At coffee shops, the differences in the level of information can range from well informed (with internet access and use) to the ignorant or people who do not care what's happening around their daily lives.
The tragic MH17 MAS aeroplane which was shot by surface-to-air missile over Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers (including crew members) and the subsequent news reports were generally accurate without much room for speculation, unlike the still missing MH370 which happened over four months ago.
Despite the little room for speculation, a friend could not get over why MH17 had to fly over war-striven Ukraine, simply because his idea of former USSR, which we used to refer to as Russia as if they were one and the same (how wrong could that be) and which Ukraine used to be a part of. The following map helps to dispel my friend's misconception:
The other main misconception was the description that MH17 was flying 1000 ft above restricted airspace. Many imagine the plane was flying so low - only 1000 ft. above ground level!
Downed Malaysia Airlines plane: how did it go wrong for flight MH17?
All flights now barred from eastern Ukraine, where airliner was downed while reportedly flying 1,000ft above restricted airspace
Airlines flight MH17 was flying just 1,000 feet (300 metres) above restricted airspace when it was shot down, according to the European air traffic control body.
Eurocontrol said Ukrainian authorities had barred aircraft from ground level to 32,000 feet but the doomed aircraft was cruising at 33,000 feet, still within range of sophisticated ground-to-air weaponry, when it was hit. All flights in eastern Ukraine have now been barred from the area, Eurocontrol added.
"The aircraft was flying at Flight Level 330 [approximately 10,000 metres/33,000 ft] when it disappeared from the radar," said. "This route had been closed by the Ukrainian authorities from ground to flight level 320 [32,000ft] but was open at the level at which the aircraft was flying."
It also emerged that as recently as a month ago British airlines were given the all-clear to overfly the area where flight MH17 was downed, after being told that operations were "normal" in the region.
A notice posted by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on 14 June urged carriers to avoid overflying Crimea and parts of southern Ukraine a month ago due to safety concerns, but they were not ordered to avoid the rest of the country.
More:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/malaysia-airlines-mh17-flying-just-above-restricted-airspace?CMP=fb_gu
The saddest and most unfortunate fact was that the plane was shot down very close to the eastern border of Ukraine (so near yet so far). In other words, it could have just made it.
UN aviation body (ICAO) had made a statement that it does not have the power to open or shut routes. This was in an apparent correction to Transport Minister Liow's reliance on ICAO's clearance that it was a safe route for commercial flights. Surely, no organisation can provide such a guarantee where safety is concerned, more so, over a war-torn country. It carries an inherent disclaimer which is why some airlines avoid the route despite such assurance. To me, it is just like a parent telling a child that it is ok to go out, but when something happened, the other parent blamed it on the former for allowing it.
Link
The tragic MH17 MAS aeroplane which was shot by surface-to-air missile over Ukraine, killing all 298 passengers (including crew members) and the subsequent news reports were generally accurate without much room for speculation, unlike the still missing MH370 which happened over four months ago.
Despite the little room for speculation, a friend could not get over why MH17 had to fly over war-striven Ukraine, simply because his idea of former USSR, which we used to refer to as Russia as if they were one and the same (how wrong could that be) and which Ukraine used to be a part of. The following map helps to dispel my friend's misconception:
The other main misconception was the description that MH17 was flying 1000 ft above restricted airspace. Many imagine the plane was flying so low - only 1000 ft. above ground level!
Downed Malaysia Airlines plane: how did it go wrong for flight MH17?
All flights now barred from eastern Ukraine, where airliner was downed while reportedly flying 1,000ft above restricted airspace
Airlines flight MH17 was flying just 1,000 feet (300 metres) above restricted airspace when it was shot down, according to the European air traffic control body.
Eurocontrol said Ukrainian authorities had barred aircraft from ground level to 32,000 feet but the doomed aircraft was cruising at 33,000 feet, still within range of sophisticated ground-to-air weaponry, when it was hit. All flights in eastern Ukraine have now been barred from the area, Eurocontrol added.
"The aircraft was flying at Flight Level 330 [approximately 10,000 metres/33,000 ft] when it disappeared from the radar," said. "This route had been closed by the Ukrainian authorities from ground to flight level 320 [32,000ft] but was open at the level at which the aircraft was flying."
It also emerged that as recently as a month ago British airlines were given the all-clear to overfly the area where flight MH17 was downed, after being told that operations were "normal" in the region.
A notice posted by the UK's Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) on 14 June urged carriers to avoid overflying Crimea and parts of southern Ukraine a month ago due to safety concerns, but they were not ordered to avoid the rest of the country.
More:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/jul/17/malaysia-airlines-mh17-flying-just-above-restricted-airspace?CMP=fb_gu
UN aviation body (ICAO) had made a statement that it does not have the power to open or shut routes. This was in an apparent correction to Transport Minister Liow's reliance on ICAO's clearance that it was a safe route for commercial flights. Surely, no organisation can provide such a guarantee where safety is concerned, more so, over a war-torn country. It carries an inherent disclaimer which is why some airlines avoid the route despite such assurance. To me, it is just like a parent telling a child that it is ok to go out, but when something happened, the other parent blamed it on the former for allowing it.
No comments:
Post a Comment