Flying over war zones

[The_Big_M]

They have a vested interest in the situation to make Russia look bad and they are quite capable of stooping to such a low to achieve that goal.

 

That sounds like blaming the victim. Sure, they have a vested interest - because they have been invaded by Russia, territory and property taken and destroyed, and their citizens dying thanks to Russian attacks. They need to capture it back. I'd say most Australians would feel the same way if some bigger country invaded and occupied part of us. And being bigger, that other country would have its supporters as well.

 

All that doesn't mean they're perfect, as with anyone. It can be hard to keep the moral high ground when the weaker country is getting attacked by one 5 times its size and strength, and with a lot more propaganda pushed out because of that.

 

However, since Russia is the aggressor here, they've clearly 'stooped lower' and don't need help to look bad.

Edited August 1, 2014 by The_Big_M

[KarateMan]

That sounds like blaming the victim. Sure, they have a vested interest - because they have been invaded by Russia, territory and property taken and destroyed, and their citizens dying thanks to Russian attacks. They need to capture it back. I'd say most Australians would feel the same way if some bigger country invaded and occupied part of us. And being bigger, that other country would have its supporters as well.

 

All that doesn't mean they're perfect, as with anyone. It can be hard to keep the moral high ground when the weaker country is getting attacked by one 5 times its size and strength, and with a lot more propaganda pushed out because of that.

 

However, since Russia is the aggressor here, they've clearly 'stooped lower' and don't need help to look bad.

 

Well I totally disagree. Having travelled the world extensively I would personally trust the Russians over the Ukrainians any day.

 

Besides that it is debatable weather the country should even exist at all and still be a Russian state. Far too many wars have occurred in Europe effecting the borders of nations so my care factor in meddling in their affairs and taking sides is about zero. If any war in Europe were to break out again Australia should have no part in it. Leave them sort out their own mess and don't take sides.

[The_Big_M]

Well I totally disagree. Having travelled the world extensively I would personally trust the Russians over the Ukrainians any day.

 

Besides that it is debatable weather the country should even exist at all and still be a Russian state. Far too many wars have occurred in Europe effecting the borders of nations so my care factor in meddling in their affairs and taking sides is about zero. If any war in Europe were to break out again Australia should have no part in it. Leave them sort out their own mess and don't take sides.

 

No worries, you're as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I also have extensive experience there and wouldn't 'generally' trust more than the other. This is weighing up the grounds of the issue, which stems from a Russian invasion and occupation. I'm sure most Australians would equally want to defend their country from any invader, and a larger one as Russia is would naturally have its own larger band of supporters. Just because a country is bigger and more powerful doesn't entitle it to tell a smaller country what to do, but that is what Russia is doing.

 

I don't see any debate about whether Ukraine should exist. They've been a separate republic from the days of the Soviet Union (which stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), and were distinguished as such when they were put down with many Ukrainians killed under Stalin's regime. Past Russian - and other - leaders recognised their sovereignty and signed treaties with Ukraine. You're about the only one saying they shouldn't exist, but good luck with your opinion. :D

[KarateMan]

No worries, you're as entitled to your opinion as I am to mine. I also have extensive experience there and wouldn't 'generally' trust more than the other. This is weighing up the grounds of the issue, which stems from a Russian invasion and occupation. I'm sure most Australians would equally want to defend their country from any invader, and a larger one as Russia is would naturally have its own larger band of supporters. Just because a country is bigger and more powerful doesn't entitle it to tell a smaller country what to do, but that is what Russia is doing.

 

I don't see any debate about whether Ukraine should exist. They've been a separate republic from the days of the Soviet Union (which stood for Union of Soviet Socialist Republics), and were distinguished as such when they were put down with many Ukrainians killed under Stalin's regime. Past Russian - and other - leaders recognised their sovereignty and signed treaties with Ukraine. You're about the only one saying they shouldn't exist, but good luck with your opinion. :D

 

I think that's fair enough. Each to their own opinions. Personally I would like to see a peaceful Europe with no war. There is so much good to see over there.

 

I probably would not say I am pro-Russian, however I just feel that Ukraine should not be trusted either. If I were in the AFP being sent there I would be weary of both sides.

 

The downing of the aircraft has always been as uneasy situation with me because I am extremely familiar with military equipment and there is no way a civilian airliner can accidentally be shot down. There are too many procedures in place to fire a missile and it takes more advanced knowledge of maths and physics to actually fire the missile in the right direction to acquire a target.

[MicCanberra]

The Aussie and Dutch investigation/recovery teams have finally made it through to the crash site. Thank goodness for that.:D

[Cruise_me_Crazy]

The Aussie and Dutch investigation/recovery teams have finally made it through to the crash site. Thank goodness for that.:D

 

I hope there is enough evidence left for them to get the answers we need.

[MicCanberra]

I hope there is enough evidence left for them to get the answers we need.

 

Yeah, I agree. It is now likely to be a long shot though.:(

[Pushka]

Well Emirates flew over Iraq three nights ago

 

.

Edited August 3, 2014 by Pushka
z

[cassamanda]

Yes a few are still flying over Iraq but many are turning right off Bahrain to fly over Iran. Some flights are flying over Saudi and Egypt.

[MicCanberra]

There is no really safe way from asia direct to europe. Unless they alter course several times and zig zig their way around the various warring countries.

[The_Big_M]

Now Qantas has joined the others, and said they'll no longer fly over Iraq. Iran is now their choice of flight route.

[Pushka]

Now Qantas has joined the others, and said they'll no longer fly over Iraq. Iran is now their choice of flight route.

 

 

Yeah. Well. That's reassuring!

[Cruise_me_Crazy]

Now Qantas has joined the others, and said they'll no longer fly over Iraq. Iran is now their choice of flight route.

 

Pushka :D I was thinking similar! Imagine thinking Iran is a safe option :eek: never thought I'd hear that!

[ReneeFLL]

You would think so, (given the world wide media coverage)....

 

The all mighty dollar has me a bit sceptical though. If margins are squeezed tight enough, you wonder how far towards the "Riskier" end of an exec's risk managament they would go....if under enough pressure....?

 

Another $$ factor is the price that a country might charge for their over flight privileges. Overflight permission is usually allowed, but some countries will charge fees and dictate the flight path. Several years back when I last looked there were 129 countries that had signed the International Air Services Transit Agreement so not all go by this.

Here is some more info.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air

[ReneeFLL]

Pushka :D I was thinking similar! Imagine thinking Iran is a safe option :eek: never thought I'd hear that!

Totally agree.

[MicCanberra]

Pushka :D I was thinking similar! Imagine thinking Iran is a safe option :eek: never thought I'd hear that!

 

Agree, but it is the safer option compared to Iraq.:D

[MicCanberra]

Another $$ factor is the price that a country might charge for their over flight privileges. Overflight permission is usually allowed, but some countries will charge fees and dictate the flight path. Several years back when I last looked there were 129 countries that had signed the International Air Services Transit Agreement so not all go by this.

Here is some more info.

 

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedoms_of_the_air

 

Thank you for the link, I didn't know they could/would charge for their airspace use.:D

[The_Big_M]

Thank you for the link, I didn't know they could/would charge for their airspace use.:D

 

You need to get approval to enter their air space, and then they need to monitor/track you, so as part of that it's reasonable there's a fee.

[fishtaco]

Believed by the technical analysts who are familiar with the satellite transmitter equipment that is used by the aircraft.

 

There are no guarantees of course, but I go with people who know the most about the equipment and technology.

 

Trouble is they got it wrong!

 

Admitted they got it wrong as well if you care to research lol

[MicCanberra]

You need to get approval to enter their air space, and then they need to monitor/track you, so as part of that it's reasonable there's a fee.

I assumed, (wrongly, it turns out) that by flying above a certain limit, 30,000 feet, it was considered to be no longer that countries airspace. I have learnt something new.:D

 

Is there a height limit at all?

[Pushka]

I thought it was 35,000 feet. Emirates took note to mention they were flying at 37,000 feet.

 

So after all that bombing and loss of life Iraq is still not safe. That's a surprise, not! Son should have kept out of Daddy's war.

Edited August 5, 2014 by Pushka
z

[fishtaco]

Everything I've seen has the timing matching perfectly with the situation, and given my knowledge of the situation it also fits and there is no reason to doubt. Can you share where you have that it came out before?

 

 

 

And the USA and Ukraine has also made public evidence. So the question is who to believe.

 

Given the background to the situation, that Russia already denied yet invaded and then occupied Crimea, and that they then continued to invade and support terrorism in the eastern states, the weight of evidence is against them. They have very little credibility due to previous lies, and also have a very strong vested interest given they are invading and attacking.

 

 

 

That's a claim, not evidenced. Even if true, there is no reason they shouldn't be there given they were operating in the area.

 

 

 

It may well be as the Spanish government claims, that it's a fabrication.

 

In fact, reading the tweets, it appears very likely it was Russian propaganda, as if he were genuine, how would he even know "they were trying to make it look like an attack by pro-Russians" straight away, when it was way too early for that? Everyone's initial reaction was shock (aside from the jubilation of the terrorists, who immediately went to try to salvage what they could, as they had done after each shoot down.) Unless he was part of the 'conspiracy' - in which case why would he have given an interview to the Russian RT two months earlier? It doesn't add up.

 

 

 

Because that was where the captain flew and well within their previous flight paths, as has already been shown.

 

I will not argue too much because you have just not done enough unbiased research in my opinion.

 

MH17 was flying 300 miles further north and 3,000 feet lower than its sanctioned and chosen flight path which just happens to be 300 miles further north and 3,000 feet lower than the previous 10 MH17 flights were give in order to avoid the danger area both in distance and height and not its intended flight path but it was very similar to much previous flight paths before the area was declared by Aviation authority a danger zone and instructions were issued to avoid the area. Look it up.

 

You believe that Ukrainian Jet fighters had the right to shadow an Airliner at 32,000 feet? Look it up.

 

You doubt the Spanish Air traffic controllers story so you doubt that event occurred?Just some twisted individuals who decided to make up untrue stories before most of the public had even heard of MH17 by hacking relevant peoples twitter and facebook accounts thus causing the accounts to be suspended and all their conversations removed? You may doubt there existence even but they are there and electronic date/time imprinted. Look it up.

 

3 days after the MH370 went missing the last recorded contact with air traffic control was made public, MH17,s last recorded contact with air traffic control has still not been released? Is one a bigger Air disaster than the other to render MH17,s more secret or classified? Or is there some truth to the doubted Air traffic controllers denounce false stories seen on twitter that the authorities actually seized the recordings immediately after the disaster?

 

Why was the recording of a Rebel leader telling a Russian General they had shot down an airliner so quickly released to the public when it has since been proven it was recorded 16/7/14, could world government organizations with all its technology not also discover this first before releasing it? Or do you believe that Russia recorded it along with the rebels to purposely incriminate themselves? why has it not been removed from media just as the Air traffic controllers comments were?

 

Rebels may have blown it up as Russia may have but so could have Ukraine or a hijackers bomb!

 

If it is in fact ever found to be Ukrainian weapons fired by Ukrainians I doubt the strong sanctions that are being threatened by USA on both Russia and Rebels will apply to Ukraine.

 

Me I will know what really happened when an unbiased investigation is conducted which seems more and more unlikely the more you research and time goes by.

 

Take a look at Russian media of Russian satellite photos that show the Ukrainian BUK missiles positioned within firing range of MH17 before and on 17/7/14 and then Gone after the downing, then go looking for USA satellite images of the same! They have not been released even though the US satellite was tracking over the area and Russia has shown proof? Too secret? or not good for public opinion?

[The_Big_M]

I will not argue too much because you have just not done enough unbiased research in my opinion.

 

 

Come off it. The bases of your claims so far are unsupported, conspiracy sites, or Russian sources. Both should not be accepted unquestioned, especially given Russia's criminal history in this matter, and likely involvement.

 

For example, your first claim:

 

MH17 was flying 300 miles further north and 3,000 feet lower than its sanctioned and chosen flight path which just happens to be 300 miles further north and 3,000 feet lower than the previous 10 MH17 flights were give in order to avoid the danger area both in distance and height and not its intended flight path but it was very similar to much previous flight paths before the area was declared by Aviation authority a danger zone and instructions were issued to avoid the area. Look it up.

 

I've posted earlier a map showing the wide variety of flight paths the previous 30 MH17 flights had taken, outside a wider range than this one. Oddly, you have ignored that and continue to report this false claim... and now say I haven't done research!

 

Further, just in respect of whether it was the directed flight path, it is easy to see this confirming it was the right one, if you do basic research: http://www.news.com.au/travel/travel-updates/mh17-was-on-the-right-flight-path-when-it-was-shot-down-over-ukraine-malaysias-transport-minister-liow-tiong-lai-says/story-fnizu68q-1226994302100

 

I have given sources in both cases so this can be assessed.

 

You believe that Ukrainian Jet fighters had the right to shadow an Airliner at 32,000 feet? Look it up.

 

Again, this is only claimed by conspiracy sites. I may as well claim it was shadowed by UFOs and shot down and then tell you to disprove that, for all the credibility this has.

 

By the way, there's also a big difference between near, and shadowing.

 

You doubt the Spanish Air traffic controllers story so you doubt that event occurred?

 

My response is the same: "It may well be as the Spanish government claims, that it's a fabrication.

 

In fact, reading the tweets, it appears very likely it was Russian propaganda, as if he were genuine, how would he even know "they were trying to make it look like an attack by pro-Russians" straight away, when it was way too early for that? Everyone's initial reaction was shock (aside from the jubilation of the terrorists, who immediately went to try to salvage what they could, as they had done after each shoot down.) Unless he was part of the 'conspiracy' - in which case why would he have given an interview to the Russian RT two months earlier? It doesn't add up."

 

I note you have ignored my questions, and just accepted those claims as is. Given how much propaganda is produced out of Russia especially, I'm surprised you're not more questioning.

 

3 days after the MH370 went missing the last recorded contact with air traffic control was made public, MH17,s last recorded contact with air traffic control has still not been released?

 

This is just the standard propagandists/conspiracists diversion. What do you expect to hear? ATC covers all flights and there are no comms unless initiated by the airline. Given the shrapnel indicates it was hit by a missile, which means the crew had no idea it was happening, there wouldn't be any communications at ATC about it.

 

Say the last communication was an hour before the event. What relevance would it have? Talk about introducing red herrings. We didn't hear their take off comms with Schiphol ATC either. Maybe it's a Dutch conspiracy as well?!

 

Honestly, I find it insulting to the lost to indulge in conspiracy games about this.

 

Why was the recording of a Rebel leader telling a Russian General they had shot down an airliner so quickly released to the public when it has since been proven it was recorded 16/7/14

 

I haven't seen any official evidence this was from 16th July. As before, if you care to actually share some authoritative facts and sources, rather than just allegations from conspiracy sites, I can comment.

 

Rebels may have blown it up as Russia may have but so could have Ukraine or a hijackers bomb!

 

At this stage the source is not known, although there are a lot more grounds to suggest it was fired by the terrorists. However, if you kept across the research you would have seen it was impacted by an external missile. That therefore rules out the last speculation.

 

If it is in fact ever found to be Ukrainian weapons fired by Ukrainians I doubt the strong sanctions that are being threatened by USA on both Russia and Rebels will apply to Ukraine.

 

Again, if you had done your research, you would have known that the sanctions have been in place for a much longer time now, and are due to Russia's illegal invasion and occupation of Crimea, and subsequent support of the invasion further north. As Russia has continued their actions, the escalations have been ramped up progressively. The sanctions are not because of the plane shot down.

 

Take a look at Russian media of Russian satellite photos that show the Ukrainian BUK missiles positioned within firing range of MH17 before and on 17/7/14 and then Gone after the downing, then go looking for USA satellite images of the same! They have not been released even though the US satellite was tracking over the area and Russia has shown proof? Too secret? or not good for public opinion?

 

Russia has put out masses of theories about how someone shot it down... aside from the terrorists and themselves. Which makes sense given their likely guilt, and the standard tactic of trying to create uncertainty. Many of those claims have been without water. As we have video of the terrorist's BUK launcher in the vicinity, and then rolled out straight after, and the subsequent images confirming that firing, there is no lack of evidence against the terrorists. OTOH, that territory was controlled by the terrorists at the time, so there's not a lot of credibility for anything showing a large, slow missile launcher operated by Ukrainians in the middle of enemy territory. Especially when you see how fierce battles have been on the edges, and how Ukrainian trucks and planes were destroyed on the outskirts, so had no hope of getting in.

 

Since the downing, there have been subsequent rocket and missile strikes from Russia, and more BUK launchers mobilised towards the border from Russia.

[yatchet]

From today the FAA has banned US airlines from flying over Iraq.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-08/faa-bars-u-s-airlines-from-flying-over-iraq.html

[Cruise_me_Crazy]

From today the FAA has banned US airlines from flying over Iraq.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2014-08-08/faa-bars-u-s-airlines-from-flying-over-iraq.html

 

Thanks for this update.