
As it is, they clearly drove it over there.
Because it flew the lowest? Was closest to other target the missile missed and was illuminated by the targeting radar too? Just plain chance? Random events happen.
You can achieve the same by quietly replacing the datalogger module, if the thing is retrofitted to have one. No destruction needed.
True that.
A good part of the rebels are Ukrainians fed up with Kiev trampling over the East. (The East-West tensions are present there for a LONG time, Ukraina is inherently unstable.) Many served in the military, at least some are likely to have at least rudimentary SAM training.
Which is not a risk if your own side has nothing to put in the air.
Which would be kind of dumb. He does not want to look like a really bad guy (thought he portrayals from the western media make him look pretty much like a Satan himself).
USA analysts have an ingrained bias against Russia, and there are high political pressures associated. No wonder the ones with such opinions/informations get more spotlight. You cannot trust anything these days.
Russians on the other side say there were three active Ukrainian SAM batteries in the possible firing areas, according to their ELINT. You cannot trust them either but on the rumours score it is 1:1.
Consistent with the us-vs-them mentality of contemporary politico-economic division of the world.
Look up closer and you will see discontent. Many loathe the loss of economic cooperation. Companies are losing investments and opportunities.
And if I would have friends over there, I would certainly not stop working together with them just because our rulers happened to step on each otherâs sandbox toys.
Likely real. Big conspiracies donât happen. If you want one to work, you need most of the participants to be unwitting. They then play their roles better.
Kind of a weak claim.
Sounds like a bog-standard description of a system with features. Does not sound too complex to me. Of course, an operating manual would be a much better argument, but manuals for SAMs arenât easy to find. If you want aircraft manuals, easy; MANPADS, easy - the US military Field Manuals are the best choice here. But radar systems and SAM complexes, not so; which I consider unfair as Iâd love to read one. (Same for SIGINT/ELINT systems; these are higher on my priority list than SAMs.)
So you can operate it with a fraction of its capabilities. Which brings the complexity down a lot, to the level of a fresh trainee.
Of course. But then you have to remember this bit of training in the heat of the moment. And we are back in the human error realm. From the compartment of the operator, the blips on the radar look quite alike.
Youâre overestimating his capabilities. His control over the area is partial and fractional at best. His control over his own govtâs factions is not perfect too.
Coincidence. The responses to such inept moves as sanctions are are better done (and are being done) on strategic economic level, e.g. strengthening the ties with China and the BRICS in general so the sanctions bite more the ones who initiate them than Russia. This will strengthen your position. Shooting down civilians will weaken it.
Reading the manuals?
The machine couldâve been Russian - probable but by far not certain, or couldâve been seized Ukrainian. Could also have been an Ukrainian own mistake. The jury is out and all the options are on the table until the verdict of forensic analysts.
Making a mistake of this kind on a fairly complex system is about as easy as it can get. Marking a target and acquiring a lock, fairly easy. Discriminating between friend and foe, not so easy. The mistake hypothesis stays strong and proud.
The world is not in unity. Partial unity, yes. But look closer and it falls apart in the seams. Because things are more complex than the either sideâs propaganda can admit, and because economic ties.
edit: Long post is long.
Cheers - I get where youâre coming from.
Note Putin has not decried the reports that the Buk launcher was moved into Ukraine two hours before the incident, and moved back into Russia that night. He has ignored them.
Iâll stake my BoingBoing reputation for incredible political and strategic analysis on this: Putin is behind the entire thing, pulling the strings and dancing the puppets.
Note again - you donât want a Buk launcher to be operated by someone who doesnât know what theyâre doing. You donât carry the manual. Even if itâs in battle-radar only mode, you still donât want someone putting it to use. So you make a lot of ways to prevent that.
Iâm now wondering, as others (I think above) why the pilot diverted. But that might explain why the Russians are spiriting away the black boxes. What if the pilot were somehow guided over the zone into a 64m diameter disc with the launcher at the centre?
Weather report, whatever - something localised, perhaps to an onboard advisory system. Radio speech, text / data transmission.
That would make it worth your while recovering the black boxes. Otherwise, they tell only that the aircraft had a loud bang.
Your understanding on how missiles work and how unlikely your scenarios is shows you learned everything you know about it watching old GI Joe cartoons.
1 Like
In the flurry of news and ânewsâ, a good way. Would you believe if he denied them?
Given the multivariable nature of the issue and the biases involved in both sides, you may quite well lose this one. And then try to limit the damage by arguing about the nature of the strings and the puppets. Because there is some influence. But then, there is some influence from the West on Poroshenko.
On the other hand it has to be simple enough that soldiers can operate it.
I would be surprised if there were no manuals in the vehicle. With lists of procedures. Because the same is in the air, airplanes have manuals in cockpits, with checklists to do. The US Strategic Air Command required checklists for procedures as well. Russian equipment having similar procedures is only logical, because thereâs not so much difference between a Russian operator and an American operator. Both are human, both are mistake prone, the cultural differences are there but arenât that big in comparison with the inherent properties.
But weâre both speculating here. I believe my speculation is based on more logical foundation and parallels with other stuff, but thatâs about it.
So you prevent access using a man with a gun. And keys for the door. And from then, you want the operators to be able to use it when they need it. Military equipment is often biased towards just-working than towards enforcing access rights even if it can lead to failure to work when needed.
Itâs being said that it was for a while escorted by Ukrainian fighters. I have no hard proof (who has any hard proof of anything at this moment?) but here is a log and translation of twitter messages of a spanish ATC tower operator from an ukrainian airport:
http://willyloman.wordpress.com/2014/07/18/full-text-and-translations-of-spainbucas-carlos-twitter-feed/
The account itself does not exist anymore, is archived at archive.org, and adds another set of speculations.
A possibility is that they want to figure out whatâs the truth, and protect the boxes from tampering with by the Other Side. (Or tamper with them themselves. Which in the age of high-end forensics is not so easy, however possible.)
So youâre on the fence.
You speak much, but seem to know little. I get where youâre coming from - distrust everything, believe no-one, itâs all bullshit, itâs all propaganda, weâll never know the truth. Etcetera.
Iâve flown those zones 20 times, with my kids. It fucking scares me, witless, that this can happen. It scares me more that thereâs any kind of a blithe response to this.
This isnât a funny little incident on a strange little island with an in-bred population in the middle of the sea.
People of multiple nationalities were killed. itâs not abstract, itâs not a high school test, itâs real, and badly, badly real.
80 (eighty) children died. 80.
Iâm not speculating. Iâm drawing a logical hypothesis from established fact, cross-verified across multinational media sources. If I had access to the military records, Iâd use them.
Have you ever been anywhere near military equipment? Do you have any concept of the chain of command that dictates deployment, or why there are rules in place? You speak in soft, glib words that reflect a kind of junior DC defence analyst with no actual touch of grease, iron or sweat.
You quote a twitter feed that is preambled with a disclaimer - âcould be a hoaxâ.
There isnât a set of speculations here. Thereâs a destroyed airliner, dancing missile launchers, pro-Russian separatists, and Putin warning the west of awful consequences the day before this happened.
You speak of improbably possibilities, of theoretical avenues along the twigs at the far end of branches of probability, as if they are options worth considering with value and weight. Every option is possible, when examined as an individual node, devoid of any reference to the system of occurrences.
But the pattern emerges when you step back and see the whole picture.
Iâm not technically anti-Putin, I have no real beef with the Russians, nor with the Ukrainians.
Look at the facts. Look at the lack of denials. And seriously, come down on one side of the fence.
Do you read anything? Have you counted the heads of state whoâve fingered Russia as the culprit? Do you understand even in the abstract the incredible consequences of calling Putin out? Any idea where Europe gets its natural gas? You think this is all a big play by the west? Youâre that cynical, jaded and empty that none of this draws you in any direction?
In the end, I take it youâre never planning to fly this route, and have no skin in the game whatsoever. Youâre either defending the Russians - if so, out and say it - or simply playing Pan, and enjoying the vanity of challenge.
If Putin didnât do it, tell me who did.
Who the fuck do I have to avoid when Iâm taking my kids to see their grand-parents? Who do my dutch friends whoâve lost people point the finger at? Whereâs the line?
Or is it all just one big tenuous media game with zero resonance?
My âfavouriteâ conspiracy theory is the one that one commenter on the Wordpress site linked to, that the plane was actually filled with corpses that had been drained of blood, and that only the bodies in the cockpit showed any blood. It just seems like a great way to add unnecessary complexity without really answering any questions. If the bodies were the official passengers who had been killed earlier, this solves the problem of where to source them, but not how (or why) they killed them before starting the flight, especially as the end result would be the same. If they werenât the same, you have to wonder where they got the bodies and where the official passengers (including well-known ones) are now. Malaysia Airlines would have to knowingly agree to a massive hit to their profits (especially after MH370) without any benefit to themselves. Amsterdam Schipol would have to agree to have a scheduled plane loaded with hundreds of corpses (including travel documents, luggage etc.) and to keep everything secret while doing this. Anyone loading the bodies onto the plane would also know, and would have to keep that secret for the rest of their lives. Any flight crew would already know they were doomed by this point, but would have to take off as normal without alerting anyone. The correct weather patterns over the south of Ukraine would have to happen in order for the change in course to be convincing. Despite all of this added complexity, I donât think it explains anything apart from the unsubstantiated claim that the bodies were drained of blood and already decomposing.
1 Like
Apparently Russian media initially happily reported on the downing of a plane. When it became clear it was a civilian flight stuffed with passengers, they changed their tune and started emitting misinformation.
Astonishing. It really, really is.
Yes, I am.
Partly true. We will hopefully one day know the truth. So far, all we know is mostly posturing and propaganda. From both sides.
Iâm flying different routes but I am still exposed to similar risks. In my case it is more biased towards maintenance-level accidents but anyway. I also worry more about things like cancer or Alzheimer, that do not take few seconds to die.
âThink of the chiiildreeeeen!â
People die. That happens. Children die too. Why should I get emotional over it?
I am more upset about the loss of the AIDS researchers. Children, with fewer years of effort, resources and investment in, are a more renewable resource. A good researcher may be virtually irreplaceable. Death of a child is a local-impact tragedy. Death of a researcher is a global-impact one.
And presenting it as a fact.
Do these rules apply even in a ragtag rebel squad?
It hit the mainstream news here. Not exactly an argument in favor of credibility. But an argument in favor of not omitting it.
The second sentence is true. The first sentence is not.
Yes. I refuse to latch to the most emotionally palatable version just because some consider it palatable.
Human minds are too good in seeing patterns. So good they see patterns even where there are none. Many books written about this.
The lack of denials may mean only that Putin himself does not know for sure what happened. The facts are convoluted and tainted with propaganda from both sides, it is too early to see much. And I wonât come down off the fence before the facts get clearer. Not just because you want me to.
This is why the courts-of-law have the rules they have. It is too easy to jump to conclusions.
Big play, certainly. Not only by the West.
Cynical, jaded⊠read enough and youâll get too.
The destinations on that route are a bit too far for me, but I cannot say I ânever planâ. A few times I almost did. And I have friends sometimes flying it. Still, I fully accept that shit happens, and even with the added risks of these days it is still a fairly safe route. Especially now when the greenhorns with SAMs will take double care before pressing The Button.
I donât know. And you donât know as well.
You are at the mercy of the probability. An aggregate probability of a pilot fault, mechanical/maintenance problem, cargo fire, and stray missiles. The latter happens every decade or so, which is a fairly low risk to me. Granted, it sucks being in a bird licked by one but then it sucks being in a bus that falls off a bridge.
Look at the number of flights over the area that did NOT get affected. You get a staggeringly high fraction.
That a class of risks suddenly becomes highly visible does not mean it is also correspondingly high.
1 Like
Wow. OK - whatevs. Youâre a fatalist, a nihilist.
When things happen is precisely the time to analyse the reports. With a filter on, and before the edits roll through, you can capture the fragments of the underlying story quickly.
Iâm somewhat revolted that you choose to engage in mockery:
mis-applying a long-sleeping trope.
There is no levity in this situation, there is no room for laughter, no room for lazy, lolling engagement.
The beautiful thing about your position is you canât be wrong. Thatâs wonderful, and I wish you the best with that approach.
1 Like
In the long-tail of low probabilities way out of my control, certainly yes. Do you have a better cost-benefit approach?
If you enjoy working with noisy and incomplete data.
A good way to see just what you want to see.
You reminded me of Helen LovejoyâŠ
I wasnât the one who started with this line of argument. Any time children enter any such debate, my emotional-manipulation meter pegs.
Because
There is no room for preliminary jumping to conclusions. As of laughter, the existence of the wide gallows humor genre negates the class of arguments from which this one comes.
I prefer that to jumping to an uncertain conclusion. Try it, youâll make fewer mistakes. Such approach is handy in many fields including engineering; many many mishaps couldâve been stopped in their tracks if the people in the control rooms doubted more.
