— by Odysseus
Many times, the most important part of a discussion is not the answer, but, rather, the question. Or, in some cases, the questions.
In all the discussions about the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight 17 over the Ukraine this week, it seems that neither the left- wing info-tainment industry nor the right-wing commentators are capable of discerning what are the most salient questions of the tragedy. This assumes, of course, that any of them have the actual goal of preventing such tragic event from recurring.
There are three important questions that should be looked at here. First, was the airliner outside of the normal flight path and flying into airspace that had been deemed unsafe by the world’s aviation community? Second, is there anything significant to the fact that this is the second airplane of the same airline to be lost inside of nine months? Third, does anyone benefit from the loss of the aircraft and how?
The focus on who actually shot down the aircraft is a superficial question of little actual significance. On Friday, conservative commentator Sean Hannity was busily condemning the Russians for the shoot-down and calling for greater actions to be taken against Russia. He speculated that the anti-aircraft missile was too sophisticated to have been used by Russian separatist forces in the Ukraine.
Regardless of whether this act was done by separatist forces or Spetznaz special forces units attached to the separatist forces makes little difference. It is not safe for commercial aircraft to fly over active combat zones no matter who is operating the air defense systems. On July 3, 1988, the United States Navy shot down Iranian air flight 655 while it was patrolling the Persian Gulf. The European-made Airbus A300 was shot down, killing all 290 civilian passengers.
The USS Vincennes, which shot down the Airbus, was a cruiser equipped with the most sophisticated radar and electronic battle gear that was then in the Navy’s surface arsenal. It tracked the oncoming plane, warned it to keep away from the battle where two other US warships were battling Iranian gunboats, and, when it did not, the cruiser shot it down. When the facts came out that the airplane was a civilian airliner, Adm. William J. Crowe, Jr. announced that the United States government deeply regretted the incident.
While there was condemnation of the action by all of America’s enemies at the time, the United States Navy’s action was defended, correctly, as the result of the carelessness and suspicious behavior by the Iranian Airbus. The questions that were asked involved the flight path of the Iranian aircraft and the transponders that were aboard that may have been tampered with to generate another identification signature.
In this new instance involving Malaysian Airlines Flight 17, we have seen little discussion of the Boeing aircraft’s flight transponders identification signals, nor have we heard any in-depth discussion of why the plane was on this course. We know that other airlines were warned about not taking this flight path. According to Michael Gordon of the New York Times of July 17th, 2014, more than half a dozen aircraft had been shot down in the Ukraine in recent months. Ukrainian AN-26 military transport aircraft had been shot down in the area when it was flying at 21,000 feet altitude just three days before the civilian airliner.
The failure to inquire into those questions is particularly damning to an incurious media because many of the answers are readily obtainable with minimal research. Were there weather conditions that forced the Malaysia air pilot to divert into this unsafe airspace? A simple look at the weather records would answer that question. Were there instructions by air traffic controllers directing the aircraft to take this dangerous flight path? Records exist on the ground of any such communications that may have taken place.
The New York Times article goes on to report that the Ukrainian air traffic service had prohibited commercial flights lower than 33,000 feet. According to a Ukrainian official, the commercial traffic-way called Airway L980 had been busy with traffic each day, flying at higher elevations. According to the same official, carriers, including Malaysia Airlines and Air India, had continued to use it. While it is understandable that it was in Ukraine’s interest to maintain an appearance of normalcy, the carriers should have focused on safety. Many carriers had begun to plan flights that skirted the conflict area. Specifically, on Wednesday, Russia had warned civilian aircraft not to fly over Russian territory near eastern Ukraine, where some of its own military forces are deployed.
The Russian notice declared that the airway closings were necessary “due to combat actions on the territory of the Ukraine near the state border with the Russian Federation.” The closings were effective at midnight Wednesday — just hours before Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 took off.
The Times article indicates that flight traffic over eastern Ukraine had fallen by at least half in recent months, because some airlines had wisely chosen to use other routes. However, even after the downing of its transport planes, the Ukrainian government did not issue a Notice to Airmen, or NOTAM, closing the airspace. Both Eurocontrol and airlines continued to approve flight plans over eastern Ukraine.The United States closed the area to American flights on Thursday night.
Determining why the plane used that flight path into a war-zone, where anti-aircraft missiles were being used, is far more enlightening than determining the identity of the operators of the air-defense system.
Second, while coincidences do occur, an educated examiner of international defense and diplomacy issues should always be suspicious of them. The fact that the airliner in question was a Malaysian Airlines Boeing 777 and that there was also another Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 that so mysteriously recently disappeared over the Indian Ocean is a remarkable coincidence. Industrious and suspicious reporters should be looking into what country or group either has a grudge that may be served by downing Malaysian flagged aircraft or that would be in a position to direct Malaysian aircraft into uses other than merely transporting their passengers safely along their designated routes.
As usual, the best indicator of the origins and aims of skulduggery is to analyze who would benefit from the outcome. By any obvious account, neither the Russians nor the Russian-backed rebels would benefit from the “black eye” their public relations would suffer by shooting down an unarmed civilian aircraft. While it is possible to game out a version of events whereby the Russians hope to gain position by making an example of an aircraft that defies its warnings, it seems that the shooting down of a passenger aircraft would do far more to help its adversary and to gain popular support for Ukraine than any benefit that could be had for Russia by such chest thumping.
If we seek to avoid catastrophe, the press should be focusing its attention on calling for the establishment of regular safety procedures to prevent tragedies like the shooting down of the Iranian passenger jet over the Persian Gulf in 1988 and what happened to Malaysia Air Flight 17. Passenger aircraft should always divert away from war zones where air defense systems are in operation. If strong international norms were in place, it would be harder for any bad actor to manipulate a situation whereby civilian aircraft and innocent lives could be used as pawns in geopolitical posturing.
