Malaysia Air Flight 17 shot down, how to prevent this?

Non-military aviation
  • Author
  • Message
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 01:14

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-28354856

With Malaysia Air Flight 17 shot down by some form of Anti-Aircraft weapon, supposedly a Russian made SAM.

Is there a reason why flights going over potentially hostile zones shouldn't be at least armed with automated Flare / Chaff dispensors?

Other than cost reasons?
Offline
User avatar

count_to_10

Elite 3K

Elite 3K

  • Posts: 3300
  • Joined: 10 Mar 2012, 15:38

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 02:37

Without expensive sensors to detect the missile lock, it wouldn't make any difference.
Einstein got it backward: one cannot prevent a war without preparing for it.

Uncertainty: Learn it, love it, live it.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 04:19

count_to_10 wrote:Without expensive sensors to detect the missile lock, it wouldn't make any difference.


Is there anyway to make those sensors cheap enough to equip on every aircraft in a airline fleet?
Offline

mk82

Forum Veteran

Forum Veteran

  • Posts: 849
  • Joined: 15 Oct 2009, 18:43
  • Location: Australia

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 06:01

Experts think that it was a rebel fired SA 11 Buk SAM. No amount of chaff from a relatively unmaneurable platform is going to safe that platform from a Buk SAM. Obviously you can't buy SA 11s from a supermarket unless it was Uncle Vlad's supermarket! Ukrainian intelligence apparently intercepted communications between Ukrainian rebel commanders realising they fucked up. It also raises question whether civilian airliners should fly over conflict zones. Nevertheless, those responsible for this shootdown hve to face justice!
Offline

Corsair1963

Elite 5K

Elite 5K

  • Posts: 6893
  • Joined: 19 Dec 2005, 04:14

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 06:41

Very sad all those poor people....... :(
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 07:03

mk82 wrote:Experts think that it was a rebel fired SA 11 Buk SAM. No amount of chaff from a relatively unmaneurable platform is going to safe that platform from a Buk SAM. Obviously you can't buy SA 11s from a supermarket unless it was Uncle Vlad's supermarket! Ukrainian intelligence apparently intercepted communications between Ukrainian rebel commanders realising they fucked up. It also raises question whether civilian airliners should fly over conflict zones. Nevertheless, those responsible for this shootdown hve to face justice!


New Airline policy across the world should be "Don't" fly over conflict zones.

Not worth the risk.
Offline

basher54321

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2058
  • Joined: 02 Feb 2014, 15:43

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 10:56

Flying over a war zone is just not good enough - the airline is just as responsible as the guys who screwed up and pulled the trigger on an airliner as far as I'm concerned.

A longer trip that's a bit more expensive to pay for the fuel increase might be more preferable to clients than getting blown out of the sky.

Not exactly the first time this has happened to airliners flying over war zones is it.
Offline

vilters

Elite 1K

Elite 1K

  • Posts: 1154
  • Joined: 28 Sep 2009, 00:16

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 11:27

A sad loss.
There are no winners here.
My deepest condolences to all involved.

This should be a world-wide wake up call.


What happens when good weapon systems fall in the wrong hands?
Offline

smitty14

Enthusiast

Enthusiast

  • Posts: 34
  • Joined: 12 Jun 2014, 14:50

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 16:59

basher54321 wrote:Flying over a war zone is just not good enough - the airline is just as responsible as the guys who screwed up and pulled the trigger on an airliner as far as I'm concerned.

A longer trip that's a bit more expensive to pay for the fuel increase might be more preferable to clients than getting blown out of the sky.

Not exactly the first time this has happened to airliners flying over war zones is it.



Agreed. Given the events of this past March, one would think that Malaysia Air would have taken more precautions and avoided the area completely. No doubt an awful tragedy. Hopefully those culpable will be punished, air Malaysia leadership included.

With regards to commercial airline counter measures, that's completely unrealistic. There's such a limited application. Not to mention the fact that airline profit margins are so thin, it would be hard to convince corporate leadership to install such systems. Then you've got to train commercial aviators defense tactics, a waste of time and money. I agree with basher54321, airliners need to avoid disputed airspace all together. A very difficult lesson learned.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 17:41

smitty14 wrote:
basher54321 wrote:Flying over a war zone is just not good enough - the airline is just as responsible as the guys who screwed up and pulled the trigger on an airliner as far as I'm concerned.

A longer trip that's a bit more expensive to pay for the fuel increase might be more preferable to clients than getting blown out of the sky.

Not exactly the first time this has happened to airliners flying over war zones is it.



Agreed. Given the events of this past March, one would think that Malaysia Air would have taken more precautions and avoided the area completely. No doubt an awful tragedy. Hopefully those culpable will be punished, air Malaysia leadership included.

With regards to commercial airline counter measures, that's completely unrealistic. There's such a limited application. Not to mention the fact that airline profit margins are so thin, it would be hard to convince corporate leadership to install such systems. Then you've got to train commercial aviators defense tactics, a waste of time and money. I agree with basher54321, airliners need to avoid disputed airspace all together. A very difficult lesson learned.


Ok, if it's not cost feasible to install defensive technology and training.

What can we do to make the airliners avoid flying over conflict zones?

The only way I can think of is a FAA rule / mandate / law that prevents airlines from flying over conflict zones and each countries FAA counterpart do the same thing.

It's not worth risking lives, PR, etc.
Offline
User avatar

Jon

F-16.net Editor

F-16.net Editor

  • Posts: 1972
  • Joined: 06 Nov 2003, 18:21

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 19:11

KamenRiderBlade wrote:The only way I can think of is a FAA rule / mandate / law that prevents airlines from flying over conflict zones and each countries FAA counterpart do the same thing.

It's not worth risking lives, PR, etc.


FAA wouldn't have jurisdiction to have prevented this. It's up to the specific airlines. For example Air Canada stopped flying over this area months ago.

Malaysia Air Lines is stating their aircraft was flying a "Safe Route." Who sets that rule?
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 19:24

Jon wrote:
KamenRiderBlade wrote:The only way I can think of is a FAA rule / mandate / law that prevents airlines from flying over conflict zones and each countries FAA counterpart do the same thing.

It's not worth risking lives, PR, etc.


FAA wouldn't have jurisdiction to have prevented this. It's up to the specific airlines. For example Air Canada stopped flying over this area months ago.

Malaysia Air Lines is stating their aircraft was flying a "Safe Route." Who sets that rule?


Their "Safe Route" is obviously not so safe.

And flying over countries with active wars where SAM units may lie about should be plenty of reason to avoid their airspace.

Shouldn't the country's aviation authority have some sort of control over the flight plans?
Offline

tjodalv43

Senior member

Senior member

  • Posts: 272
  • Joined: 21 Sep 2005, 20:23
  • Location: Texas

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 20:00

On a kind of side note, I find it ironic how out of touch the media is with surface to air technology. Every source I've seen at some point has made some comment to the effect of "how it must have been a highly advanced modern system to be able to reach up and hit an airliner at 34,000 feet flying at 500 mph." Even today in Obama's address he said something along those lines. While the SA-11/17 is highly advanced, pretty much every strategic SAM and most tactical SAMs anywhere in the world today would find a cooperative, non-maneuvering, airliner-sized RCS target to be well within its capabilities. I guess I'm just surprised at how amazed they are that a missile could hit a cruising airliner. I mean, an SA-2 shot down a plane flying waaaay higher and that was over 50 years ago!
Offline

noth

Active Member

Active Member

  • Posts: 106
  • Joined: 17 Sep 2005, 14:16

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 20:05

The problem here is that the situation on the ground changed about 3-4 weeks ago. A Ukrainian military base fell to the separatists and they gained some pretty decent SAM hardware, including the SA-11/17 "Buk" missile systems. Most airlines that were taking the risk of overflying thought that the weapons in use in this conflict couldn't reach up to 10km/30 000ft. In the past week the separatists have shot down 3 governmental aircraft using either IR or radar guided SAMs, including an An-26 hit at beyond MANPADS range. The route should have been closed.

And no, airliners can't be protected from modern SAMs if overflying the wrong territory.
Offline
User avatar

KamenRiderBlade

Elite 2K

Elite 2K

  • Posts: 2640
  • Joined: 24 Nov 2012, 02:20
  • Location: USA

Unread post18 Jul 2014, 20:06

tjodalv43 wrote:On a kind of side note, I find it ironic how out of touch the media is with surface to air technology. Every source I've seen at some point has made some comment to the effect of "how it must have been a highly advanced modern system to be able to reach up and hit an airliner at 34,000 feet flying at 500 mph." Even today in Obama's address he said something along those lines. While the SA-11/17 is highly advanced, pretty much every strategic SAM and most tactical SAMs anywhere in the world today would find a cooperative, non-maneuvering, airliner-sized RCS target to be well within its capabilities. I guess I'm just surprised at how amazed they are that a missile could hit a cruising airliner. I mean, an SA-2 shot down a plane flying waaaay higher and that was over 50 years ago!


Yeah, it's sad how ignorant general media is of actual military capabilities.

Most SAM systems should be able to down any civilian airliner, regardless of altitude.
Next

Return to Civil and General Aviation

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests