Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?

MAS has been effectively bankrupt for many years and for good reasons
(it is absolutely ****, I flew it once and vowed never to set foot on
it ever again).

When an airline is in that situation anything can happen.

The pilots and other staff it can attract and maintain are severely
limited leading to a brain drain. The maintenance budget is going to
get cut to the bone. They are going to consider carrying cargo that
other airlines would not touch with a barge pole. Crew are going to
consider routes and other means to save the company money etc.

It is tragic but you have to ask yourself why did these people choose
to fly with this airline? Some of them already had experience of
relations and friends disappearing on MH370 with all of the lies and
subterfuge surrounding that.

At some point people really have to take responsibility for their own
actions.




On Fri, 18 Jul 2014 09:14:17 -0400, HomeGuy
"Home"@Guy.com wrote:

Was Flight MH-17 Diverted Over Restricted Airspace?

07/17/2014

While there are various questions that have already emerged from what
was supposed to be Ukraine's "slam dunk" proof confirming Russian rebel
involvement in today's MH-17 tragedy, perhaps one just as gaping
question emerges when one looks at what is clearly an outlier flight
path in today's final, and tragic, departure of the Malaysian Airlines
Boeing 777.

Perhaps the best visualization of what the issue is, comes from Vagelis
Karmiros who has collated all the recent MH-17 flight paths as tracked
by Flightaware and shows that while all ten most recent paths pass
safely well south of the Donetsk region, and cross the zone above the
Sea of Azov, it was only today's tragic flight that passed straight
overhead Donetsk.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...%20paths_0.png

Why is the diversion from the traditional flight path and passage over
the highlighted zone a concern? Because as the following map from the
WSJ shows this is precisely where the restricted airspace is.

http://www.zerohedge.com/sites/defau...ir%20space.png

So perhaps before coming to "certain" conclusion about the involvement
of this rebel or that, the key questions one should ask before casting
blame, is why did the pilot divert from his usual flight plan, why did
he fly above restricted airspace, and just what, if any instructions,
did Kiev air control give the pilot in the minutes before the tragic
explosion?

http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2014-0...icted-airspace

nam sak wrote:

It is tragic but you have to ask yourself why did these people choose
to fly with this airline? Some of them already had experience of
relations and friends disappearing on MH370 with all of the lies and
subterfuge surrounding that.

I doubt there are a lot of buses going to Kuala Lumpur.

Actually there are. You can get a bus (or a train) from most of
mainland South East Asia to KL.

But why bother? There are plenty of airlines that fly there from all
over the planet.

Only Public Sector employees on free jollies and idiots trying to save
money set foot on MAS.


On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 10:21:49 -0600, rbowman
wrote:

I doubt there are a lot of buses going to Kuala Lumpur.

Normally no I don't check the route, unless there are volcanic
eruptions or something like that since some airlines are willing to
take more risks than others. In general I think it would be pretty
impractical to even try since the pilot could change the route anyway.

I check the background of the airline. If during that process I
discovered that following a major incident the airline:-

-waited hours before declaring the aircraft missing

-said they had no primary radar data of the aircraft only to
turn around and say they did when leaks started coming out of other
countries

-squandered international resources and precious time
scouring the South China Sea/Gulf of Thailand when they already knew
it wasn't there

-initially rubbished reports that satellite data suggested
the aircraft had flown for hours only to backtrack when leaks started
coming out of Inmarsat

-claimed the last communication was the co-pilot saying all
right good night only to later admit they had lied without a word of
explanation

-claimed the cargo was mangosteens and nothing that could be
hazardous only to later admit it was carrying Lithium Ion Batteries
when another leak emerged. And still today have not released full
details of the cargo

-said they didn't know where it was but knew it was not in
the Maldives

etc


Then you know I am not going to be in a rush to get on one of their
aircraft and anyone that does is an idiot.





On Sun, 20 Jul 2014 09:55:11 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:


While you're trying to finger Malaysian Airlines, from what I have
seen, what they did was no different than most other airlines operating
in that part of the world. It was European air traffic control that
declared the space above 32000 safe, and AFAIK other airlines flew
similar routes over that airspace. In fact, I haven't seen a single
airline that has said they flew around it, instead of going over it.
If you have some examples, I'd be happy to see them.

Do you check the air route that flights you're going to go on take,
to vet that they are safe? No evidence I see that MA did anything
differently than other airlines flying similar routes. Should they
have? Yes, but so should all the other airlines and more importantly
European air traffic control, which had the space open.

You pretty much hit the nail on the head there.

When you fly MAS you are not flying on a normal airline. You are
flying on a bankrupt vessel of the Malaysian Government. A Government
that makes the Third Reich look like a teddy bear's picnic.

I disagree though about your comment about 'would have happened to any
other airline departing from Malaysia'. Don't understand that bit.






On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 06:14:41 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

Finally, almost everything on that list that you blame MA for, was actually
the Malayasian govt and would have happened to any other airline departing
from Malaysia.

On Tue, 22 Jul 2014 14:17:17 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Tuesday, July 22, 2014 1:55:01 PM UTC-4, nam sak wrote:
When you fly MAS you are not flying on a normal airline. You are
flying on a bankrupt vessel of the Malaysian Government. A Government
that makes the Third Reich look like a teddy bear's picnic.

Are you really sure you want to make that comparison? And from what I
understand it's a publicly traded company, the govt owns about half of it.
In international aviation, I don't think that's unusual at all.

Yes very very sure. Racial discrimination is not only considered
normal in Malaysia it is actively encouraged by government policy.
Denialists either disappear or when they are too well known are put in
jail on a variety of dubious charges. I think the only major
difference I can see between the Malaysian Government and the Third
Reich is that the Third Reich only lasted just over 10 years whereas
the Malaysian Reich has lasted nearly 60. In part because it has been
propped up by 'the west' in the mistaken belief that it is 'friendly'.
Reminds me of a certain Mr. Chamberlain.

I would be interested to know which half of MAS the government owns. I
know about the 52 % that Penerbangan Malaysia Berhad (Malaysian
Government) owns and the 17% Khazanah Nasional (Malaysian Government)
owns and the 11% the Employees Provident Fund (Malaysian Government)
owns and the 6% Amanah Raya Nominees (Malaysian Government) owns and
the 3% State Financial Secretary Sarawak (Malaysian Government) owns
and the 2.5% Warisan Harta Sabah (Malaysian Government) owns........

Actually when I think about it the major gap in my knowledge is
exactly which shares the Malaysian Government does not own. They claim
that 5% belongs to what they refer to as 'foreign shareholders'. If
you can find out who they are then I would be very interested. In the
absence of information to the contrary I am tempted to assume that the
'foreign shareholdes' are part of the Malaysian Fuhrer's untaxed
offshore 'pension fund'. If I am right then we can at least take
comfort from the fact that at the end of the day he will be lucky to
get a few magic beans for them.

Personally I do not think that is usual for an airline. Particularly
one that tries to sell itself as living in the real world.


I disagree though about your comment about 'would have happened to any
other airline departing from Malaysia'. Don't understand that bit.


I went a little off track there. My point was that most of the bungling
of important matters with MA370 was coming from the Malaysian govt officials
in charge of the investigation, not the airline. They had control of the response and the crash investigation, not the airline. So, for example, the initial confusion
that followed for several days, where the Malaysian govt pointed the search
in the South China Sea, could have and likely would have happened without
regard to what carrier it was. If it was a Korean Air, Singapore Airline
or Lufthansa, that took off from KL, the response in the hours that followed,
would likely have been pretty much the same. They would have had to rely
on what Malaysia was saying their civilian and military radar showed. And
initially, Malaysia said that the civilian radar ended exactly when
everything else went dark, so it seems very reasonable that the search
would have started at the same place, which turned out to be totally wrong.

I admit that the Malaysian Government would have tried to hamper any
airline's attempts but I think to generalize like this is may be going
a bit too far. I like to think that after a short while any reputable
airline would have told Hishammuddin where to stick his phony press
conferences and just gone public. Considering their insurance and
other responsibilities it is difficult to imagine how the CEO of a
normal public company could have avoided doing so without risking a
jail sentence.

The primary radar data is a good example. It was not Malaysian primary
radar data that initiated a series of questions that forced the
Malaysians to begin telling more of the story. It was THAI primary
radar data. The Thais released it to the airline (MAS). The airline
released it to their bosses (the Malaysian Government) and then kept
schtum. Their bosses (the Malaysian Government) then encouraged
several other countries to waste time and effort and put their own
lives at risk looking for an airliner where they knew themselves it
was not. What kind of airline/government does that for goodness sake?
and why?

I have performed several operational audits of (civilian) Thai Air
Traffic control and I have been told that the only reason the
Malaysians went public about their own primary radar data was because
the Thai Military gave them an ultimatum. Release your data in 24
hours or we will release ours.

If this information had been released to a 'normal' airline and the
Malaysian Government chose to keep quiet about it in their press
conferences do you honestly think a normal airline would just let it
go? Alarm bells would have been ringing right left and Centre and they
would have read the Malaysian Government the riot act. If the
Malaysians had continued to obfuscate then some whistle blower at the
airline would have released the details (after having been secretly
ordered to do so by the CEO).

But MAS? What choice does it have?

It IS the Government.


Where I went off track was that had it been a foreign airline, then that
country would have been in charge of the subsequent investigation. That
probably could have saved much of the public missteps, backtracking, etc.
Not sure how much time it would have cut off the search though. They still
would have been at the mercy of the Malaysians, who for example were
reluctant to allow anyone to see their military radar tracks of the flight.
They may have taken exactly the same position if it was Lufthansa that
was running the investigation, ie they may have refused for days to allow
them to see it too.

As said above the Malaysian radar data was not significant. It was
only released after they were threatened with exposure. By the time
the Malaysians (sort of*) released their own radar data everyone
already knew what had happened. The key fact was that MAS being owned
by the Malaysian Government was not willing to say anything that went
against Government Policy and so kept quiet about critical information
that had nothing to with national security only national trying to
save egg on face.

*I say sort of because the Malaysian Government has still not actually
released it, along with most other things concerned with MH370
(Particular the cargo - they have released dribs and drabs but not the
full details. National security? ROTFLMAO).

Back to the main issue of what airspace is cleared, deemed safe and by
who, I had CNN on today. Their reporter said that the organization that
represents most of the international carriers, (think it was IATA), issued
a statement a few days ago that said the position of it's member airlines
is that they don't determine which airspace is safe, that it's entirely up
to civilian govt aviation authorities.

And I'm sure you'll love this. On the news last night they showed the
flight path taken yesterday by Malaysian Airlines from KL to London.
It went right over Iraq and Syria. And again, I think if you look, you'll
see that most, maybe all airlines that fly routes where that is the shortest
path, do the same. It's deemed safe by whatever govt authorities have
control over it and permitted.

I think I said previously that I am not too much bothered about routes
unless some volcano is blowing it's top. There is always going to be a
risk. When I choose an airline (in general) the route is not going to
feature much in my selection process. I focus on is it non stop and
the airline not the route. And IMO anyone that would fly MAS needs to
seriously reconsider their selection criteria.

I don't know if it's relevant but if I am totally totally honest the
reason I told my employer that I would never fly MAS ever again (at
the risk of losing my job) was just a feeling. Malaysians and
Singaporeans can be very similar in my opinion. They are arrogant,
rude, loud and obnoxious. But SQ seem to have it right when they hire
staff. I would fly with them any time. But MAS? Sorry, no way. If you
want to fly Malaysian Government Airways then good luck. You'll need
it.

There are only 2 airlines that I can think of that are worse than MAS.

- British Airways
- Qantas

If I was given the choice between flying MAS, BA or QF I honestly
think my head would explode.

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:17:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

In article ,
nam sak wrote:
...
(I was with you in your funny and interesting critique of MAS, right up
until you flitted this
There are only 2 airlines that I can think of that are worse than MAS.

- British Airways
- Qantas

Funny. I've never heard anything particularly bad about BA. I flew them
once long ago and it seemed OK.

BA have improved beyond recognition in the past five or six years.

Probably due to them flushing out most of their old cabin staff who
were always notoriously rude and 'work averse'.

The current lot are much younger and seem to enjoy their work...

On 2014-07-23 11:36:18 +0000, Bill said:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:17:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

In article ,
nam sak wrote:
...
(I was with you in your funny and interesting critique of MAS, right up
until you flitted this
There are only 2 airlines that I can think of that are worse than MAS.

- British Airways
- Qantas

Funny. I've never heard anything particularly bad about BA. I flew them
once long ago and it seemed OK.

BA have improved beyond recognition in the past five or six years.

Probably due to them flushing out most of their old cabin staff who
were always notoriously rude and 'work averse'.

The current lot are much younger and seem to enjoy their work...

Odd indeed. BA and QF are two airlines that have voluntarily avoided
the contested Ukrainian air space. One step ahead of the pack.

Bill wrote in
:

On Wed, 23 Jul 2014 11:17:14 +0000 (UTC),
(Kenny McCormack) wrote:

In article ,
nam sak wrote:
...
(I was with you in your funny and interesting critique of MAS, right up
until you flitted this
There are only 2 airlines that I can think of that are worse than MAS.

- British Airways
- Qantas

Funny. I've never heard anything particularly bad about BA. I flew them
once long ago and it seemed OK.

BA have improved beyond recognition in the past five or six years.

Probably due to them flushing out most of their old cabin staff who
were always notoriously rude and 'work averse'.

The current lot are much younger and seem to enjoy their work...



OK

On Thu, 24 Jul 2014 08:01:26 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

...lots of snippings for obvious reasons...thread getting a bit long

Sorry, but none of that rises to the level of equating them to the
Nazis.....

Then I apologise profusely. I am truly sorry if I have offended you
and all of your Palestinian ancestors. Maybe I could just make a
suggestion. Instead of 'Malaysia, truly Asia' as their slogan maybe
they could make it 'Malaysia, we're not quite as bad as the Nazis'.

Ouch did I say Palestinian there? Of course I meant Jewish. Sorry.
Jewish, Jewish, Jewish. Damn it. I think I might have messed up again.

Yeah, sure, I believe that. You speak for everyone in an entire
country.

No. But I have never met an Indonesian that would disagree and I have
been to every major island in Indonesia and a lot of the smaller ones.
Including some teensy weensy ones. Indonesians in my experience are in
general modern, cosmopolitan, reasonable people. But they get all the
bad press. Malaysians however are generally basket cases but somehow
get all the good press. I wonder who could be behind that? Mmmmm.
(Strokes chin in thoughtful mood).

We didn't invade Afghanistan to give them democracy, we invaded them
because we were attacked on 911 and Afghanistan was harboring Bin Laden
and AL Qaeda training camps. We invaded Iraq because they had been violating UN resolutions for
a decade that called for them to cooperate with UN weapons inspectors
with regard to WMDs. So, sorry, but none of that has anything to do
with Malaysia.

Ah those old US weapons inspectors. I mean UN weapons inspectors off
course. Silly me. Did they ever find those WMDs? I think there is a
British guy called Tony who was looking for them as well. I'm sure he
would be thrilled to find them.

A sovereign country refuses to allow the US, sorry I mean the UN, to
meddle in their internal affairs so the UN, sorry I mean he US, thinks
it's OK to invade them. I hope Putin is reading this and has the US on
Google Maps.

We didn't invade Libya, Syria or Iran at all.

Shouldn't that be not yet? That might be where those pesky old WMDs
are.

It doesn't matter because it has nothing to do with how or why MH17
was shot down.

The history and structure and operating methods of MAS matters to me
because those are some of the reasons I would never even consider
flying MAS. With or without an MH17 or MH370. They are also **** which
does not help it has to be said.

Then you'd have to chuck any and all crash investigations, because there
is always going to be potential conflicts of interest. In the USA for
example, ATC is run by and part of the govt. The FAA sets rules,
inspects planes and airline operations, issues airworthiness directives
to correct mechanical problems, etc. Yet the govt runs the investigation
if it's a plane crash here. Is the potential for conflict of interest
higher with a state owned airline that crashes in that state? Sure.
But there are a lot of state owned airlines in the world, Malaysia is
not unique.

Yes there is always a potential for conflict of interest. But if
things are set up in a reasonably transparent way and there are some
sort of checks and balances and a reasonably effective legal system
then (fingers crossed) more often than not some semblance of the truth
will be arrived at. Again I think Silk Air 185 is a good example of
that. The American NTSB concluded it was pilot suicide. The
Singapoerans disagreed. The Indonesians said they simply were not sure
(sorry to blow their trumpet again but notice that the Indonesians
were the only ones that really ended up telling the truth).

The American Courts effectively threw out the NTSB decision and
decided it was a mechanical failure of a part manufactured by Parker
Hannifin. Basically agreeing with the Singaporeans.

What was actually correct I do not know but at least there was some
process of questioning authority and decisions. If you think that will
happen with an MAS flight then I honestly do not know what to say to
you.

Malaysia is certainly not unique. I mean there is Pakistan, there is
Saudi Arabia, there is ....actually I am struggling now.... but I am
sure there are others.... maybe Israel - but then that is really just
the US so not so sure if it counts.

If YOU want to fly their airlines then go ahead. I would prefer to
take a rain cheque. I can get you the telephone numbers for Saudia and
PIA etc if you want. I guess you already have the number for MAS but I
can get it for you too if need be.

I tend to think the whole fiasco in Malaysia is likely incompetence and
unrelated to come deliberate conspiracy.

Maybe, but that is an awful lot of incompetence. As I said I can get
you their phone number for your next flight.

I also have to say you are absolutely determined to try to get lies
mixed up with 'deliberate conspiracy'. I sincerely hope anyone that
ever happens to read this thread can see through your frankly
transparent modus operandi.

To me 'deliberate conspiracy' hints at some pre-determined plan. At no
point have I ever even contemplated that is what MAS/Malaysian Govt
were up to let alone suggested it. I simply suspect and suggested that
they ran around like headless chickens lying their asses off once the
excrement had hit the air circulatory device.

You think the Malaysian govt knew about it, was involved with it, planned losing the plane? That would
pretty much have to be the scenario for them to deliberately go looking
for the plane in the wrong place only 4 hours into it, when almost nothing
was known.

When did I say they planned losing the plane? Sorry I don't understand
that bit.

But actually I really do think they knew it was not where they
directed search efforts. Maybe that is why the Thais were getting so
furious with them behind the scenes. The Thais had a pretty good idea
it was not there, and they didn't even have the Inmarsat data at the
time.

Even if MA was a private company based in Malaysia, the same Malaysian
officials would have been in charge of the crash investigation.
Agreed but you forgot to say incompetent, corrupt Malaysian officials.

So what? That's precisely my point. It's the Malaysian govt officials,
not the airline , that conducted the search, had the civilian radar tracks,
the military radar tracks, the ATC communication.

The govt always leads those efforts, not the airline.

The Government that owns which Airline? Would that be the airline that
was standing next to their owner during every press nodding like one
of those toy dogs on a car dashboard?

If it was in the USA, you think American
Airlines would tell the Coast Guard and NAvy where to go look? I've
never seen it work that way.

Then you have never looked. If American Airlines did not tell the
response teams where they honestly thought the aircraft was then they
would be prosecuted and hopefully receive very harsh punishment.

Apart from the single occasion I know of where the US military has
shot down a US passenger aircraft over the USA (TWA 800) and the NTSB
and Boeing went along with the BS, I personally do not know of any
other such obvious, deliberate malfeasance regarding an air accident
in the US. But feel free to educate me. I guess they can be glad Lee
Campbell was not on board at the time.

If you fly MAS then you are trusting your life to an organisation that
literally does not care whether you live or die. Particularly if you
are of Chinese descent.

I doubt that's true, but even if it is, it has nothing to do with how and
why MH17 was shot down.

As I say I can give you MAS's number for your next vacation. Horrible
to contemplate but it might the one thing that might bring this
conversation to an end.

That is why I said reputable. There are airlines that are bigger than
tin pot dictatorships like Malaysia. They would no doubt try to reason
with the Malaysian ****holes for a while but eventually they would
pull the plug if their internal processes were being seriously
compromised.

So then you should be able to provide the example of where that has
happened before, which I asked for. Give us some examples of an airline
telling a govt in the weeks after a crash that the govt investigation
is incompetent, corrupt, a conspiracy, etc.

I cannot think of it happening before. I never said it had. I was
speaking of preventive action when choosing airlines. Why choose an
airline that has far bigger likelihood of incompetence and cover ups.
It is simply not necessary. Why risk what is most precious to you and
your loved ones.

It's not even a cost issue. MAS is actually quite expensive because
they know they can rely on virtually all public sector travel in and
to/from Malaysia. That is to a large extent why they have been able to
skirt bankruptcy for so long. I mean it's like I give it to you, you
give it to me, I give it to you, you give it to me. How long can that
go on before someone realises there are actual bills to paid to non
Government suppliers. Every time they do the Malaysian Government
jumps in and saves them.

But really for how long? Even the Malaysian Government cannot be
totally immune from reality forever. The dogs have been nipping at
their heels for a while and they know it. They just don't know what to
do about MAS. It's like a bottomless pit that they have dug themselves
into with no exit strategy that would be politically acceptable.

The jail sentence I was referring to was for telling lies to an
insurance company. All airlines that fly internationally have to have
insurance. It is a basic requirement. A requirement of insurance
validity is that you tell the truth. If you do not then it is possible
(to put it mildly) that your insurance cover goes whoopsy down the
toilet.

And what specifically did the officials of Malaysian Airlines lie about
to the insurance company that constitutes this alleged criminal offense?

To answer that you would need all the facts. At the moment the only
fact I am 100% sure of is that we do not have all the facts. A
potential smoking gun regarding insurance is the MH370 cargo. Why have
they not released all of the details? What earthly reason could there
be for that?

If any CEO (even in Malaysia) started to tell porkies like the
Malaysians then they would run the risk that their insurance would not
pay out. One of the potential consequences would be bankruptcy of the
airline and prosecution of the staff for false representation.
I am perfectly willing to admit that this is possibly one aspect of
the MAS tragedies that actually works in the passengers' favour. Since
I assume the insurance was with a Malaysian Government agency and even
if the insurance company refuse to pay out the Malaysian Government
probably will to save face.


Good grief. Of course the insurance company is going to pay.
Strawman!

Strawman Insurance? I don't think I have ever heard of them. Are they
based in KL?

You speak with such profound clarity and confidence. But in reality I
bet you do not even know who the insurance company is or it's
structure or it's financial stability or it's relationship to MAS or
the Malaysian Government. Is that the frantic tapping of keys on
Google I hear?.....

The primary radar data is a good example. It was not Malaysian primary
radar data that initiated a series of questions that forced the
Malaysians to begin telling more of the story. It was THAI primary
radar data. The Thais released it to the airline (MAS).

AFAIK that is incorrect. In fact, why aren't you blaming Thailand for
incompetence and/or lying too? For 10 days they said they had no radar
contact with the missing plane. By the time they changed their story, the search had
already moved to the Straits of Malacca anyway and all they did was confirm
that they had a radar track of an unknown plane going that route.
http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slate...have_been.html
http://www.france24.com/en/20140319-...h370-malaysia/
"Thailand Shares MH370 Radar Data That Could Have Been Really Helpful a Week Ago"

OK so I am privy to a little bit more information than you.

Yes, how convenient. I'm privy to the fact that aliens were responsible.
I heard it from someone who heard it from someone who....
How about that?

Yes I had heard that too. Frankly I do not believe it. OK so call me a
denialist but the nearest planet that could conceivably have any life
at all (let alone intelligent life) is about 500 light years away. So
even if they could travel at the speed of light it would take them 500
years to get here. (Hope they have BUPA). Assuming they could travel
at speeds we know are possible (about 100,000km/day) it would take
them.......oh well you work it out. Just remember that planet earth
only has about 5 billion years left before being consumed by our sun.
Exactly how much of that 5 billion years will be able to sustain human
life I don't know (nobody does for sure). Let's say for sake of
argument maybe another 1 billion years. If the nearest potentially
viable life sustaining planets turn out to be sterile then you would
need to start looking at Andromeda or somewhere like that. Only
problem is it would take you longer to get there than the earth has
left. I seriously doubt if even BUPA is going to cover you for that.

And think of the fuel bills.

So, sorry those little green men must be out there somewhere but if
you are planning a flight on MAS to go meet them then I would suggest
you get someone to look after your cat. Sorry to burst you bubble on
that one.

I don't think I would be in a rush to accuse Thailand of lying or
incompetence.

What? They issued statements for 10 days that they had *no radar
tracks of the plane*. Either they are lying or your claim that they
turned over such data in the very beginnning of the investigation is
false. One or the other.

Did they? If they did then you are correct they lied. I just remember
them saying nothing (in public) for a long time. Economical with the
truth (in public) perhaps.

In fact I would congratulate them for kicking Malaysia
up the ****. They negotiated with Malaysia for a long time. OK Maybe
they left it too long.

Too long? So, which is it now? You claimed that they had the radar
data and provided it to Malaysia early on, but Malaysia, for reasons
unknown, chose to search in the wrong area. Now you say they negotiated?
This scenario makes sense to you:

I will try to make it easy for you. The Thais gave the data to MAS
(which is the Malaysian Government) on day 1. The Malaysians said
there was none (not the Thais) and MAS said nothing (well virtually
nothing - Yahya squeaked occasionally when prodded by Hishamuddin but
other than that pretty much nothing). Meanwhile they lead the region
on a wild goose chase. The Thais told them to come clean. They did
not. After a while the Thais told them fess up or we will make our
data public. The Malaysians did. The Thai data eventually became
public knowledge by which time it made no difference (whether that was
a planned release or forced by some leak/error I do not know).

Thailand had radar tracks from day one, told Malaysia about it, but
Malaysia chose to search in the wrong place for 3 days. Malaysia then
moved the search to the Straits, based on analysis of Malaysian military
radar, but Thailand continued to deny publically for another week that
they also had radar tracks that showed it in the Straits?

As I said above I do not remember the Thais denying anything. I do
remember them keeping quiet publicly for a long time after they had
given their data to the Malaysians.

But at least at the end of the day they did the
right thing and it resulted in Malaysia finally coming a little bit
cleaner.

It didn't result in anything of the sort. You're confused again.
Malaysain officials had already moved the search to the Straits based
on their own military radar. They searched in the South China Sea
for about 3 days, then moved the search to the Straits. A week later,
Thailand finally says they have radar data that also shows the plane
in the Straits. It was good in the sense it confirmed the Malaysians
now had it right, but it did nothing in terms of making the Malaysians
*come clean* or moving the search area.

Oh dear. There I go getting confused again. On day 1 the Thais told
MAS and the Malaysian Government about the radar data. The Malaysians
refused to publicly admit to it and wasted time. Even though they
already had their own radar data. You can see how I get confused so
easily.

What Malaysian Investigators? Are you referring to Hishammuddin (i.e.
the guy that lied his ass off since the beginning?). I have to admit
that I do not know the international protocol that is supposed to be
followed in such situations.

Then you should learn it, because otherwise how can you be criticizing
those involved when you don't understand who's in charge and what
the rules are. In this case, the Malaysian govt was in charge of the investigation and what other parties can say is limited.

I don't understand your logic (again). Maybe it's because I seem to
get confused so easily. Let me get this right. I have to learn
international aviation protocol in order to the criticise the
Malaysian Government for LYING ITS ****** WOEFULLY CORRUPT
TOTALITARIAN INSIDIOUS RACISIT NEPOTISTIC ASS OFF after a major air
incident.

Really? I was not aware that was international law. I was under the
impression I was perfectly entitled to call a spade a spade without
learning how to make one.

All I have been told is that the Thai
Military got sick and tired of trying to deal with the Malaysian
Government and told the airline directly.
Their bosses (the Malaysian Government) then encouraged
several other countries to waste time and effort and put their own
lives at risk looking for an airliner where they knew themselves it
was not. What kind of airline/government does that for goodness sake?
and why?

If you have credible evidence that Thailand actually told Malaysians
early in the investigation that they had radar contact I'd be happy to
see it. AFAIK Thailand vigorously denied having anything, until about
10 days after the plane went missing, by which time the search had already
moved to the Straits.

I have no objective evidence what so ever. Just word of mouth from
people at Thai ATC that I have known for a very long time and have
learned to trust.

And you know how reliable word of mouth is, as a story is passed from
person to person, ultimately through a chain of God knows how many
people.

It did not exactly go through a chain. I heard it directly from (more
than one) people at Thai ATC who have virtually daily contact with the
Thai Military.

And why no blame for Thailand? Either they didn't
know they had a radar track or they didn't tell Malaysia for 10 days,
(the correct version AFAIK), or else they told them much earlier and sat back
and watched the world search in the wrong place for 10 days (your version).

They DID tell them. Immediately as far as I can make out. What exactly
went on behind the scenes meanwhile I am afraid I do not know.

Well if that's true, then Thailand must be really, really dumb.
Because according to your version, Thailand knew they had radar tracks
on MH370 and even told the Malaysians about it very early in the
investigation. Then they continued to lie to the world, denying they
had it for 10 days. Then finally they reversed themselves, making
them look like idiots. That sounds logical to you?

I refer to my comments above. I don't remember them denying it. If
they did then yes they lied (publicly). All I remember them saying
publicly was nothing. But they did not lie to the Malaysians at any
point as far as I know. Far from it as it turns out.

I am not sure what you mean by no blame for Thailand(?).
See the above.
It was a
Malaysian aircraft departing from Malaysia and not going to Thailand.
(Did it even enter Thai airspace at any point?) Why not blame Myanmar
and Vietnam? They probably had some radar data too but were too afraid
to stand up and be counted. At least Thailand did something albeit
belatedly.

It's the belatedly part, which isn't just being late, it's that if your
version is correct, they lied about it for 10 days. Malaysia gets
something wrong, eg starting the
search in the wrong place, and it's that they are incompetent, corrupt Nazis and
it sounds like you think they actually did it on purpose. Thailand tells
the world for 10 days that they have no radar track of the flight, and
they get a pass.

You are repeating yourself. I have already answered this a few times.
You choose to not believe it. Would you like me to check whether Thai
ATC have seen any of those aliens you are so fond of? And if they did
would that make it any more believable to you?

I thought we were discussing why not to fly MAS.

I thought we were discussing why none of this has anything to do with
MH17 being shot down by rebels in the Ukraine.

It's been a while now admittedly but I seem to remember that this all
started because following MH17 I said something like people should
take responsibility for their actions in choosing an airline since I
had already chosen to give MAS a wide berth long before MH370 and MH17
based on common sense. But then apparently I get easily confused and
you appear prone to fantasy.

Which still says nothing about the timeline. Was that at day 1, 2, 10?
I have to admit I do not know. From the impression I got it was given
to MAS on the day the aircraft went missing.

I thought you were privy to "sources". Sounds like the source is just
a rumor mill with no details. When exactly Thailand told Malaysian govt
officials and/or the airline for the first time is the essence of your
whole beef.

Already discussed.

I'd like to see an example of another crash or missing plane investigation
where the airline took on the govt of the country that it's operating in,
regardless of who actually owns the airline. Maybe it's happened, somewhere,
but I've never seen it and there are obvious reasons why any airline would
be very reluctant to do so.

It is not normally the function of the airline to take on a
government. The airline normally stands back and tells the truth while
an independent investigation team try to work out what happened.

Except that the investigation team is almost never totally independent.
And also the investigation team almost always includes representatives
govt and private, from various countries. In the case of MH370 you have
NTSB, FAA, Boeing, FBI.

We have already discussed something very similar to this.

Air crash investigators occasionally take on governments (Silk Air 185
comes to mind) but not normally airlines. The airline is just expected
to provide all information and tell the truth.

What? You previously said Malaysian Airlines should have taken on
the govt, but didn't because they are owned by the govt.

When did I say that? I suggested a reputable airline would have. I
have a suspicion you are getting MAS mixed up with a reputable
airline.

So far, I haven't seen the airline lying. They haven't handled the crash well,
right from the start. But not handling it and lying, deliberately
covering up something, is different.

Then you have simply chosen to not read what I have written previously
and I do not see the point in laboring it any further. Someone else
who commented on this thread appeared to have remembered and
understood what I said. Although perhaps he is as confused as I am
apparently. Must be nice for you to be the only one that is not
confused.

However I think the point you are missing is that when it comes to MAS
and Malaysia that is where the whole process breaks down. It is NOT
NORMAL. It is a freak airline in a freak jurisdiction and the truth is
the last thing that is likely to happen.

It's no more a freak that any other govt owned airline, of which there
are many.

If you know of an airline that is owned by it's brother's mother's
uncle's step son's nephew's Golden Labrador's wife's maid that has
been in power for 60 years then I would love to hear about it. I can
add it to my list of those to avoid.

No the Thai data did that. The Malaysian data simply confirmed it once
they had been forced to reveal it. I expect you also believe it was
only carrying Mangosteens.

It was
only released after they were threatened with exposure. By the time
the Malaysians (sort of*) released their own radar data everyone
already knew what had happened.

Not from the stories I followed at the time. The sequence of events was:
The search area started in the South China Sea, because that is where
all normal contact with the plane was suddenly lost. After several
days of searching there, Malaysian officials announced that their military
radar showed an unknown target that could be MA370 heading across to
the Straits. The search moved there on day 4. Thailand continued to say
it had no radar contact data. Only 10 days later did Thailand finally say
they did have data and by then the search had been going on in the Straits
and Indian Ocean for almost a week.

And these 'stories that you followed at the time' were coming from
where exactly? Did they smell of Mangosteens at all?

From news reports from most of the major media in the world. Are you
now claiming that the above scenario isn't what happened? Good grief.


i.e News reports of what was said by the MAS/Malaysian Government.

You are correct with the 'Good grief'. I would go as far as to say
that 'Good grief' would be putting it mildly in this situation.

And assuming Malaysians did have the Thai radar data early on, as
you claim, what exactly is the rational motive for searching in the
wrong place?

I wish I knew. I assume it was a delay tactic to let them try to work
out what the official story was going to be.


Or it could just be incompetence. They had all the data from the plane,
the radar track, ending at about the same time, over the South China Sea.
It doesn't seem far fetched to think that is where the search would begin.
It seems a lot more plausible than your scenario of let's go looking
in the wrong place for days deliberately while we think about how to
cover somethingup, when in the first hours after the crash, they wouldn't
even know what there was that needed to be covered up, unless they were part of
a pre-planned conspiracy.

I agree there is probably going to be quite a lot of incompetence
involved (one reason I refuse to fly MAS). But when you see deliberate
lying and obfuscation thrown into the mix you have to ask yourself
what else is going on.

The key fact was that MAS being owned
by the Malaysian Government was not willing to say anything that went
against Government Policy and so kept quiet about critical information
that had nothing to with national security only national trying to
save egg on face.

You're assuming that Malaysian airline officials had some Thai radar
data that the govt did not. Already discussed why that scenario makes
no sense to me. But if you have some credible evidence that shows that,
I'd be happy to see it.

No no no no no. Sorry to be a bit aggressive but that is simply false
and frankly an attempted manipulation.

Manipulation? You initially said that Thailand turned the data over
to Malaysian Airline officials. Now you're saying that Thailand had
turned it over to Malaysian govt officials first, then later to airline
officials. I just went with your first statement.
I assume a lot.
I assume MAS knew what the cargo was before lying about it.

I don't know that I've seen what constitutes lying. The biggest
issue I recall is the Malaysian GOVT refusing to fully disclose the
cargo manifest. The reason they gave was that it was an ongoing
criminal investigation. Is it a conspiracy to cover up? Or is it
a turf war between the police and other official? IDK.

No it's called telling lies. If I was fully fluent in Bahasa Malaysia
I maybe could come up with an argument for them being economical with
the truth at best. But from my (albeit) limited understanding of the
language this just sounded like a blatant lie to me. It's not shown on
this clip but immediately prior to this he was asked if it was
carrying any DG. He said no. Then he went into this piece of nonsense
about Mangosteens. Not only is it a blatant lie it has clearly been
rehearsed. Hishamuddin knew the question was coming and immediately
smirkingly turned the question over to Yahya knowing full well what he
was going to say. Otherwise he hardly ever let Yahya even speak and
Yahya did his master's bidding.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZfR_7Nakew

I assume MAS did not keep quiet for hours after it's disappearance
because they were afraid to wake up any babies on board

So, the airline's response in the middle of the night could have
been better.

Do you have an evening job as a stand up comedian? "Could have been
better". Yes, that is certainly one way of putting it. I used a word
on another thread recently - Omnishambles. If you are not familiar
with it then I suggest looking it up. It occasionally comes in handy.

The main thing they should have done that they didn't
do, IMO, would have been to quickly get the friends and families
waiting in Bejing to a private room. Other than that, what exactly
could they do that they didn't do? What would any other airline
have done that would have made a material difference in those 6 hours?

Raised the alarm maybe? And for the record I did not think it was it 6
hours they wasted. I thought it was 4. But hey, maybe I am confused
again.
http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/01/wo...-plane-report/
I would admit Malaysian/Vietnamese ATC need to shoulder much of the
blame for that but (OK I might be dreaming here) I would like to think
any airline I fly on would have better systems than this. If my ass is
on an aircraft that (apparently) goes quiet for 4 hours then I really
hope someone, somewhere is going to be aware and doing something. Why
rely on virtually 3rd world ATC staff.

I assume MAS were furnished with Malaysian Government primary radar
data

That's a big assumption, especially given your mistrust of the MA
govt and how they've handled other aspects of it.

MAS is part of the Malaysian Government. I am not sure why you find
that so difficult to understand. If the Malaysian Government were
given it then MAS were given it. The only way MAS would not have been
given it would be if the Malaysian Military had not given it to the
Malaysian Government. Did I mention Hishamuddin is Minster of Defence?
Remember him? He is the brother of the sister of the wife of the
auntie of the nephew of........

I assume MAS knew about the Inmarsat data long before the Wall Street
Journal confronted them

So what if they did? If you follow any of these investigations,
investigators, airlines, don't run out with every new potential factoid
or avenue of possible investigation. Not until it's vetted, they know
if it's valid, has relevance. And even then they may not say anything,
depending on what it is.

Agreed. Armed with such information they might not immediately make it
public knowledge. But would they pretend to look elsewhere? And say
things like we don't have a clue where it is but we know it's not in
the Maldives. I think those little green men you like would have been
in fits if they had heard BS like that
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TLYNoejZcv0

I assume they knew that the last communication was not the co pilot
saying 'all right good night'

Another big assumption, because the ATC tape was in the possession
of the govt investigators. And which is more likely? That they just
screwed up, mixed up a few words that were of no obvious significance,
or that it's some grand, evil conspiracy? What exactly would the
purpose be to get the words wrong?

Who are these govt investigators? If THEY had it then everybody in the
govt had it including MAS. I don't know why they either lied or got it
wrong. I wish I did know and more to the point the family and friends
of people that were on MH370 wish they knew.

Maybe it's just that COMPLETE TOTAL AND UTTER ******* INCOMPETENCE you
keep hinting at but saying it's not a problem.

Personally speaking it's that COMPLETE TOTAL AND UTTER *******
INCOMPETENCE that would make me walk rather than go MAS.

But it is too late for the family and friends of MH370. It takes
someone very special, clever and with very good resources to prove
these people to be fakes. Try watching
https://www.youtube.com/results?sear...cking+disaster
but who on earth has the intelligence, resilience, determination,
resources and just plain bloody mindedness of the likes of Kevin and
Susan Campbell to bring these liars to book?

The only thing we can hope for is that there is some kind of system,
however poor, that helps prevent these sort of things from happening.
Even if that system and it's cronies have to be dragged kicking and
screaming into the real world when necessary.

I have a suspicion if the Campbells had tried to do what they did in
Malaysia they would still be in prison to this day.

All I remember saying was that MAS kept quiet about critical
information that was nothing to do with National Security.

And if you check out the agreed on international rules that govern
these investigations, you will see that what parties other than the
official govt investigators can say, is very limited. For example,
RollsRoyce refused to comment to media requests on whether they had
engine monitoring data, for exactly that reason.

Keeping quiet is one thing. If Malaysia had only kept quiet it would
be bad enough. People - particularly family and friends - need
information following such an incident. But giving them false
information in my opinion is totally unforgivable. I know it's
probably considered normal in the US but for me, no thanks. I am not
willing to put up with it.

It was you
that assumed everything else and you know what they say about assume -
it makes a complete ******* *** out of MAS and the Malaysian
Government.

Very odd comment coming from the guy who just said he assumed
several major things without a shred of evidence.

Again just a childish attempted manipulation. I said Malaysia withheld
critical information and gave a list of examples. You said I assumed
Thailand had radar data. I don't think you are confused, just
frustrated and close to throwing your toys out of the pram. Can I
suggest that in addition to your evening job as a stand up comedian
you might want to consider a job as an MAS spokesperson.

If you want to make logical coherent arguments then go ahead. But I
would prefer if you do not try the above sort of nonsense with me. You
might get away with it with others but you aint going to get away with
it with me.

PS regarding the radar data I am not really assuming it. I might not
have documented objective evidence but I trust the people that have
told me and while that may not hold much sway with you there is no
question in my mind that it is factual and I do not consider myself a
complete idiot when it comes to talking to people I have been an
auditor for more than 30 years and it would take a very fly auditee to
get one past me. Not impossible but pretty unlikely IMO.

So, as an auditor, you just accept hearsay from someone far removed
from the actual event? Go figure.

I have already commented on that. It was several people at Thai ATC
who are in regularly contact with the Thai Military. The only thing
that is far removed is you from what I can make out.

You could very well be correct regarding MH17. But how will we ever
reliably know? The data recorders will probably tell us ***BOOM***.

There is a lot of potential evidence there that would be difficult
to hide. For example, even small sections of the fuselage would likely
show evidence of being hit by components of the missle. They can
likely test for residue of whatever explosive a Buk missle uses.
There may be radar tracks of the missle too, eyewitnesses. And we have
intercepted communication between the rebels and Russian intelligence
that shows them discussing that the rebels had shot down a plane,
then figuring out it was a civilian plane. Plus they had shot down
3 planes in the days before, openly taken credit for it, etc. It's
very likely the case and evidence will be solid.

I'll wait for that investigation report you were going to send me.

The only thing I will say at this point is that Pan Am 103 was deemed
to have been blown up largely on the basis that traces of chemicals
that could be used to make explosives were detected.

If that were a basis for a conclusion then most of what is in the
cupboard under my kitchen sink should be isolated as a crime scene.

When what we really need to know is the exact details of what they did
and why they did it. Maybe it was all perfectly innocent and normal
and just a tragic event that MAS are in no way responsible for.

It's a tragedy if it's an accident. This was by all indications a
barbarous act of mass murder. And there is evidence that Russia both
supplied the missle and that the missle systems rolled back into Russia
afterwards.

Barbarous act of murder? Oh you mean like Iran 655 ? Funny, I don't
remember the Russians being involved in that one. More to the point I
also do not remember any real apology or corrective action. The words
pot, kettle and black come to mind.

But as
I hope I have explained that would rely on concise, factual,
objective, truthful explanations from MAS and the Malaysian
Government.

You're the only one out there that thinks Malaysian Airlines is the
one that holds the key to what happened over the Ukraine.

Again another childish attempted manipulation. I have said a lot about
MAS and the Malaysian Government and why anyone that flies MAS is
being silly in my opinion, but I never said anything like that.

But I am afraid if this comes as a shock to you but it
really does rain in Indianapolis in the summer time.
I focus on is it non stop and
the airline not the route. And IMO anyone that would fly MAS needs to
seriously reconsider their selection criteria.

Then you would have avoided the doomed flight by *chance* not by
some act of being responsible.

So you already have the results of the MH17 air crash investigation?
Sorry to bother you but would it be possible for you to post a PDF
copy to this site or some file sharing sire. Thanks.

No, I just follow the news. Obviously you don't or you wouldn't have
the focus on Malaysian Airlines as opposed to what we know was going on
in Urkraine.

MH17 may well have been unforseeable. But I do not really understand
what that has to do with flying on an airline that is fundamentally
flawed. As I say I can give you their number. I am afraid I do not
have any frequent flyer miles on them or I would be happy to give you
those as well if it would help.