DavidMcC wrote:Weaver wrote:Well said.
Aircraft are routinely flown over war zones - particularly when the war zones in question are nearly utterly contained to ground combat. There was no indication that this was a particularly unsafe area to fly at full cruising altitude - the sole AN26 shootdown was lower, and the SU25 was downed by air-to-air combat.
That the "rebels / separatists" (i.e. Russian military) would be dumb enough to engage a civilian airliner at high altitude simply wasn't that likely, given the state and flow of the conflict thus far.
I don't blame Malaysia Air, nor do I blame the "separatists" - the blame is wholly in Russian's lap.
You're as bad as Cdesign... The routine overflying of war zones surely only applies where there is no anti-aircraft capability at all. It is obvious that there is that possibility in this case, due to the connection with Russia, and the undoubted sympathies of many within the Russian military with the separatists. You wuldn't catch me flying "Air Weaver", trust me!
BTW, which other airlines flying were flying over eastern Ukraine a the time?
The Ukrainian airspace was restricted below 32,000 feet. The Malaysian Air flight was flying an approved flight path at 33,000 feet, respecting the restriction which was most likely based on the threat of MANPADs plus a very hefty safety margin. Many other aircraft were also flying above the restricted airspace, as Cdesign points out.
There was no reason whatsoever for that plane to be engaged - NONE. Blaming the airline operator for the despicable acts of an out-of-control Russian "militia" is absurd.
As for flying Air Weaver, don't worry - I don't operate an airliner. But I do have extensive experience employing weapons within restricted airspaces - the artillery I fired would routinely exceed 30,000 feet, and some locations I fired within had restrictions as low as 10,000 feet or lower (sometimes much lower, depending on the tactical situation). Other areas had airspace restrictions literally from ground to space - the Goldstone array was one I had to worry about a few times. But for ordinary fires, restrictions are commonplace - Fort Bragg, for example, is an installation under the "Open Skies" treaty, and has unlimited airspace above 20,000 feet - yet, depending on the munition and range at which I was firing, I could have exceeded that with ease. Proper procedures ensure that peacetime (and wartime) fires can be conducted with proper regard to safety - and disregard for procedures and policies means that accidents can happen.
So, if I'd failed to follow proper procedures on Fort Bragg, and shot down a plane travelling at, say, 24,000 feet AGL (insanely unlikely with isolated artillery fires, but still possible) would you blame me and my Fire Direction Center for not following proper procedures and limitations, or would you blame the airliner and pilots for flying above but outside a restricted airspace zone?
by 
Hindsight is such a wonderful thing isn't it?
