[Peetwo]

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!

Gobbles at least a choc frog post, well done!

Still waiting on the DSB Final Report release, however here is Ben and the News Corp latest:

MH17: When, and what, will be published today

Ben Sandilands | Oct 13, 2015 4:16PM |


Evidence gathered by the truckload for the Dutch MH17 inquiry that reports today

This is today’s schedule of events for the release of the Dutch Safety Board’s final report into the cause of the crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 as conducted under the United Nations ICAO Annex 13 rules.

It’s distinct from the Dutch criminal investigation into the destruction of the Boeing 777-200ER in the sky over eastern Ukraine on 17 July 2014 and the deaths of all 298 people onboard, which is due to report in the middle of next year.

Two sections of the run down have been highlighted.  The first public event, a media briefing, will occur at 1.45 pm, or 10.45 pm tonight eastern summer time in Australia.

• At 11.00 a.m. surviving relatives of the victims will first be informed about the results of the investigation by Tjibbe Joustra, chairman of the Dutch Safety Board, in The Hague.
  
• At exactly 1.15 p.m. the chairman of the Dutch Safety Board will present the investigation to the media at Gilze-Rijen air base. After this presentation, the reports will be published (around 1.45 p.m.).
  
• At 4.00 p.m. the chairman of the Dutch Safety Board will be elucidating the investigation during a closed meeting with the Dutch House of Representatives in The Hague.
  
• After the official publication of the report on Tuesday afternoon, Board members Erwin Muller and Marjolein van Asselt will be informing approximately 75 embassies about the investigation in The Hague.
  
• The reports focus on four themes: the causes of the crash, the issue of flying over conflict areas, the reasons why Dutch surviving relatives had to wait for two to four days for confirmation from the Dutch authorities that their loved ones had been on the aeroplane, and lastly the question to what extent the occupants of flight MH17 consciously experienced the crash. 
  
• The investigation was not concerned with question of blame or liability. Answering those question is a matter for the criminal investigation. 
  
• During the presentation of the investigation at Gilze-Rijen air base the reconstruction will be shown that the Dutch Safety Board made of part of the aircraft. Using recovered pieces of wreckage, part of the cockpit and business class section were reconstructed. The Dutch Safety Board reconstructed the part of the aeroplane that was relevant to the investigation.
  
• On Tuesday the Dutch Safety Board will also be presenting a video animation explaining the findings and conclusions of the investigation.
  
• English is the language used in international aviation investigation. The reports on flight MH17 will be published in English as well as in Dutch.
  
• It is common practice for the Dutch Safety Board to include a rationale for its investigations in its reports. For the publication of the MH17 reports the Board has opted not to do so for each report individually, but instead to provide a single document covering all of the various investigations.
  
  

Australia by implication finds fault with the methodical Dutch approach to the criminal investigation, and has been pushing for a separate multi-national inquiry including in the UN, where Russia has vetoed such a move.

The Dutch criminal probe isn’t subject to UN approval or disapproval, unlike the course of additional action pursued by Australia.

The Dutch criminal inquiry is similar in some respects to the French public prosecutor offices criminal investigations into accidents in which French nationals have died, including on board Air France flight AF447 in 2009, the pilot suicide and mass murder of the passengers on Germanwings 9525 earlier this year and Malaysia Airlines MH370 last year.

Just why Australia isn’t satisfied with the Dutch criminal inquiry hasn’t been explained.

Perhaps it won’t be shrill enough, and maybe too un-political? It is however the only declared criminal inquiry into the MH17 atrocity.

 
..&

MH17 report: Dutch investigators release findings

• The Australian
  
• October 13, 2015 6:37PM
  

Soldiers at the MH17 site shortly after the crash.
Ukrainian rescue servicemen inspect part of the wreckage of MH17.
A piece of the fuselage lies at the crash site of the Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 near the village of Hrabove (Grabovo.
Footage of the burning plane taken shortly after MH17 exploded.
Dutch investigators arrive at the scene of the crash.
Onlookers at the crash site of the Malaysian Boeing 777.
Soldiers at the MH17 site shortly after the crash.
Ukrainian rescue servicemen inspect part of the wreckage of MH17.

Dutch investigators have found Malaysia Airlines flight 17 was downed by a Russian-made BUK missile over Ukraine, according to a Dutch newspaper.

The full report into the downing of MH17 on July 17, 2014 will be released this evening (AEDT). It is not expected to record who is to blame for the tragedy.

But quoting three sources close to the investigation, the respected Volkskrant newspaper said the 15-month Dutch-led inquiry had found that the plane was hit by a BUK surface-to-air missile en route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

The report contains maps of the crash site, where the wreckage was strewn across fields close to the Ukrainian village of Grabove, in the war-torn area of Donetsk controlled by the pro-Russian separatists.

It rejects Moscow’s contention that the plane was hit by a missile fired by Ukrainian troops as it flew at some 33,000 feet above the territory, Volkskrant said.

The Dutch Safety Board, which led the international team of investigators, has stressed that its mandate was not to determine who pulled the trigger, amid a separate probe by Dutch prosecutors.

But two sources told the Volkskrant that “the BUK missile is developed and made in Russia.”

“It can be assumed that the rebels would not be able to operate such a device. I suspect the involvement of former Russian military officials,” one told the paper.

However the manufacturer of the BUK missile says its own MH17 crash investigation contradicts the Dutch report. Speaking at a news conference Yan Novikov, head of the Russian Almaz-Antey concern, did not specify what was in the report and he did not say whether he had been given an advance look.

Thirty-eight Australian citizens and residents were among the 298 killed when MH17 was blown out of the sky on a regular flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

At an air base in the southern Netherlands, the Dutch Safety Board will release its final report into the cause of the crash in front of many relatives of the victims.

The board will also unveil part of the plane’s cockpit and business class section reconstructed from the wreckage.

The report will also address the issue of airlines flying over conflict areas and to what extent people on the plane were aware of what was happening when it was hit.

The Boeing 777 was flying above heavy fighting between Ukrainian government forces and pro-Russian separatists.

International investigators are expected to confirm in their final report that a BUK surface-to-air missile brought the plane down.

The safety board, which is the Dutch transport watchdog, has made clear it is not concerned with blame or liability as those are matters for the criminal investigation to answer.

The Joint Investigation Team has been probing the crash for 15 months and has representatives from the Netherlands, Ukraine, Australia, Malaysia and Belgium — the countries most affected by the crash.

Dutch prosecutors confirmed in August that investigators had examined seven “considerable fragments of some size ... probably from a BUK (surface-to-air) missile system” recovered from the crash site.

Kiev and the West have accused pro-Russian rebels of shooting down the plane, possibly with a BUK missile supplied by Russia. Moscow and the rebels deny any responsibility and point the finger at Ukraine’s military.

TIMELINE

2014
July 17: Flight MH17 from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur crashes in eastern Ukraine about 50km from Ukraine-Russian border, carrying 298 passengers and crew. Within hours, claims emerge the plane had been shot down by a surface-to-air missile.
A pro-Russian rebel leader claims insurgents shot down a military aircraft at the same location, but a rebel soldier says in an intercepted telephone call the plane was civilian.
July 18: US President Barack Obama says evidence indicates MH17 was shot down by a surface-to-air missile launched from the area controlled by pro-Russian rebels.
Ukraine’s government and pro-Russian insurgents trade blame, as speculation mounts the plane was hit by Russian-made BUK surface-to-air missile launcher.
July 19: UN Security Council convenes emergency meeting on Ukraine crisis and Malaysia demands a full, independent and transparent international investigation.
Then Prime Minister Tony Abbott calls on Russia to support a “full and fearless” investigation into crash.
July 22: MH17 black boxes handed to Malaysian authorities in Donetsk, Ukraine. Train carrying remains of 282 victims leaves Donetsk for Kharkiv.
August 7 - Australian death toll stands at 38 citizens and residents. September 9 - Dutch Safety Board preliminary report rules out crew or technical failure as the cause, and concludes a large number of “high-energy objects” penetrated the Boeing 777, causing it to crash.
Russian state media claim the plane was downed by Ukrainian fighter jets.
October 13: Tony Abbott vows to “shirtfront” Vladimir Putin at the G20 summit, and says he will tell the Russian leader Australians “were murdered by Russian-backed rebels using Russian-supplied equipment”.
October 19: German intelligence agency, the BND, says it has evidence MH17 was shot down by a BUK surface-to-air missile system stolen from a Ukrainian base.
November 11: Tony Abbott confronts Putin at APEC leaders’ summit in China, telling him Australia has evidence that Russia was involved in shooting down MH17.
November 16: Vladimir Putin attends G20 in Brisbane. There is no “shirtfront” from Abbott.

2015
March 30: The Dutch-led investigation reaffirms its primary theory that a BUK surface-to-air missile launched from rebel-held territory was responsible for bringing down the flight.
June 25: The five countries investigating the crash - Australia, Malaysia, Ukraine, the Netherlands and Belgium - call for an international tribunal to prosecute those responsible.
June 30: Dutch prosecutors say they have identified many “persons of interest” but no definite suspects.
July 14: Australia, Malaysia, Ukraine, the Netherlands and Belgium formally ask the UN to set up a criminal tribunal to try those responsible.
July 30: Russia vetoes a UN resolution establishing the tribunal, a move Foreign Minister Julie Bishop describes as “an affront to the memory of the 298 victims of MH17 and their families and friends”. August 11 - Investigators find fragments “probably” from a Russian-made BUK missile at the crash site.
September 29: Ms Bishop meets with counterparts from Belgium, Malaysia, the Netherlands and Ukraine at the annual UN General Assembly to discuss potential legal action against Russia, including a treaty-based international court and national prosecutions.
October 13: The Dutch Safety Board’s report to be published. Early leaks indicate the plane was brought down by a BUK surface-to-air missile from a village under the control of pro-separatist rebels.

Standing by with MTF..P2