[dissident]

http://www.aljazeera.com/news/europe/20 ... 54730.html

The mother of a victim of downed Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 has begun legal proceedings against Ukraine, demanding $1m from Kiev in damages for negligent homicide.

The woman lodged her complaint at the European Court of Human Rights last week, accusing Kiev of failing to close the country's airspace, the German newspaper Bild reported Sunday.

The woman said Ukraine should have closed its airspace to civilian flights when fighting raged in the east of the country, but chose not to because it did not want to lose out on overflight fees.

Once again, it is the full responsibility of the Kiev Borisopil Air Traffic Control to route flights over Ukrainian territory. In fact, ATC all over the world already direct air traffic away from congestion and bad local weather (e.g. deep convection). The fact that the Kiev ATC tapes were seized and sealed by the regime says it all.

[sparky]

.
Rebels have been shooting down Ukrainian planes at about the same altitude ,
aerial bombing had been going on pretty indiscriminately ,UKr.Air forces has been reported as crossing the civilian planes tracks two months before the shooting .
on the surface it seems to be a sad mixture of greed , Ukraine should have stopped civilian flights but was getting a lot of money from flights rights , airlines companies saving a few hundred of lousy bucks by not increasing the flight path .
international agencies being slack to the point of criminal negligence not banning flying over a war zone

[dissident]

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/new ... 492579.ece

UKRAINE was urged to close the east of the country to civil aviation days before the downing of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 in July but ignored the warning, The Sunday Times has learnt.

To repeat, Kiev bears 100% of the responsibility for the shoot down. Even if the rebels did it on Putin's command. It is the legal obligation of the air traffic control to route air traffic since there is no such thing as free flying airliners. Sending them over a free fire war zone is a crime with no excuses. There was no mistake in the routing of MH17, it was sent right over the center of the war zone and it is likely that Kiev knew where the rebels had their Buk system (the one that does not have the tracking radar). On the scale of Ukraine sending the aircraft within 30 km of the Buk is pretty much directing it there. The Kiev ATC could have sent MH17 over Kharkov without any significant fuel cost as there was bad weather over the Sea of Azov, its usual route, on that day.

[Tanada]

To repeat, Kiev bears 100% of the responsibility for the shoot down. Even if the rebels did it on Putin's command. It is the legal obligation of the air traffic control to route air traffic since there is no such thing as free flying airliners. Sending them over a free fire war zone is a crime with no excuses. There was no mistake in the routing of MH17, it was sent right over the center of the war zone and it is likely that Kiev knew where the rebels had their Buk system (the one that does not have the tracking radar). On the scale of Ukraine sending the aircraft within 30 km of the Buk is pretty much directing it there. The Kiev ATC could have sent MH17 over Kharkov without any significant fuel cost as there was bad weather over the Sea of Azov, its usual route, on that day.

My contention way back at the start of this tragedy is they also could have had MH-17 and all the other civilian aircraft flying at their highest available altitude which would have vastly shrunk their chances of getting hit. A missile intercept is a bubble shaped volume of space, the higher the aircraft the closer it has to be horizontally to the launch site. The route and latitude commanded by the Ukraine ATC are both suspicious IMO. They had them flying over the war zone at what amounts to minimum altitude for a commercial passenger aircraft.

[SeaGypsy]

A bunch of anonymous posters on a peak oil forum seem to have worked out much more about this than anyone in western MSM has. Thanks for your efforts folks. What's the bet this little set of facts never sees the light of day? Doesn't run smoothly with castigating Russia & Putin at the same time in history as Russia becomes the biggest oil exporter & dares to sell lots of it directly to China, in Yuan, bypassing the petrodollar. Huxley would be having a field day since 2001.

[AgentR11]

My hunch remains, that physically, some D&L fighters captured enough of a buk system to put a missile in the air, and thought they had a military transport as a target of opportunity that would not maneuver; they put it in the air, the missile's internal guidance worked on the trivial target, and MH17 died. This makes it NOT a war crime.

So, what is left is civil liability. Kiev and D&L share civil liability; Kiev for their incompetence and failure managing their air traffic space, and D&L for the physical act.

There's no conspiracy or great mystery here; its just a tragedy of war. Justice in such cases is served by the writing of a check to the victims' families; as has been done in similar prior instances.

[Keith_McClary]

We seem to be getting a lot more details on QZ8501 than MH17:
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/world-news ... ng-5015025

[Withnail]

My hunch remains, that physically, some D&L fighters captured enough of a buk system to put a missile in the air, and thought they had a military transport as a target of opportunity that would not maneuver; they put it in the air, the missile's internal guidance worked on the trivial target, and MH17 died. This makes it NOT a war crime.

But how on earth would guys like that use a Buk?

you need to study for years to be able to use one.

[Tanada]

My hunch remains, that physically, some D&L fighters captured enough of a buk system to put a missile in the air, and thought they had a military transport as a target of opportunity that would not maneuver; they put it in the air, the missile's internal guidance worked on the trivial target, and MH17 died. This makes it NOT a war crime.

But how on earth would guys like that use a Buk?

you need to study for years to be able to use one.

I find that HIGHLY unlikely, at least for the USA most defensive systems are designed as close to idiot proof as you can get. See target, point missile in general direction of target, push-pull-type FIRE and watch as machine attempts to hit target. The whole point is to be able to throw 18 year old fresh out of boot camp troops into the fight ASAP. All you really need is one militia fellow who had training to use the system some years before who halfway remembers how to read the controls.

[Withnail]

My hunch remains, that physically, some D&L fighters captured enough of a buk system to put a missile in the air, and thought they had a military transport as a target of opportunity that would not maneuver; they put it in the air, the missile's internal guidance worked on the trivial target, and MH17 died. This makes it NOT a war crime.

But how on earth would guys like that use a Buk?

you need to study for years to be able to use one.

I find that HIGHLY unlikely, at least for the USA most defensive systems are designed as close to idiot proof as you can get.

No, the Buk isn't like that.

Actually i don't think any air defence system involving fast moving targets and missiles is as simple as you describe it to be.

For a start, pointing missile in general direction of target won't work, will it?

By the time the missile gets there the target is gone. What you need is what is called a firing solution, to put the missile where the target is going to be, which the missile launcher's computer calculates.

Actually the first such computers (mechanical) were used on U boats i believe, working out torpedo firing solutions.

[Strummer]

The SA-11 Buk is a point-and-shoot system actually, you need just a basic training on which button does what. In the simplest confugration, when you have just the TELAR vehicle, without the supporting infrastructure, there's a radar screen showing a curve with blips, you select and lock on a blip and fire. Everything is automated.

http://www.wired.com/2014/07/sa-11-miss ... sy-to-use/

[Withnail]

The SA-11 Buk is a point-and-shoot system actually, you need just a basic training on which button does what. In the simplest confugration, when you have just the TELAR vehicle, without the supporting infrastructure, there's a radar screen showing a curve with blips, you select and lock on a blip and fire. Everything is automated.

No that won't work, it's not as simple as that.

Without a firing solution you're very unlikely to hit anything.

In Russia only officers can fire the missile, after years of study.

Even launching the missile requires numerous steps.

And it's standard procedure to launch 2 missiles on any one target. Unlike the fabled seperatist Buk, which supposedly only launched one, if it even existed.

[Strummer]

The SA-11 Buk is a point-and-shoot system actually, you need just a basic training on which button does what. In the simplest confugration, when you have just the TELAR vehicle, without the supporting infrastructure, there's a radar screen showing a curve with blips, you select and lock on a blip and fire. Everything is automated.

No that won't work, it's not as simple as that.

Without a firing solution you're very unlikely to hit anything.

In Russia only officers can fire the missile, after years of study.

Even launching the missile requires numerous steps.

And it's standard procedure to launch 2 missiles on any one target. Unlike the fabled seperatist Buk, which supposedly only launched one, if it even existed.

You are talking about procedures. Those do not matter, as the article above points out. The launch itself is just a sequence of pushing buttons, any idiot can do it, even without a training, just following written instructions.

[Withnail]

You are talking about procedures. Those do not matter, as the article above points out. The launch itself is just a sequence of pushing buttons, any idiot can do it, even without a training, just following written instructions.

An article from 'Wired' magazine, risibly slanted and containing no actual details about how to operate a Buk launcher?

Thanks but no thanks. Utter nonsense.

[Subjectivist]

You are talking about procedures. Those do not matter, as the article above points out. The launch itself is just a sequence of pushing buttons, any idiot can do it, even without a training, just following written instructions.

An article from 'Wired' magazine, risibly slanted and containing no actual details about how to operate a Buk launcher?

Thanks but no thanks. Utter nonsense.

If you know anybody who ever served in the military I suggest you ask them how hard TPTB try to make military equipment fool proof. You are assuming the guy or gal pushing the buttons needs to know how the radar works and what to do if x-y-z breaks. They don't, all they have to do is select the target from what they can see on there screen and tell the system to shoot it. The built in computer does the math to get the Missile close to the target and the missile does the rest. Sure, against a maneuvering small high speed fighter jet it is hard to get a solid hit, but a lumbering passenger plane flying straight and level at a consistent speed is no problem for even the most basic computer to track and intercept.

Before submarines used computers to calculate torpedo firing solutions ships used range finders and slide rules to calculate firing angles and times for heavy guns. In fact the 'torpedo computer' on World War II era submarines was a fancy round slide rule, not an electronic device.

[Withnail]

If you know anybody who ever served in the military I suggest you ask them how hard TPTB try to make military equipment fool proof. You are assuming the guy or gal pushing the buttons needs to know how the radar works and what to do if x-y-z breaks. They don't, all they have to do is select the target from what they can see on there screen and tell the system to shoot it.

Nonsense. You should watch some videos about just how complicated a Buk is to operate.

This is an old fashioned system, it's not point and shoot.

You need at least 3 qualified operators to even fire a missile.

[AgentR11]

W.. you're really pushing credibility. There is no way a soviet design of a truck with some conventional missiles on it would not have a way for one guy to point it in the generally desired direction, park, and find a way to put the missile aloft. Being unable to do that violates everything about soviet (and Russian) design principles. Now, it may have a cruddy solution to target, it may have low odds of getting anywhere near anything interesting; but it most certainly can put the bird in the air.

Unfortunately a passenger jet on a steady coarse is exactly the kind of target such a missile can find mostly on its own if you just get it in the ballpark.

I remain convinced that while it will never be possible to prove conclusively the who and how; the most likely and reasonable possibility is that the separatists captured part of a Ukrainian Buk system; in particular the truck with the missiles on it; drove it to a reasonably safe spot, and at some point thought they eyeballed a Ukrainian military transport; they lined it up, put the missile aloft, and killed the airliner.

Again. THIS IS NOT A WAR CRIME. It is collateral damage; common in all conflicts. If anyone is to cut a civil check for damages, it would be everyone responsible for the course selection. That was true negligence, that should bear civil liability. Now, it could turn out that that particular controller belongs to Kiev, and in that case, your chance of getting a check that won't bounce approaches 0%; which is frustrating; but bankrupt is bankrupt.

nb... I'm going to leave the above unfixed. This is what happens to a native English speaker that reads to much poorly translated Russian. GACK!

[Withnail]

W.. you're really pushing credibility. There is no way a soviet design of a truck with some conventional missiles on it would not have a way for one guy to point it in the generally desired direction, park, and find a way to put the missile aloft.

You can't.

Watch some videos about how to operate Buks, then get back to me.

It requires multiple operators. You can't even see the radar screen if you are in position to press the launch sequence.

That goes for all of you here. I don't want to hear another word theorising about how amazingly easy it is to fire Buk missiles.

If you actually think that, you're a bunch of bloody idiots, I'm sorry to say.

[Newfie]

W.. you're really pushing credibility. There is no way a soviet design of a truck with some conventional missiles on it would not have a way for one guy to point it in the generally desired direction, park, and find a way to put the missile aloft.

You can't.

Watch some videos about how to operate Buks, then get back to me.

That goes for all of you here. I don't want to hear another word theorising about how amazingly easy it is to fire Buk missiles.

If you actually think that, you're a bunch of bloody idiots, I'm sorry to say.

Is it possible they could have fired the missle without even aiming it? Do you have to select a target befoe launch? Or will it just seek out the target in front?

[Withnail]

Is it possible they could have fired the missle without even aiming it? Do you have to select a target befoe launch? Or will it just seek out the target in front?

You need a missile lock before launch.

That must be maintained until the missiles (you're supposed to launch 2) are very close to the target at which point internal guidance takes over.

The Buk radar activation should have been recorded by NATO AWACS/surveiilance, but there has not been a peep out of the West regarding that.

The missile itself should have been visible on radar as well.