[Gobbledock]

Excellent last few posts boys. It raises a good question about what I term as being 'product vs protection'. How much does an organisation spend on being safe and compliant? You need to spend enough to ensure safety is met and the organisation remains viable, but you don't want to spend too much and have your organisation go broke. It's an age old question that has gathered momentum in the recent economic climate of the past few years. There are so many variables ranging from organisation culture, organisational finances, differing human cultures and perceptions about safety, to levels of training and organisational pressures.

The MAS downing is interesting. Why were the crew flying where they were, and were they in the wrong? Well the jury is still out on that. But certainly there were numerous well reputed airlines flying that route. They include Airlines who do invest in risk management. But what were the risks? Well the crew were flying at a flight level that was well above the normal risk parameters for a SAM. Due to the location of the war zone and those involved, it would have been envisaged that the armed forces would be armed with SAM's and they don't normally pose a risk to aircraft flying at 10,500 meters. Cheap equipment, not totally accurate, a poor mans choice of pea shooter hoping to knock something out of the sky. That's a reasonable assessment. What couldn't be predicted was that Russia had armed militants with BUK's which can easily reach 10,500 metres and much higher. Expensive pieces of kit, accurate and deadly. But in the hands of third world militants a truly dangerous toy. I don't think any commercial operators risk matrix would have included the risk of a dad's army having BUK's on their arms list. And finally, can it be discounted that one iof those klunky workhorses, the Su-25 wasn't responsible? 

So I guess that on just this one issue alone, did MAS and the crew on that fateful day make a decision based on cost cutting, incompetence, laziness or a lack of risk awareness? I'm not so sure about that. Although a seemingly straight forward horrible incident, the question comes back to is this, 'was unnecessary risk adopted by the airline involved, when you compare what they were doing with what other reputable safety conscious airlines were doing in the minutes and hours before the downing'?

I believe that MAS was simply in the wrong place at the wrong time. The moment Putin armed rebels with BUK's was the moment that the fate of the future MAS flight was sealed. It could've been anyone.

R.I.P to crew and passengers. A silent toast and thoughts for you. Onward with your journey. 

P2, if I may - MTF!