Last week, the Joint Investigation Team conducting a criminal investigation into the downing of idH17 issued their preliminary findings. Here’s what I think are the main takeaways.
— The findings strongly endorse the work of “open source intelligence” pioneer Eliot Higgins and his group, Bellingcat. In the immediate aftermath of the shoot-down, it was accepted by nearly every pundit and journalist that the missile had been fired accidentally by poorly trained militiamen who had somehow gotten their hands on an SA-11 Buk launcher and had a acquired a target without bothering to first identify it. But by painstaking work and great resourcefulness, the Bellingcat team was able to piece together an extremely convincing timeline, by which the launcher was brought across the border from a specific Russian military unit, was transported under the direction of the GRU (Russian military intelligence), shot down MH17, and was sent back across the border that night. As I’ve written previously, the timeline described by Bellingcat does not fit with the hapless-militiaman scenario very well. As the New York Times reported, “It is unlikely that anyone not connected with the Russian military would have been able to deploy an SA-11 missile launcher from Russia into a neighboring country.”
— While still admiting the possibility that the Buk crew acted on its own, the report shifts the emphasis to the once-unthinkable: that the missile launch was ordered by higher-ups:
…an investigation is conducted into the chain of command. Who gave the order to bring the BUK-TELAR into Ukraine and who gave the order to shoot down flight MH17? Did the crew decide for themselves or did they execute a command from their superiors? This is important when determining the offences committed by the alleged perpetrators.
As the New York Times put it, the JIT has signaled that it intends “to build an open-and-shut case against individual suspects and to diagram the chain of command behind the order to deploy and launch.”
One can just about imagine a wet-behind-the-ears lieutenant, newly trained and sitting nervously in the cab of his Buk TELAR, messing up and accidentally firing a missile at an unidentified target. But it is harder to imagine an experienced senior officer mistakenly giving the order. Indeed, the higher one goes up the chain of command, the less likely that the decision was made without explicit or implicit endorsement by an immediate superior. The implication, then, is that the order to shoot down MH17, if it did come from anywhere, came from the very top.
— One new piece of information that was revealed in last week’s presentation was that on the day before MH17 was shot down, a rebel commander was recorded making an emotional telephone call to a superior in the regular Russian military, complaining that his troops were vulnerable to Ukrainian air attacks—specifically, by Su-25 ground-attack jets—and that they needed Buks to protect them.
This could be interpreted as evidence that the delivery of the Buk that shot down MH17 was initiated by the militia. Alternatively, it could be a coincidence that a militia commander happened to ask for a missile system the Russian military had already decided to deploy. I think the latter is more likely, for the simple reason that the Buk missile system was not the most appropriate weapon for defending against Su-25s or the other low-altitude planes then in service against the separatists.
The Su-25 is more or less the Russian counterpart of the American A-10: it is designed for low-altitude strafing attacks, with a maximum altitude of 23,000 feet. Another plane used by the Ukrainian military at the time was the An-26 transport, with a maximum altitude of 25,000 feet. A potent defence against these planes would be the Pantsir anti-aircraft system, a mobile rocket launcher that also incorporates self-aiming quad machine guns to automatically blast low-flying attackers out of the sky. Compared to the Buk, which can reach targets above 80,000 feet high, the Pantsir can reach no higher than 26,000 feet. But unlike the Buk it can handle jets flying low under the radar, as the Su-25 can do.
It is known that Pantsirs were present and active in eastern Ukraine at the time of the shootdown. On July 14, an An-26 military transport plane was flying at about 20,000 feet when it was shot down. Ukrainian military assumed that it was downed either by a Pantsir or by an air-to-air missile fired from a Russian fighter jet flying on the other side of the Russian-Ukrainian border. On July 16, a Su-25 flying at nearly the same altitude was also shot down, again either by a Pantsir or an air-to-air missile. The blog Putin@War found satellite imagery of Pantsir units near the Ukraine-Russian border in August of 2016.
The limited reach of the Pantsir is one of the reasons that officials believed that airliners would be perfectly safe traveling higher than 32,000 feet, and so kept the airspace open to airline traffic. Buks were not known to be in the theater—and, indeed, up until the day of the shoot-down, it seems that they weren’t.
As a general principle, you do not want to send equipment into a poorly regulated battlespace that is any more powerful than it needs to be. The potential danger is too great. Retired U.S. military intelligence officer Peter Akins told me that, having had experience with many brushfire wars on its perimeter, the Russians know better than to carelessly hand out strategically powerful weapons like the Buk. “My guess is that they’re pretty carefully controlled,” he says. “We ran into real problems in Afghanistan with giving mujahadeen all those Stingers (MANPADS) that they used to take out Russian helicopters. Stingers have a relatively long shelf life. So once the mujahadeen became Taliban, if they could get to the top of a mountain in Afghanistan they could increase the operational envelope of the missile so that they could target US aircraft. So that’s one of the lessons that we learned, which is don’t give out MANPADS. I don’t know where the idea for ‘Let’s give an SA-11 to a separatist movement in the Donetsk National Sovereignty Front’ would have come from. That’s not the actions of a responsible government.”
— The weight of the JIT’s authority has, I think, severely undermined the army of Kremlin trolls who have been promoting a fog of pro-Russian conspiracy theories almost from day one. As Finnish defense writer Robin Häggblom put it, “the amount of evidence found in both open and non-open source has reached such levels that the question of whether a Russian supplied Buk shot down MH17 can now be considered a litmus test for whether you are under the influence of Russian propaganda or not.”
— The slow, grinding, meticulous building of the case against Russia feels unstoppable—and it could lead to a huge and potentially dangerous political crisis. In the wake of the JIT’s presentation, Moscow responded with such fury that the Dutch foreign minister summoned the Russian ambassador. In response, the Russian foreign minister summoned the Dutch ambassador in Moscow. Meanwhile, Australia’s foreign minister said that whoever was responsible for the shoot-down could face an international tribunal like the one who found Libyan agents guilty for the bombing of Pan Am 103 over Lockerbie Scotland. Russia has already used its security council powers to block a UN investigation.
As I’ve been saying for a long time now, if it is determined that the Russian leadership deliberately ordered the shoot-down of MH17, the implications for MH370 are obvious—one of the difficulties in trying to understand MH370 is that, though it was clearly a deliberate act, there was no plausible motive. MH17 provides, if not understanding of what the motive was, clear evidence that a motive existed, in mid-2014, for a great power to take down a Malaysia Airlines 777. If an international Lockerbie-style commission is ultimately set up to assign criminal blame for Ukraine tragedy, then it is not too far out to imagine a similar body being established to do the same for MH370.
UPDATE: The Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab has published a nice overview of the anti-aircraft weapons systems that Russia has deployed in Eastern Ukraine. It seems that the Buk TELAR deployed from July 16 to 18, 2014, was the only one that threatened civil air traffic over the region.
@Rob, Do you feel better now :)? @GeRijn, Good post and well articulated!
@Rob
Assuming Ge Rijn has successfully summed up MH17, I go off topic with you.
Why SW? I think go just a little NE into Broken Ridge. Why ditch into swell? if I am grasping the 7th arc BTO/BFO latest technical info, there seems to be a consensus of rapid dive. This implies to me they can stay on the 7th arc and go a bit further SW and NE. If there was intent to crash into undersea mountains with empty fuel, I go with something Ge Rijn said months ago, fuel could have been dumped at the end to give empty tanks, and final step I am ditching my plane straight down into a deep trench beside a mountain. Which is pretty darn close to DrBobby’s 34S and 7th arc. to open this thread, give or take a degree.
@DennisW,
You said: “I have absolutely no idea why you think I have ever attacked you.”
To refresh your poor memory, please refer to your post on September 14, 2016 at 11:52 PM: “ DrB is objecting to my use of the term “true heading” and he is correct. I am sometimes careless. I should have used track. Heading refers to which way the aircraft is pointed. Not which way it is actually going. He new very well what I meant. He is just being a dick.”
You can find the automatic frequency adjustment discussion at:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/0BzOIIFNlx2aUTDlfTUNTZDVxb3c/view?usp=sharing
I provided the direct quote because I figured (correctly as it turns out) that you would not take the time to look it up.
In reference to Inmarsat’s upper bound on BFO errors, you also said: “. You are choosing to interpret it as a two sigma error when comparing it to the DSTG numbers.” That is incorrect. I guess you didn’t read what I wrote: “. . . this 7 Hz upper bound on the error magnitude . . . .” I never said or used two sigma.
@PaulC
“…a BUK is not simple to operate and there is no way an untrained ‘rebel’ (or ‘liberation fighter’, as some might argue) could have used it – in my opinion it was fired either by either the Russian or the Ukrainian military (the Ukrainians have plenty of BUKs of their own).
Thirdly, the ‘rebels’ (if that is what they are) are ground bound, they do not have any aircraft, so it is not immediately clear to me how useful a MIG 29 or an SU 27…”
The make up of the ‘rebels’ is an interesting mix of home defence soldiers (mostly retired Ukraine army), Russian soldiers and reservists who have family and friends in E Ukraine and deserters from Ukraine armed forces. Many of these soldiers would be used to using the BUK system, which has been around for many years across the old Eastern Bloc.
Regarding the need for a medium range AA missile system, it has been reported that mig29s have been used for bombing logistics targets and the su-24MRs will be being deployed for recon missions. A few BUK systems would be useful both as a weapon and deterrent to further attacks.
There is no black and white regarding what’s happening in Ukraine and I don’t see a motive for a deliberate planned attack by Russian supporters. However, a planned attack by the Ukraine government would help it engender more support and resources from both the EU and US. I wouldn’t like to be the judge that has to sort this potential geopolitical disaster out.
@DrB
You are correct. You never said the Inmarsat value was a two sigma value. What you did say is cut and pasted below. I inferred that you were interpreting the Inmarsat 7Hz as two sigma with your reference to 3Hz below. I don’t know where else the ~3Hz would come from when used to compare it with the DSTG RMS or one sigma value.
“So I interpret your question as why the DSTG got a RMS of 5.5 Hz when Inmarsat’s equivalent statistic is much smaller (~3 Hz). I also note that the DSTG got RMS values of 4.0 to 4.3 Hz when some outliers were excluded, so the “inconsistency” of the two analyses is perhaps not all that large (from ~3 Hz to ~4 Hz).”
I am sorry if you took my “being a dick” expression as anything more than playful. I use it all the time with friends and my SO (who does not have a dick) who do things like wordsmith what I am saying. I will be very careful about that in future exchanges.
Thanks for the link.
@Boris Tabaksplatt
Thanks for that.
I agree with you regarding the make up of the ‘rebels’ and that some are ex Ukrainian forces. Whilst some of them may indeed have had some training on BUK systems, none of them could have had any specific training on the 9M38 (said to have been used on MH17) as that missile is not available in Ukraine. I may be mistaken but I believe that all the Ukrainian BUK hardware is now over 10 years old.
You are also right that Mig 29s have been used (and even shot down) in E Ukraine. In August 2014, one Mig 29 was shot down by an missile fired near Yenakievo and another was shot down in Luhansk. Two Su-24s were also hit with MANPADS (1 damaged and 1 destroyed).
You said: ” a few BUKs would be useful” I would say “but clearly not vital” and would it ever be worth the risk to Russia, of sending that sort of equipment to E Ukraine? In any case, the real damage in E Ukraine has been done by Ukrainian mortars – not Ukrainian aircraft.
You said: “… I don’t see a motive for a deliberate planned attack…” – neither do I and I would go further, Russia had everything to lose by being involved in MH17 – proof of its involvement in E Ukraine, international vilification, etc. etc. If they did do it, it would make no sense to me at all.
@Paul C. “If they did do it, it would make no sense to me at all”.
Speculation follows.
The investigation has been thorough and so there can be confidence the Russians did it. I doubt they would let such equipment out of their direct control. Possibly the rebels were concerned that their deployments were being tracked. The question arises as to reconnaissance and eavesdropping (evident since), not just by the Ukranians but by their supporters, using the civilian corridors. Maybe there is intelligence about that which the Russians have or think they do…”
If so, when they were rummaging in the wreckage were they seeking evidence?
I wonder what nationality other nearby aircraft were. One was Singapurian I think.
@Oleksandr. You continue to take an interest in primary equipment failures. I for one do not rule that out but reconciliation with the manned flying up the Straits and beyond escapes me. Equipment failure followed by hypoxic delusion would be an explanation but that continuing for all that time can be ruled out as I understand it.
A hijacking preceded or accompanied by deliberate damage also would tick some boxes, though I think you have equipment failure as a direct cause more in mind.
Most likely nose wheel explosion has come up before but in any case I might be able to expand on that. Rectification of a missing left nose wheel tie bolt was deferred on 28th February 2014 after checking tyre pressure(see FI Appendix 6A item 47). According to the photo on p22 of the below, the tie bolts secure the wheel halves. What I would ask on discovering such a failure is what caused it? Over torque for example and if so what of the other bolts? FI does not recount whether this was rectified before the final flight or if so what other action such as check torqueing was undertaken. In an explosion when retracted, one could see not just possibilities of electrical and electronic damage but to flight deck oxygen cylinders also, and decompression.
http://www.boeing.com/commercial/aeromagazine/articles/qtr_1_08/AERO_Q108.pdf
This is quite useless speculation unless there can be a reconciliation with later events and I mention it just in case that can be done.
@Oleksandr. For oxygen cylinders read oxygen supply.
@DrB
Now that you have established the “wounded eagle” position, are you going to post an intelligent response to my BFO statistics question? I am waiting.
@David
“…when they were rummaging in the wreckage were they seeking evidence” – frankly, who knows what they wanted. They did find the flight recorders and handed them over to the international team – if they thought these might contain any incriminating evidence, why not just destroy them?
“The investigation has been thorough…” – tell me, who shot JFK? Fifty years on and two thirds of Americans don’t think one man did it. While I am at it, why did WTC 7 collapse?
I think there were 3 flights nearby:one Singaporean and 2 Indian, one of the flights was only 2-3 minutes behind as I recall.
@Paul C. Yes no report will be infallible. Evidence might come to light later or might be concealed or lost and all that can be expected is the best the circumstances and time allow.
Besides thoroughness another measure is detachment but once again that will be in the eye of the beholder.
I guess in this case you judge the culture, the diversity, experience and expertise of participants and their rights to place a minority report; and acknowledge that there might be structural shortcomings such as ability to demand answers whether or not they are self- incriminating, and access to witnesses.
What do you think of progress with the investigation to date?
Thanks for the info on the others nearby.
There were a number of other airliners within a 100 Km of MH 17. It should be possible to check these details from FlightRadar 24 or similar sites.
From the comments of others here, the most likely cause was some dumb junior officer firing at something which he thought was an Ukrainian transport. It was probably a mere coincidence that it was a MAS 777. If it had been a Singaporean or Indian airliner, would we even be discussing its connection with MH 370?
Incidentally, it was reported that the Air India 787 in question was carrying the present Indian Prime Minister, who had taken office a few weeks earlier.Think of the conspiracy theories then-probably Pakistan would have been blamed!
@ABN397
fact is also, that anybody with flightradar24 app on moderately smart phone can check the planes identifications if in doubt and lack of more info or experience in the BUK – to not shoot on them
@David
“What do you think of progress with the investigation to date?”
I think trust has to be earned – by all means call me a cynic but let me just list a few of the things that I see as cause for concern.
1) The CVR was recovered but we have never had a transcript and we do not have the ATC comms either! Why – is there something they don’t want us to know? Has any other investigation refused to release, what ought to be, simple, factual information?
2) The reconstruction was ‘partial’ – WHY?? Have they discarded parts that might have told a different story? Look at the expense of the MH370 search – with nearly 300 people dead on MH17, the cost of a full reconstruction would have been neither here nor there. Precedent has usually been to put everything you can into the reconstruction, so why not this time?
3) JIT was formed straight after the disaster but JIT did not include Malaysia! They refused to sign the non-disclosure agreement and it was not until December 2014 that Malaysia finally agreed to sign and was added to JIT. To my mind that whole saga has an extremely unpleasant odour about it. Why do you have a non- disclosure agreement for an international investigation? This one sends my trust levels crashing.
4) When the body of the pilot was returned to the family in Malaysia, they were not allowed to open the coffin or see the body before it was cremated. Why? If they wanted to see the body of their husband/father/brother, it was nobody’s business but theirs. The wife said (on video) it was on the orders of the government.
5) The Australian autopsies, which showed that the passengers died as the plane broke up at altitude but almost no metal fragments were recovered from the bodies, was suddenly classified a few days later. It is no longer ‘officially’ available.
6) etc. etc. etc.
This investigation is anything but transparent – they have not earned my trust. My greatest concern is the motives of the members of JIT … and that non-disclosure agreement.
@PaulC @David
I am as shocked about the perspective of a deliberate russian act as you are. But i think there is not much space for interpreting the facts. Ideally we are wrong and we speak about a “normal” air accident, But, this world is not ideal and unfortunately the superpowers have a tough encounter building up since the deviation of MH370. Guess why!
@PaulC:
“I think trust has to be earned – by all means call me a cynic but let me just list a few of the things that I see as cause for concern…”
Totally agree with your list of anomalies and no need to apologise for being sceptical about the official line on this issue. The way this investigation has been conducted smelled bad right from the start and has continued in the same vein ever since.
It is also curious to watch realpolitik at work…
‘Nederlands reject EU-Ukraine partnership deal’
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-35976086
‘EU DEMOCRACY DEAD: EU ignores Dutch referendum to push through Ukraine deal’
http://www.express.co.uk/news/politics/662768/Dutch-referendum-EU-Brussels-Brexit-Ukraine-deal-visa-free-travel
There is something greater at stake here than the downing of MH17, however despicable that act may be. Why does the EU want this corrupt economic disaster of a country to join then when their own economy is already so weak that it is tottering on the brink of failure?
@CosmicAcademy
“…there is not much space for interpreting the facts.”
Suspect #1 – Russia
Suspect #2 – Ukraine
JIT – initially: the Netherlands, Belgium, Ukraine and Australia. From December 2014 add Malaysia.
Ukraine (suspect #2) has a veto on the publication of any and all information related to MH17. The only facts we get are the ones approved by Ukraine.
@Boris Tabaksplatt
“Why does the EU want this corrupt economic disaster of a country to join…”
Historians coined the term “The Great Game” to describe a battle between 2 powers that endured for most of the nineteenth century. The game continues to be played but with different participants.
At the bottom of the food-chain is the EU. The main policy setting body of the EU is COREPER (a committee of the permanent representatives of the member states). Although it is never reflected in the minutes, one super-power also attends COREPER meetings as an observer – it is through this mechanism that that super-power ‘influences’ EU policy.
Since the EU introduced sanctions against Russia, despite continuing vocal opposition from several member states, the European Parliament has never voted on the renewal of the sanctions, every decision to renew has been taken by COREPER.
@PaulC, MH17 was shot down over Ukraine territory and as such the Ukraine is automatically in charge of an investigation. Other countries were only allowed in after signing an NDA. It was how they set the playing field. One could question Ukraine’s ability to be impartial there where they have to investigate themselves (and perhaps as a result implicate themselves). It’s the same as a killer collecting evidence at his/her own crime scene. When an aircraft is shot down it should require an independent investigation by an impartial third party. This won’t happen due to jurisdictional status. We have seen with MY what happens when they investigate one of their own incidents. There is no investigation to speak of as well as total lack of transparency. In the end, NOK are left hanging for years on end because governments frustrate and delay the process, simply because they can. No sanctions, no repercussions, nothing. It is appalling. Governments and airliners should be held to a much higher international standard that include severe sanctions.
@Keffertje
Good post. Completely agree. We are back to the what is more important: the facts or the narrative? In this instance, Ukraine has control of both.
@ABN397:
So instead of the Indian PM they took down the common grandmother of Najib and Hishamuddin. That has a kind of ring to it too. Klan wars? Not likely, but if you also consider mh370 in relation to Ibrahim Anwar you seem to get a sum of coincidence well above what should be possible even in a novel.
I truly believe that if for instance MAY had upset either RUS or CHI, or whoever (oligarch) is a major force behind eastern Ukraine, in any intnl negotiations of late (up to 2014), around treatises or similar, we would have heard about it by now. If we had a situation where one part used the two MAS flights as coercion or revenge, MAY would (be meant to) realize that and the story would have been leaked. There is — regarding mh17 — naturally also the possible “transit area mutuality” for any journalist to consider: the warzone is to MAY (hypothetically) what the Malacca strait is to any warring part’s (and ally’s) efforts to get their supplies through. Now, as the Ukrainian rebels possibly get most of their supplies through Russia (if not why so?), are mostly thugs on the army level, they don’t appear to me perhaps as a player on that level. If so, mh17 appears, or am I wrong?, more as an act of impotence and powerlessness, by abandoned bands, than as a serious contribution to a battle over power among ( mid-level) states. A shot in the dark.
Following the money is usually a good way of trying to understand motives for events which seem illogical and confusing. [content deleted by JW]
@Boris, It has been established beyond a reasonable doubt that MH17 was shot down by a Buk missile launcher that had been dispatched from a Russian air-defense unit the evening before, and was sent back the evening after. The only question remaining is whether whether was shot down accidentally by ill-trained Buk operators or ordered destroyed by higher-ups within the Russian military.
Suggestions that Ukraine might somehow be responsible can only be the product of pro-Russian trollery. I consider this tantamount to aiding and abetting an act of mass murder, and I will not tolerate it on this site.
@Keffertje, @PaulC:
A side note: when it comes to (International) law, and national souvereignty, history is unambiguos about the ambiguity, since the upholder of the (international) law within a territory is the nation state. So a nation’s opinion about their own national security weighs pretty heavy, both de facto and de jure. The flip side is power vacuum, political implosion, and geopolitical disruption, with mass murder, refugees in hundreds of thousands and whatnot. You gotta like national souvereignty or not. It appears everywhere you look, and human society have acted upon that through making supra-national authorities, treatises, organisations etc. which work up until a certain point, not at all or sometimes. There is no quick fix to that either I am afraid. But it is definitely getting better and better seen historically. And the world is getting smaller, boundaries are traversed and people less strange to each other and obvious lies or blackpaintings of peoples less likely to be accepted. So we’re getting somewhere. The balance act is perhaps be to get at the truth (of the matter) without throwing areas into war — as a spontaneous reflection. I am not saying you are wrong or shouldn’t search for the truth whatever it is, but be careful what you wish for. I can’t imagine Ukraine doing this to blame the Russians (like in the Madame Secretary episode one gotta wonder some about), and/but you will have to accept giving them some leach. In a matter like mh17, the truth will appear. Or at least (being a practical cynic) a truth that as well Ukraine as Russia and the intnl society can accept. And that has to be pretty good, given the amount of people watching.
@PaulC, You wrote, “The only facts we get are the ones approved by Ukraine.” The JIT investigation is an international effort being carried out to the highest standards. Such bodies are our best hope at arriving at the truth in a world increasingly awash with sophisticated forgeries, troll armies, and elaborate disinformation campaigns. Ukraine does not control the proceedings, and indeed the proceedings are taking place in the Netherlands under Dutch leadership. The requirement for secrecy is standard for all such investigations.
There is a difference between skepticism and cynicism. The former is essential to uncovering the truth, the latter is toxic to it. Frankly I have to question the motives of anyone who at this point, given all we know about the case, could even imagine a degree of equivalence between Ukraine and Russia as potential perpetrators.
[Content deleted by JW]
@Boris, I will not tolerate false equivalence regarding MH17. If you persist you will be banned.
@ABN397, You wrote, “If it had been a Singaporean or Indian airliner, would we even be discussing its connection with MH 370?” No, and this is exactly the point. At the time MH370 went missing, there were 15 Malaysia Airlines 777s in the world, out of a total commercial fleet of about 18,000. Thus, it is a less than 1-in-1000 coincidence that if two airliners go down under mysterious circumstances in the space of four months, and the first is an MAS 777, then the second will be too. I don’t think that is turn of events to be blithely dismissed as mere coincidence.
@JeffWise: Your use of statistics is open to critism, to put it mildly. How many civilian and military aircraft passed over the conflict zone that day, that hour?
@Gysbreght, Obviously, the specific probability you come up with depends on how you frame the question, but no matter how you slice it, it is an extraordinary coincidence that two MAS 777-200ER out of only 15 in the world would come to grief under mysterious circumstances in the span of four months.
I can understand why someone might conclude that the coincidence was “just one of those things,” but you can’t deny it is remarkably unlikely.
Bobby,
Re “So far, despite many attempts, I have not found nor have I seen any constant Magnetic Heading route that is consistent with the Inmarsat and fuel data.”
I looked at the magnetic heading scenarios long time ago:
http://www.duncansteel.com/archives/899/comment-page-2#comment-8726
The respective trajectory would be consistent with ATSB’s 2014 fuel endurance estimates. However, I have abandoned further detailed studies and refinements of the magnetic modes because it was noted that such modes do not exist on B777.
@JeffWise: ” no matter how you slice it, it is an extraordinary coincidence that two MAS 777-200ER out of only 15 in the world would come to grief under mysterious circumstances in the span of four months.”
That would have been a correct statement before March 2014, not after the disappearance of MH370.
@Johan, Great post! Toavoid misunderstanding, Russia is in this mess well over it’s ears and IMO are the ones that pulled the trigger. Hindsight is always 20/20 but it would have been better if the Ukraine took a step back on this one and let an independent party reach that same conclusion. Not doing so, opens the door to non-transparency accusations and cover ups. This is what I meant :). In any case, NOK is always left hanging in the wind, with years of delays.
David,
“A hijacking preceded or accompanied by deliberate damage also would tick some boxes, though I think you have equipment failure as a direct cause more in mind.”
I lean to think that either a chain of technical failures accompanied by mistakes of the panicking crew, possibly originally caused by an act of sabotage, or failed hijacking, which culminated around 18:30, took place. The rest is in the blah category: Z did it, P did it, suicide, aliens and other silly nonsense.
However, the absence of the debris in the current search area makes failed hijacking less likely: it does not look like the aircraft was flown in one of the standard HDG or TRK hold mode at constant altitude, as it was widely assumed before. This leaves either the high-level but purposeless LNAV, or a primitive AP function, such as the ATT mode.
Re: “I for one do not rule that out but reconciliation with the manned flying up the Straits and beyond escapes me. ”
How else could it be flow in case of ADIRU failure and absence of communication means, especially if the left bus was depowered on purpose? Yes, the oxygen tanks are placed in the EE-Bay, all above the nose landing gear.
With regard to the bolt you mentioned, there could be many reasons, including over-tightening, micro-cracks (material defects), or even sabotage.
@PaulC
IMO you’re often throwing in suggestive statements based on mistrust and complicated conspiracies. I off course don’t now what you realy think or believe or what your goal is whit this. But if you basically think like this IMO you are overestimating the capabilities of humankind.
In most cases like this it came out some people acted very stupid based on emotions or misjudging things just like humans do sometimes (often in fact).
The intelligence is mostly afterwards not before. People then use all their intelligence to cover up their asses.
Almost everyone who has f”ked up a situation knows he or she did this, and most try to cover up with all their reason and shrewdness to avoid blame. Like cheating on your wife or friend or whoever.
IMO what’s happening in the small is also happening in the large most of the time.
I think the impications of MH17 related to MH370 are only based on this principle.
The Russian government tries to cover up their asses for some realy stupid action they did not anticipated IMO.
Loosing face, power and money is everything to those guys.
Just like the Malaysian government I think.
They try to cover up for some stupid mistakes some made for the same reasons.
IMO don’t be fooled by thinking those ‘leaders’ are so clever to work out conspiracies like this. They are mostly not IMO (look at history). Most of them are only masters in decieving and manipulating. Only thinking about their own position and wellfare.
In many countries narcissists and psychopaths rule. That’s the real problem relating MH17 to MH370 IMO.
And almost a majority of people love that kind of ‘strong’ leaders these days.
Look at Trump, Wilders in Holland, Putin, Erdogan, that psychopathic fool in the Phillipines.
They all gain by induced fear on their people. They feed to them with all means distrust and conspiracy thinking.
I suggest let’s try to stay with reasonable/possible scenarios based on real available information and don’t fall into the trapp of paranoia which has no end and no solution only further disconnect and polarisation.
Hope you read this as positive critisism.
@Jeff Wise
From the day of the disaster, as far as I am aware, there have only ever been two suspects and neither of them has admitted responsibility; which is why an investigation was required.
You said: “[JIT is] our best hope at arriving at the truth” – it isn’t just our best hope, it is our only hope. There is no other investigation and nobody else has access to the evidence.
You said: “Ukraine does not control the proceedings” and “secrecy is standard for all such investigations” – again, entirely correct but each of the members of JIT, has a veto on what the investigation can report and that is the root of the problem, as far as I am concerned.
There is a world of difference between upholding secrecy during the investigation and one party having the opportunity to keep secret, information that ought to be published. I am not suggesting it has happened but I do suggest it could happen.
There is a famous English case of law from which we derive the aphorism: “Not only must Justice be done; it must also be seen to be done.” It concerns the impartiality and recusal of judges and is famous for establishing the principle, that the mere appearance of bias, is sufficient to overturn a judicial decision.
Had Ukraine not participated in the investigation, this problem would not have arisen.
I simply suggest that where one of the initial suspects, is seen to have a possible conflict of interest and has the opportunity to prevent relevant information from being published, there will always be room for doubt. I do not see this, in any way, shape or form, as being: “a degree of equivalence between Ukraine and Russia as potential perpetrators.”
Questions have been asked about the non-disclosure agreement in the Dutch parliament. The official government answer, was that they were unable to answer any questions, about the existence of any such agreement.
I believe that this blatant lack of transparency, will forever undermine the conclusions of the report – whatever they may be. There will always be room for doubt, or skepticism if you prefer.
I also predict that, should any criminal proceedings be brought on the back of the final report, this problem will be a major stumbling block to any successful prosecution.
@PaulC
Also with this comment to Jeff you’re suggesting dishonesty and manipulation by the JIT and the the Dutch investigators.
In various posts you referre to the Ukraine government and suggest they actualy are the culprits.
The Ukraine government was not in control of the territory at the time MH17 was shot down. The Russian-backed rebels were. Supplied with a Russian BUK-system.
So I realy don’t know what you are getting at.
I come to think you are a Russian troll trying to influence opinion on this blog.
But please talk on.
Your views are enlightning in a way.
@Jeff:
OK. Message received and understood. In future I will refrain from any further comments regarding the context of events surrounding the loss of MH17.
@Ge Rijn
Thanks for that – positively received!
I will try to respond as honestly and briefly as possible.
You said: “IMO you’re often throwing in suggestive statements based on mistrust” – I understand why you say that and you are close but not completely correct!
I do not want to make ‘suggestive statements’ at all (if that means present ideas intended to mislead someone else, or to lead them away from the truth) but I do want to try to fathom out who is worthy of trust – that is not quite the same as ‘mistrust’. I don’t ‘mistrust’ but I do test and if my queries cause me to find the original statement was true, I will be more inclined to accept the next statement from that party.
When looking at MH370, MH17, or anything else for that matter, I try not to let ‘trust’ interfere with ‘judgment’. My inclination is to ask questions until I feel I have enough information to form a view.
I am not pro any particular party or country, nor am I anti any party or country. The world is not binary in my view – there is no uniquely ‘good’ or ‘bad’ – there is good and bad everywhere; in politics there is no monopolistic inevitability of left or right. I do not like allowing preconceived bias in favour, or against anyone, to affect my conclusion.
There is a good reason that government papers are sealed for decades. They all too often show that the truth was deliberately hidden from us at the time.
The UK has just voted for BREXIT from the EU – we now know that, back in the 1970s, politicians from both sides of the political spectrum were not honest and had they been honest, we would probably never have joined in the first place.
Where do I get ideas from? Everywhere! I read: European (mainly UK and German), US, Chinese, Russian, Australian, Hong Kong newspapers every day. I read blogs and magazines. I like to read left wing and right wing comments and opinion pieces, so that I get as full a view as possible of alternative thoughts and interpretations. I can then decide which views I find most plausible. There is no one source for anything.
Maybe I just read too much!
I know that as a newcomer to this blog, I have made a lot of posts! I have, however, been reading it for some time (along with other blogs) and I decided to participate. If my views are not welcome, somebody just needs to tell me and I will trouble you all no more!
@Ge Rijn
WOW! I just read your last post addressed to me – I was writing the above to you and had not seen it when I wrote that.
You said: “Also with this comment to Jeff you’re suggesting dishonesty and manipulation by the JIT and the the Dutch investigators.
In various posts you referre to the Ukraine government and suggest they actualy are the culprits.”
I honestly do not know how you get that!
Please explain by giving quotes from what I actually said.
@PaulC
I won’t quote your posts. Read them back yourself (or others it they wish).
It’s my opinion on them and I’m not dyslectic or something like that.
@Ge Rijn
OK I just read them all, trying to wear the hat of a Russian troll (I write on a lot of blogs and you are the first person ever to call me that!)
I still don’t know which comments you are referring to – so it is rather hard to defend myself against your slur.
I did notice a mistake – the BUK is said to have been a 9N not 9M as I said but I don’t think that is what you meant.
@PaulC, @Ge Rijn is not imagining things. Your posts seem to be wearing a cloak of reasonableness while trying to promote an equivalence between the possible roles of Ukraine and Russia. e.g. “From the day of the disaster, as far as I am aware, there have only ever been two suspects.” This is not correct. There is only one suspect, Russia, which has not only actively used its power to thwart investigation into the crime, but has actively generated a cloud of misleading propoganda. Really, really lazy and badly done propoganda, like photoshopping a picture of a fighter plane and a missile in mid-flight onto a satellite photo.
It has also fielded an army of trolls, which is why suspicion runs high around anyone who consider’s Russia’s claims of innocence non-ridiculous.
@PaulC
Just one qoute in your previous post to Jeff:
‘Had Ukraine not participated in the investigation, this problem would not have arisen’.
You want more quotes? Come on.
The theory that makes sense is that Putin wanted to hit a Russian plane. This way he could justify the war with Ukraine. The same way he bombed apartment buildings to start the war with Chechnya.
On the other note, I do remember thinking “cui prodest” when the other Malaysian plane disappeared. And Putin did: the world was so busy with the disappearing plane, no one paid attention to the annexation of Crimea. Or maybe, his timing was perfect.
@Keffertje
Do we also have NDA (non disclosure agreements) in place for MH370? MS804?
@DennisW,
Asked and answered.
You also said ” I don’t know where else the ~3Hz would come from . . . .” Well, where does one normally get a RMS value? You compute it using the residual values, in this case from Figure 15 in the Inmarsat paper.
@Jeff @Ge Rijn
[Content deleted by JW]
@PaulC, I thought I had made it clear that I am not interested in hosting this kind of material on my blog. Final warning.
@Oleksandr,
You said: “However, I have abandoned further detailed studies and refinements of the magnetic modes because it was noted that such modes do not exist on B777.”
I believe it is possible to set the roll mode using the Mode Control Panel in a B777 so that either a constant magnetic track or a constant magnetic heading, in integer degrees, is held. I am not aware that this can be done using the FMC.
@Jeff
I see no point in further participation.
Would you kindly delete all my posts to your blog since my first post on 26th September.
If that is not possible, kindly delete the content of the posts and mark them as “Deleted at users’ request.”
Thank you,
@Tanya Khovanova:
“The theory that makes sense is that Putin wanted to hit a Russian plane. This way he could justify the war with Ukraine. The same way he bombed apartment buildings to start the war with Chechnya…”
Not heard this idea before and it does seem a possible for a motive. Is there evidence that there were one or more Russian passenger planes at the same time and in close proximity to MH17?