Los bericht bekijken
Oud 28 juli 2019, 09:39   #1901
Hoofdstraat
Minister
 
Hoofdstraat's schermafbeelding
 
Geregistreerd: 19 april 2017
Berichten: 3.529
Standaard

Een 3e optie is dat Oekraïne opzettelijk de vluchtroutes open hield om zoiets uit te lokken.

Meer info over de vluchtroutes en waarom die nog open waren, informatie komt rechtstreeks uit het rapport van de Dutch Safety Board.

Er waren voordien niet 1 maar 2 vliegtuigen neergeschoten op grootte hoogte, met wapens die makkelijk burgervliegtuigen zouden kunnen raken. Ook verschillende helikopters en ander laagvliegende toestellen werden toen al neergehaald.

Het luchtruim werd echter wel al verschillende keren plaatselijk afgesloten als er militaire actie was van het Oekraïense luchtmacht in dat gebied, ze wisten dus wel van het gevaar. Ook de VS wees voor het conflict al op het gevaar voor de burgerluchtvaart boven Crimea waar nog helemaal niets gebeurd was, laat staan een gebied waar al verschillende vliegtuigen waren neergehaald.

Oekraïne wist dus donders goed hoe gevaarlijk dat gebied was en sloot het verschillende keren af als het zelf bombardementen uitvoerde, dus waarom hielden ze het toch open voor burgertoestellen? Dat lijkt nu ondertussen toch wel duidelijk voor iedereen die z'n verstand gebruikt.

Het kan nog steeds een false flag zijn maar het lijkt me eerder een ongeluk opzettelijk uitgelokt door Oekraïne wat even erg is.

http://libraryonline.erau.edu/online...7-crash-en.pdf

-----------
p2
From mid?*March 2014, parts of the airspace over the eastern part of Ukraine were regularly closed for brief periods of time or their use was restricted.Civil air traffic was not permitted to fly there, but military aircraft were. The restrictions were related to the activities of the Ukrainian Air Force.

p14
Downed Antonov and Sukhoi
On 14 July 2014, three days prior to the crash of flight MH17, a Ukrainian air force transport aeroplane, an Antonov An?*26, was shot down in the Luhansk region. In a press release, the Ukrainian authorities reported that the aircraft was hit when flying at an altitude of 6,200 to 6,500 metres. On 16 July, a Sukhoi Su?*25 fighter jet was shot down which, according to Ukraine, was flying at an altitude of
6,250 metres. According to Ukraine, these aircraft had been hit by a more powerful weapon than those that had been used to shoot at military aircraft during the period prior to these incidents. The weapon systems that had presumably been used (a Pantsir surface?*to?* air missile or an air?*to?*air missile) could also reach civil aeroplanes at cruising altitude. However, the Ukrainian authorities did not recognise this risk.

An armed conflict was being fought in the eastern part of Ukraine at the time of the crash of flight MH17. From the end of April 2014, the conflict continued to expand into the airspace. The investigation revealed that helicopters and aeroplanes belonging to the Ukrainian armed forces were being shot down ever more frequently.

The United States authorities issued a general warning to American operators and airmen concerning the airspace above Ukraine and especially Crimea even before the conflict broke out in the eastern part of Ukraine.

Early in April 2014, the International Civil Aviation
Organization (ICAO) also issued a formal notice regarding the risks posed by the airspace above Crimea.

p15
Identification of the risks by Ukraine
The investigation revealed that Ukraine did not adequately identify the risks to civil aviation. Ukraine reported that two of their military aircraft had been shot down, at altitudes between 6,200 and 6,500 metres, with powerful weapon systems. The systems mentioned by the authorities were also able to intercept overflying civil aeroplanes and as such formed a threat to civil aviation. According to the Dutch Safety Board these reports gave enough reason for Ukraine to close its airspace as a precaution. However, this did not happen. Ukraine did impose restrictions on civil aviation, but these were inadequately to protect civil aviation from the mentioned weapon systems. However, it turns out that ?* also with respect to other conflict areas ?* states hardly ever decide to close their airspace because of an armed conflict.

The responsibility for the safety of an airspace lies primarily with the state that manages the airspace.

The state an aeroplane is flying over is responsible for assessing the safety of the airspace. For safety reasons, a state can impose certain restrictions. Certain routes or flight levels can be closed, for instance, or the state may close the airspace altogether. Close cooperation between civil and military air traffic control is important when assessing safety. In this way, potential risks to civil aviation posed by military activities on the ground and in the air are minimised.
Hoofdstraat is offline   Met citaat antwoorden