Flight MH17 - What You're Not Being Told

[senheiser]

In a decade China will have no orders left from western world. USA is luring them into a conflict with Vietnam, exactly like they did lure Russia into conflict with Ukraine.

China will face embargos and their workers will have no food to eat. Than china will eye on Siberia and all russian energy fields. They will arm some 50 million soldiers with their actual Gold reserves. Russian defence forces will be in a two front war. Against west and against China.

China is arming up quickly with nuclear weapons. in 20 years they will surpass russian nuclear arsenal. They aim for +200 billion of defence budget.

USN will sink all their public liberation navy vessels on the ground of the oceans. Than the chinese communist regime will have no other choice than march into siberia.

Siberia has very little russian population. Putin will be broke and he will give CCP a good BJ.

 

[imiakhtar]

I'm not going to get into a silly conspiracy debate and will leave my post with these two tidbits.

MH17 ADS-B signal was lost in the Luhansk oblast (flight radar24 and flightaware data corroborates this fact) which is further supported by the MH17 debris field location.

MH17 was on a recognized and regularly used high altitude airway which according to NOTAMS was safe to use.

See below the high altitude chart:

 

[LordTyrannus]

http://www.easyfreesmileys.com/smileys/free-sexy-smileys-938.gif

 

[nangyale]

First, a disclaimer: I am not a pilot nor an air traffic controller, and I never served with air defense units. I did spend some time with an airforce, but my role was one of electronic intercept analysis.

What I will try to do here is present a possible scenario which takes into account the basic facts established so far. Here goes:
The plan was for the Ukies to shoot down the MH17 using a totally inappropriate aircraft: the Su-25, which is a "tree hugging" close air support aircraft. Why? After all, the Ukies do have some Mig-29s and even some Su-27, but these are much fewer in number and much easier to track. A few of them have been seen in the skies over Novorussia, but only rarely. In contrast, the Su-25 has been a ever-present presence in the skies ever since the conflict began. Some say that the Su-25 cannot fly over 7'000m. That is not true. The problem is that it's cockpit is not pressurized, but the airframe itself has powerful engines which can bring the aircraft well over 10'000m. All the pilot would need is some good warm clothing and an oxygen mask. No, the big drawback of sending the Su-25 so high is that it's engines are not designed to be used at that altitude and that it will not be able to fly fast enough to catch-up with a cruising Boeing. But what if the Su-25 carried a missile?
Turns out that the Su-25 can carry the R-60 air-to-air missile which can fly at over 3'000km per hour and thus easily catch up with a cruising airliner. So the Su-25+R-60 combination has a flight envelope which is sufficient to attack a Boeing.
There is something else that the Su-25 lacks to function has an interceptor: a radar. Well, this is not quite true, the Su-25 has a radar, but it is designed for navigation, not air-to-air combat. However, the R-60 missile does not need a radar, it has its own infrared homing warhead. So if the pilot of the Su-25 can point his aircraft in the general direction of a heat emitting target, and if that target is not too fast or too far away, the R-60 will be able to lock on to it and close in. The R-60 is a pretty small missile with a short range, under 8'000m, but it so happens that that Russian radar operators reported the Su-25 at about 3-5'000m from MH17.
Still, it is not easy to visually acquire the correct aircraft from the cockpit of a Su-25, then get within the correct range and then fire. There are clouds, sunlight, other aircraft. And the Su-25 has no air-to-air radar with a search and track mode. So what could the Ukies have done? Provided another radar?
In comes the 3 BukM1 transporter erector launcher and radar (TELAR) and the at least one early warning (long range) radar which all had just been moved in the day before MH17 was shot down, and then immediately withdrawn. The radars of each Buk TELAR and the long range early warning radar whose signal have been detected by the Russians could have easily guided the Su-25 to its target, either by a encrypted datalink or even by radio commands.
Combining all of the above, here is my totally primitive hypothesis:
The Ukies guided the Su-25 to MH17 by using the Buk radar capabilities. As soon as he was in reach, the SU-25 fire a R-60 missile which hit one of the two engines. At this point, the MH17 sharply turned to one side and lost altitude (the hit engine would lose power and its drag would sharply pull the Boeing to one side). The Su-25 then easily closed in and opened fire with his cannon, which has a range of 4'000m, shredding the cockpit and cabin with 30mm rounds. Had the pilot of the Su-25 failed to catch with MH17 or if the R-60 missile had failed, the Buks on the ground were ready to shoot, but they probably did not have to. Once MH17 was clearly destroyed, the pilot of the Su-25 could have easily landed anywhere in the Ukraine without drawing any attention.
This was a good plan, but it failed to take into account the sharp turn made by MH17 which instead of continuing on its path towards Russia turned around and fell into a contested by Resistance-controlled field.
One more thing: if my hypothesis is correct and the first impact on MH17 was from a rather small R-60 missile (3kg warhead) into an engine, the flight deck did probably not suffer an immediate and catastrophic depressurization. If so, the pilots would have had the time to report an explosion. This is why the recordings of the Kiev ATC were seized by the SBU and why the result of the analysis of the flight recorders takes so much time: the Empire needs to wipe away the recording of the pilots' last words. Conversely, if MH17 had been destroyed by a BukM1 missile (70kg warhead) the depressurization would have been immediate and catastrophic. The problem with wiping the flight recorders is that if the pilots had the time to send a mayday then it would have been recorded not only by the USA and Russia, but by at least two more West European countries. Even if the latter would comply with the US orders, the Americans are probably terrified that the Russians have the recordings of the MH17's mayday and they are probably trying to negotiate a deal with Russia. If not, they need to carefully prepare the public opinion by, for example, organizing careful leaks through the Dutch and Malaysian press to say that nothing was recorded in order to denounce any recording presented by Russia as a "fake". All of this is, again, speculation on my part.
I submit it only as a basis for discussion.


The Saker

 

[Hamartia Antidote]

The Su-25 then easily closed in and opened fire with his cannon, which has a range of 4'000m, shredding the cockpit and cabin with 30mm rounds.
........

the flight deck did probably not suffer an immediate and catastrophic depressurization. If so, the pilots would have had the time to report an explosion. This is why the recordings of the Kiev ATC were seized by the SBU and why the result of the analysis of the flight recorders takes so much time: the Empire needs to wipe away the recording of the pilots' last words.

Too risky. What happens if part of the missile shrapnel is found in the engine or a part of the wing. What happens if they find bullet holes in the fuselage. What happens if the pilot calls mayday before the crash.

 

[nangyale]

Too risky. What happens if part of the missile shrapnel is found in the engine or a part of the wing. What happens if they find bullet holes in the fuselage. What happens if the pilot calls mayday before the crash.

That is all a possibility of those things that you mentioned to be found.
But they will all be discounted the same way the presence of the other jets in the vicinity of the MH17 and all the eyewitness statements were ignored and discounted by the major Western media.
There were already some pictures of bullet marked debris that was posted on this forum.

 

[nangyale]

The Second Aircraft
Was Malaysia Flight 17 Shot Down?
by MIKE WHITNEY
“From start to finish, the Ukraine crisis has been instigated by US imperialism. Every action Washington has taken has been directed at exacerbating and intensifying this crisis. The longer this crisis goes on, the clearer it becomes that US policy is directed not so much at Ukraine as at Russia itself. Ukraine, it would seem, is meant merely to provide the pretext for a war with Russia.”

— Bill Van Auken, World Socialist Web Site

German pilot and airlines expert, Peter Haisenko, thinks that Malaysia Flight 17 was not blown up by a ground-based antiaircraft missile, but shot down by the type of double-barreled 30-mm guns used on Ukrainian SU-25 fighter planes. Haisenko presented his theory in a widely-circulated and controversial article which appeared on the Global Research website titled “Revelations of German Pilot: Shocking Analysis of the “Shooting Down” of Malaysian MH17. “Aircraft Was Not Hit by a Missile”. Here’s an excerpt from the article:

“The facts speak clear and loud and are beyond the realm of speculation: The cockpit shows traces of shelling! You can see the entry and exit holes. The edge of a portion of the holes is bent inwards. These are the smaller holes, round and clean, showing the entry points most likely that of a 30 millimeter caliber projectile….” ( Global Research)

Haisenko notes that the munitions used on Ukrainian fighters–anti-tank incendiary and splinter-explosive shells–are capable of taking down a jetliner and that the dense pattern of metal penetrated by multiple projectiles is consistent with the firing pattern of a 30-mm gun.

The fact that Russian radar spotted a SU 25 in the area where MH17 was attacked, has persuaded many that Haisenko’s analysis is credible. Adding to the controversy, international monitor Michael Bociurkiw, who was one of the first inspectors from the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE) to reach the crash site and who spent more than a week examining the ruins–also appears to be convinced that the ill-fated jetliner was not hit by a missile but downed by machinegun fire consistent with the myriad bullet-holes visible on the fuselage. Here’s what he told on CBC World News:

“There have been two or three pieces of fuselage that have been really pock-marked. It almost looks like machine gun fire; very, very strong machine gun fire that has left these unique marks that we haven’t seen anywhere else.

We’ve also been asked if we’ve seen any signs of a missile?

Well, no we haven’t. That’s the answer.” ( CBC News. Note: The above quote is from the video)

The idea that MH17 was downed by a surface-to-air missile (from a BUK system) is a theory that originated with the US government and spread by the western media. The theory has been repeated thousands of times in thousands of newspapers and TV programs without a shred of corroborating evidence. Needless to say, the repetition of a fable, does not make it true. The public needs more facts to determine what really happened. Unfortunately, the Obama administration has been stonewalling the investigation, preferring instead to use the tragedy to advance their own narrow political agenda by attacking Putin and smearing Russia. This strategy has clearly backfired as we can see by the fact that Haisenko’s analysis has caught on like wildfire convincing many that the missile theory is a fake.

The burden of proof now falls on Washington to produce whatever hard evidence they may have via radar or satellite imagery that will persuade the public that their story is credible. The best way to do that, would be to provide whatever relevant information and data they’ve compiled but refused to release for the last two weeks.

What we know about the crash so far, is that MH17 was rerouted from the flight-path that other Malaysia “Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur” flights had been taking for the two weeks prior.

Why was the flight path suddenly changed? Why was MH17 rerouted through a war zone? Why was the pilot told to fly at a lower altitude instead of the 35,000 ft he had requested? Why was the flight path suddenly adjusted 14 kilometers north just as the plane entered the war zone? Was MH17 outfitted with Boeing’s Uninterruptible Auto Pilot (BUAP), and if so, was the system engaged when it suddenly flew off course and began to lose altitude? (And why hasn’t Boeing sent an investigative team to the crash site which is what they do whenever one of their planes goes down?)

The Obama administration hasn’t answered any of these questions. They’ve chosen instead to use the tragedy to bash Russia and blame Putin without providing any solid evidence or data to support their claim that MH17 was downed by a missile launched from a BUK system. As a result, public confidence in their allegations has steadily eroded. This situation can only be remedied by taking concrete steps to show the administration is serious about the investigation and genuinely wants to get to the bottom of what happened on July 17.

Here’s what Obama should do.

First, he should demand that the Kiev government hand over the Air Traffic Control cockpit tapes that were recorded on the day the flight went down. That’s number one. That will clarify why the pilot veered “off course” 14 kilometers and why the plane suddenly lost altitude. (Once again, we ask: Was the Auto Pilot override system engaged or not?) The Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) seized the recordings shortly after MH17 crashed and they haven’t been seen since. Why? Why hasn’t this critical piece of evidence been handed over to the proper authorities, the EU’s team of investigators? Does anyone really believe that Kiev’s US-backed lackey regime made this decision by themselves or that Washington ordered them to grab the tapes to prevent the public from knowing what really happened in the final minutes of the flight?

Second, Obama should come clean and provide whatever radar and satellite data he has that will shed light on how the plane was downed. Most of what we know so far, has been provided by Moscow from a news conference that was moderated by Russian air force chief Lt. Gen. Igor Makushev. Naturally, the western media blacked out most of what Makushev had to say. Surprisingly, however, the right wing Wall Street Journal published an excellent article on the press conference which covered most of the important details. Here’s a brief excerpt from the article:

“On Monday, Gen. Makushev said that the two Russian radar stations near Russia’s border with Ukraine observed the presence of the second aircraft over a period of four minutes on the day of Flight 17′s crash….

Gen. Makushev said that Russian radars could only spot the aircraft at the point of its ascension because the on-duty radars only detected objects at above 5,000 meters. Russian radars spotted the unidentified plane patrolling in the vicinity of Flight 17, “controlling the development of the situation,” he said….

The defense ministry also said it registered the Su-25 fighter jet ascending within close range of several civil aircrafts, including the Malaysia Airlines jet….

Another top military official, Lt. Gen. Andrei Kartapolov, said at the same news conference that the jet came as close as 1.8 miles to Flight 17, which is well within the range of the air-to-air missiles it is usually equipped with…

The suggested version of events echoed much of what has been reported on Russian state television in recent days, which has suggested that Ukraine could have shot down the plane, possibly via one of its fighter planes.

U.S. officials dismissed the Russian government’s claim that a second plane was present when Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 was shot down last week as “desperate” propaganda.” (“Russia Presents Its Account of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 Crash“, Wall Street Journal)

Russia’s findings appear to support the Bociurkiw-Haisenko theory that MH17 was gunned down by Ukrainian fighters. It’s up to the Obama administration to prove otherwise.

Here’s more from the WSJ:

“Similarly, Gen. Makushev said the Malaysia Airlines plane deviated from its course by close to 9 miles near Donetsk but then attempted to return to its course, crashing shortly after. Russian radars spotted the Flight 17 rapidly descending 32 miles away from the Russian border, Russian officials said…..He said Russia is prepared to hand all of the information it has to the European authorities, which included satellite imagery and data from its own radar.” (WSJ)

Why? Why was the pilot driving the gigantic 777 through a warzone like an intoxicated high-schooler out on a joyride? Does any of this sound suspicious to you, dear reader?

So far, the Obama administration hasn’t even admitted that they had a satellite overhead, preferring instead to stick with their pathetic propaganda strategy. Fortunately, CounterPunch has published an invaluable article by journalist Andre Vltchek that provides a translation of the Russian press conference to which the WSJ refers. Here’s an excerpt:

“According to our records from 17:06 till 17:21 Moscow time on the July 17 over the Southeastern territory of Ukraine, a US space satellite flew overhead. This is a special device of the experimental space system designed to detect and track various missile launches. If the US party has photos made by the satellite, please let us ask them to show them to world community for further investigation….(NOTE: The US satellite system MUST work, because just days later it detected the launching of three ballistic missiles by the Ukrainian government.)

Is it a coincidence or not? However, the time of the Malaysian Boeing-777 accident and the time of the observation done by the satellite over the Ukrainian territory are the same. In conclusion, I would like to mention that all the concrete information is based on the objective and reliable data of the different Russian equipment, in contrast to the accusations of the US against us, made without any evidence…” (Andre Vltchek, Counterpunch

In other words, Moscow caught the US “red handed”. They spotted the US satellite, they know the US saw what happened, and they’re calling them out on it.

Where are the photos, Obama? Where is the satellite imagery? We KNOW you have them, so pony up!

Now ask yourself this: Where does this line of inquiry lead? And does it really matter if the Malaysia 777 was shot down by a warplane or blown up by surface-to-air missile?

Of course it matters. It makes all the difference in the world. If MH17 was shot down by an Ukrainian SU 25, then we need to know who gave the order and whether the people who stand to benefit from the incident were directly involved or not. And who does benefit from the downing of MH17, that’s what we need to establish. Just like we need to know why the Obama team has been so cock-sure that Moscow was involved in the incident. Why all the fingerpointing? Why the need to make Putin look like a homicidal maniac? How does that help to reveal the truth?

Finally: Was the downing of Malaysia Flight 17 an accident, a premeditated act of murder or a false flag operation?

We need to know.

Addendum: On Sunday, BBC reports: “Fresh fighting in eastern Ukraine has forced an international forensics team to halt operations in part of the vast crash site of Malaysian flight MH17. Observers had to withdraw from one village when they heard artillery fire although work is still continuing across much of the area.” (“Ukraine crisis: New fighting hampers MH17 crash probe“, BBC.)

Kiev has restarted hostilities realizing that if the Dutch inspectors find any shell casings or fragments that can be traced back to the SU 25s, the administration’s missile theory will collapse.

MIKE WHITNEY lives in Washington state.

​

 

[nangyale]

Detailed analysis of the MH17 tragedy.

MH17Analysis Parts 1 and 2.pdf - Google Drive

 

[Götterdämmerung]

US analysts conclude MH17 downed by aircraft

By Haris Hussain - 7 August 2014 @ 8:20 AM

KUALA LUMPUR: INTELLIGENCE analysts in the United States had already concluded that Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 was shot down by an air-to-air missile, and that the Ukrainian government had had something to do with it.


This corroborates an emerging theory postulated by local investigators that the Boeing 777-200 was crippled by an air-to-air missile and finished off with cannon fire from a fighter that had been shadowing it as it plummeted to earth.

In a damning report dated Aug 3, headlined “Flight 17 Shoot-Down Scenario Shifts”, Associated Press reporter Robert Parry said “some US intelligence sources had concluded that the rebels and Russia were likely not at fault and that it appears Ukrainian government forces were to blame”.

This new revelation was posted on GlobalResearch, an independent research and media organisation.

...

 

[nangyale]

Vanishing point …
By Pepe Escobar

First, passenger airliner MH370 vanished from Planet Earth. Then MH370 vanished from the news cycle. First, MH17 was shot down by "Putin's missile" - as Planet Earth was told. Then MH17 vanished from the news cycle.

Where's Baudrillard when we need him? Had he been alive, the dervish of simulacra would have already deconstructed these two Malaysian planes as mirror images; from absolute vanishing to maximum exposure, then vanished again. They might as well have been abducted - and shot - by aliens. Now you seem them, now you don't.

Black boxes, data recorders - everything MH17 is now floating in a black void. The British are taking forever to analyze the data - and if they have already done so, they are not talking. It's as if they were singing, I see a black box / and I want it painted black … void.

The Pentagon, with 20-20 vision over Ukraine, knows what happened. Russian intelligence not only knows what happened but offered a tantalizing glimpse of it in an official presentation, dismissed by the "West". The best technical analyses point not to "Putin's missile" - a BUK - but to a combination of R-60 air-to-air missile and the auto-cannon of an Su-25.

A reader led me to this fair assessment by former USAF and Boeing engineer Raymond Blohm: "With proper vectoring, a Su-25 need not be quite as fast as a Boeing 777 in cruise. It just has to get to a missile-firing position. Since the 777 was not maneuvering, it would be simple to pre-calculate when to get in a certain spot in the sky below the 777. From there, it's the missile that has the speed and altitude capability to hit the 777. (The R-60 is a very capable missile.) After the missile takes out an engine, both the 777's max speed and its max altitude are well within the Su-25 fighter's speed & altitude capabilities. Then, the Su-25 can show off its cannon power."

Follow the engine wreckage. Follow the cockpit wreckage. Follow the motive. One cannot even imagine the tectonic geopolitical plates clashing were the Kiev regime to be deemed responsible. It would be the vanishing point for the whole - warped - notion of the Empire of Chaos's "indispensable" exceptionalism.

So as MH370 totally vanished, the MH17 story must also totally vanish. The Dutch and the British might eventually come out and hold a high-profile press conference telling the world what His Master's Voice finally redacted. Still, one may count on certified, residual outrage, if not puzzlement, by a large number of grieving Dutch families. And one may count on certified outrage by Malaysia as a nation. As in Why Us? And not once but twice?

Moscow, after deconstructing the "logic" of the ongoing Russia/Putin hysterical demonization, knows that whatever they say will be invalidated by the Orwellian Thought Police. Yet as much as His Master's Voice controls what the Dutch and the British might eventually reveal, Russia can counterpunch by leaking the crucial scenario to Malaysia. And Malaysia will talk.

MH370 vanished as in a video game. MH17 was hit as in a video game. Now their respective narratives are being vanished. It's as if we are living a tiny rehearsal of the black hypothesis of post-history.

Postmodernist star Jean-Francois Lyotard and later Flemish thinker Lieven De Cauter were the rarified few who dabbled in studying the black hypothesis. The black hypothesis is the ultimate dystopia - playing out in the cosmological time of the death of the sun, something like 4.5 billion years away. Basically this is about techno-science surviving the death of the sun and the death of humanity itself.

So MH370 may have vanished into an antechamber of the black hypothesis. But MH17 is much more prosaic; it could have been just a false flag gone wrong. Thus, under Empire of Chaos's rules, it must also vanish. The question is whether global civil society will accept it - or has already entered its own vanishing point.

Pepe Escobar is the author of Globalistan: How the Globalized World is Dissolving into Liquid War (Nimble Books, 2007), Red Zone Blues: a snapshot of Baghdad during the surge (Nimble Books, 2007), and Obama does Globalistan (Nimble Books, 2009).

 

[nangyale]

Updated video

 

[Götterdämmerung]

The Causes of the MH17 Crash are “Classified”. Ukraine, Netherlands, Australia, Belgium Signed a “Non-disclosure Agreement”

In the framework of the 4-country agreement signed on 8 August between Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia, information on the progress and results of the investigation of the disaster will remain classified.

This was confirmed at a briefing in Kiev under the auspices of the office of the Prosecutor General Yuri Boychenko. In his words, the results of the investigation will be published once completed only if a consensus agreement of all parties that have signed the agreement prevails. Any one of the signatories has the right to veto the publication of the results of the investigation without explanation.

Following the signing of this agreement, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine ratified the agreement and allowed for the participation of Malaysian staff to participate in the investigation.

International experts admit that for the survey of the wreck Malaysian Boeing 777 will take several weeks.

The second phase will involve searches pertaining to the remains of the victims of the crash of flight MH17.

Thus, it is safe to assume the results of the investigation are actually classified and the final expert opinion will not be released. (or only after a few years, when the political causes of the disaster will lose their relevance).

The conclusion is simple – the intermediate results of the investigation directly prove the innocence of Russia and/or the Donesk militia.

The Causes of the MH17 Crash are “Classified”. Ukraine, Netherlands, Australia, Belgium Signed a “Non-disclosure Agreement” | Global Research

 

[nangyale]

The Causes of the MH17 Crash are “Classified”. Ukraine, Netherlands, Australia, Belgium Signed a “Non-disclosure Agreement”

In the framework of the 4-country agreement signed on 8 August between Ukraine, the Netherlands, Belgium and Australia, information on the progress and results of the investigation of the disaster will remain classified.

This was confirmed at a briefing in Kiev under the auspices of the office of the Prosecutor General Yuri Boychenko. In his words, the results of the investigation will be published once completed only if a consensus agreement of all parties that have signed the agreement prevails. Any one of the signatories has the right to veto the publication of the results of the investigation without explanation.

Following the signing of this agreement, the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine ratified the agreement and allowed for the participation of Malaysian staff to participate in the investigation.

International experts admit that for the survey of the wreck Malaysian Boeing 777 will take several weeks.

The second phase will involve searches pertaining to the remains of the victims of the crash of flight MH17.

Thus, it is safe to assume the results of the investigation are actually classified and the final expert opinion will not be released. (or only after a few years, when the political causes of the disaster will lose their relevance).

The conclusion is simple – the intermediate results of the investigation directly prove the innocence of Russia and/or the Donesk militia.

The Causes of the MH17 Crash are “Classified”. Ukraine, Netherlands, Australia, Belgium Signed a “Non-disclosure Agreement” | Global Research

In other words. They have agreed to not release facts to the world.

 

[Penguin]

Source
Результаты следствия гибели Боинга-777 засекретили.
Live Journal, original Russian edited by Global Research

Meanwhile...

Dutch Safety Board | Investigations & Publication | Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014

The Dutch Safety Board is investigating the accident to flight MH17 which occurred at Thursday 17th of July 2014 in the region of Donetsk (Ukraine).

The investigation is operated in accordance with the standards and recommanded practices in ICAO Annex 13. The state of of occurance (Ukraine) has delegated the investigation to the Dutch Safety Board. The Dutch Safety Board is leading the investigation and coordinating the international team of investigators.

In addition to the international accident investigation, the Dutch Safety Board is also conducting two other independent investigations: an investigation into the decision-making process with regard to flight routes and an investigation into the availability of passenger lists.

Why is the Dutch Safety Board leading the investigation?
Ukraine has transferred responsibility for investigating the cause of the crash to the Dutch Safety Board. The request came from Ukraine. This request was made because the flight departed from the Netherlands, and due to the large number of Dutch nationals who died in the crash. The transfer was formally recorded in an agreement on 23 July.

Which countries are involved in the investigation and why?
The International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) states that it is the responsibility of the country where an aircraft accident took place to investigate the cause. Immediately following the crash of flight MH17, aviation investigators from Ukraine began investigating the cause of the accident. The Netherlands (as one of the countries affected) received official word of the crash of MH17 from the investigators shortly after it took place, including an invitation to take part in the investigation.

The ICAO agreement dictates that certain countries are obliged to be involved in the investigation. In principle, the country where the accident took place (state of occurance) should lead the investigation. However, the option is available to transfer the obligation of the investigation to another country. The countries where the operator is based, where the aircraft was designed and where it was built are also entitled to take part. Countries that can supply specific information or expertise may participate at the invitation of the party leading the investigation. Countries that suffered fatalities are also entitled to play a part in the investigation, but have limited rights.

In the case of the MH17 crash, many countries volunteered their assistance of their own accord. In some cases this assistance was accepted because the investigators had specific knowledge, information or expertise to offer.

The following countries have contributed (to a greater or lesser extent) to the international investigation team into the crash of flight MH17: Ukraine, Malaysia, Australia, Russia, the United Kingdom, the United States, Germany, France, Italy and Indonesia. The ICAO and the European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) also contributed to the investigation as organisations. The leadership of the investigation rests with the Dutch Safety Board, which will publish both the preliminary and final report. The countries that have a formal role as participants in the investigation under the ICAO agreement will be given access to the draft reports, and may provide feedback. The country leading the investigation may offer other countries access to the draft reports at its discretion.

What is a preliminary report?
The preliminary report is an interim report used to publish the initial results of an investigation following an major aircraft accident. The ICAO agreement that sets out the investigative procedures for civil and other aviation states that a preliminary report must be released during an investigation. This report may also include safety warnings. The preliminary report is not subject to any criteria in terms of structure or scope. The content is partly dependent on the progress of the investigation and the need to report certain findings.

The preliminary report on the crash of MH17 being prepared by the Dutch Safety Board contains a number of facts based on various sources; allowing an initial, provisional sequence of events to be made. The investigation team collected information from various sources, such as the Cockpit Voice Recorder, the Flight Data Recorder, satellite and other images, and radar information. All the data is then compared to determine whether the various sources corroborate each other, or show a different view. This is a delicate and time-consuming process that has not yet been completed.

The draft versions of the preliminary report will be discussed by the international investigation team and with the Board prior to being published. The ICAO states that the normal period required for drawing up a preliminary report is 2-4 weeks, however justified exceptions are permitted. Given the particular and complex circumstances surrounding this occurence, it is not yet exactly clear when the preliminary report will be published.

When will the final report be released?
An aviation accident investigation requires a lot of time. Not only is the investigation a complex, delicate and therefore time-consuming process involving various different parties, the Dutch Safety Board is also bound to international regulations that are set out in the ICAO agreement. One of these regulations prescribes that a draft of the final report must be presented for feedback to all parties which are formally involved. These parties then have sixty days to respond to the draft, after which the Dutch Safety Board must incorporate their feedback. The definitive report is expected to be published within one year.

What is the ICAO and what is Annex 13?
Founded in 1947, the International Civil Aviation Organisation is a specialist UN organisation whose goal is to establish the principles and standards for international civil aviation for the improvement of aviation. Among other things, the ICAO agreement prescribes how aviation accidents must be investigated, and that the purpose of such investigations must be to improve safety and not to apportion blame or establish liability. Annex 13 (one section of the agreement) describes how investigations into aviation incidents should be conducted, the criteria that the report must satisfy, and which countries need to be involved.

Dutch Safety Board | Investigations & Publication | Investigation crash MH17, 17 July 2014

http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/

 

[Penguin]

The Dutch Safety Board will issue the preliminary report on the investigation into the crash of MH17 on Tuesday 9 September 2014. The preliminary report will be available at Dutch Safety Board at 10:00 AM local time Amsterdam (08:00 hours UTC).
http://www.onderzoeksraad.nl/en/onde...ort-mh17#fasen