[P7_TOM]

Sorry, the previous accident/incodent threads were achieving little apart from burning bandwidth. Forum cancelled due lack of interest, similar subject matter moved in with the P2 forum.  

[Gobbledock]

Sorry, the previous threads were achieving little apart fro burning bandwidth. Forum cancelled due lack of interest, similar subjects moved in with the P2 forum.

However all threads are now safely stored in TRIM!!

[Kharon]

Actually, spot on GD.  We have a similar problem; can’t find the ‘threads’ which were due to be ‘relocated’.  They are there, somewhere, but t’s going to take a long time to find ‘em.  Strange and wonderful are ways of remote, multi-layer storage systems.  

What a difference a ‘click’ makes.  P7 will be contributing to the Sin Bin party stock pile.

[Peetwo]

Trigana Air ATR42 accident - Indonesian West Papua
Recent updated report on this from the AFP  via the Oz:

[/url]54 feared dead as plane missing in Papua  

• by: Peter Alford, Gita Athika
  
• From: [url=http://www.theaustralian.com.au/]The Australian
  
• August 17, 2015 12:57AM
  

Correspondent
Jakarta



Trigana Air Services, a small airline established in 1991, operates services to about 40 destinations in Indonesia. Source: Supplied

Villagers in eastern Indonesia’s Papua province say a plane that went missing in the province with 54 people aboard has been found crashed.
 

“The plane has been found (by villagers). According to residents, the flight had crashed into a mountain. Verification is still in process,” said the transport ministry’s director-general of air transportation, Suprasetyo, who goes by one name.

The Trigana Air ATR 42 turboprop plane lost contact with air traffic control just before 1600 AEST yesterday after taking off from Sentani airport in Papua’s capital Jayapura on a flight to Oksibil, the search and rescue agency said.

The plane was carrying 44 adults, five children and five crew on the flight which was scheduled to take about 45 minutes, the agency said.

Ten minutes before it was due to land, the plane contacted Oksibil control tower asking to descend, Captain Beni Sumaryanto, Trigana Air’s service director of operations said.

But the plane never arrived

The aircraft was flown by Trigana, a Jakarta-based regional airline that flies short-hop routes around the archipelago.

Indonesia’s Metro TV reported last night that local people said they had seen a plane flying low and close to mountains at about the time contact was lost.
Weather conditions at Oksibil were overcast and misty.

Although its air-safety record has improved considerably in the past 15 years, Indonesia is still rated as one of the more hazardous countries for civil aviation in east Asia.

Trigana Air’s service director of operations, Beni Sumaryanto, said half an hour after the plane was reported missing, the airline had sent another turboprop plane over the same route to look for the missing aircraft.

“But the weather was very bad; it could not find it and the plane was turned back to Sentani,” Captain Sumaryanto told AFP.

“Oksibil is a mountainous area where the weather is very ­unpredictable.

“It can suddenly turn foggy, dark and windy without warning.

“We strongly suspect it’s a weather issue. It is not over­capacity, as the plane could take 50 passengers.”

Transport ministry spokesman J.A. Barata confirmed the plane had lost contact.
“We are not sure what happened to the plane yet and we are co-ordinating with local authorities,” he said. “The weather is currently very bad there, it’s very dark and cloudy. It’s not conducive for a search. The area is mountainous.”

Trigana Air is a small airline established in 1991 that operates domestic services to about 40 ­destinations in Indonesia.

Small aircraft are commonly used for transport in remote, mountainous Papua, and bad weather has caused several accidents in recent years.

On Wednesday, a Cessna propeller plane operated by Indonesian company Komala Air crashed in Papua’s Yahukimo district, killing one and seriously injuring five others on board.

And air transport investigators are finalising a report into one of the country’s worst air accidents, the crash of an air force Hercules C130 transport shortly after takeoff from the military airfield at Medan, North Sumatra, on June 30.

The aged Hercules was carrying at least 29 fare-paying civilian passengers, although that is forbidden by military regulations.

Additional reporting: AFP

Also Ben Sandilands puts into perspective some of the ludicrous, ill-informed MSM reporting on this tragic accident:
 

Absurd questions asked after West Papua turbo-prop crash

Ben Sandilands | Aug 17, 2015 7:32AM |

No-one in Australia is likely to have any insights at this stage into the tragic crash of an Indonesian turbo-prop in a mountainous area of West Papua yesterday, but that hasn’t stopped three radio stations demanding answers, and more.

Two of the proposed questions which came with proposed answers were particularly silly.

One was whether or not the Trigana crash, of an ATR 42-300 about 27 years old, reflected on turbo-prop safety in this country.

It doesn’t. Australia has Australian problems or issues with the safety of regional turbo-prop operations in isolated instances. There is nothing to extrapolate from the Indonesian crash.

The age of the aircraft is immaterial. Its maintenance isn’t. If the aircraft has been properly maintained many parts of the original aircraft will have been compulsorily replaced with new parts.  That’s how aged aircraft maintenance works.  You keep them young, or less aged, by timely replacement of parts.

The aircraft is also on the EU list of banned carriers.

Well, whoopee. Air France isn’t on that list, and it is on the reported accidents and investigations, a far more dangerous or frightening airline than any that immediately spring to mind in Indonesia.

The European banned list includes carriers like Trigana that couldn’t fly to Europe with the types of aircraft they have without landing multiple times to refuel.  The European list in relation to small (and indeed scary) Asian airlines is about as logical as banning Bankok tuk-tuks from competing with French taxis in Paris (which are also indeed scary at times.)

The European list is a grubby little xenophobic exercise in leveraging anti-Asian sentiment. And incredibly selective in that it ignores home dangers and risks.

Like a great deal of media today, there is no investment in radio in serious expert reporting. The job of those of us who want to take air transport seriously isn’t to provide free content to radio programs that turn up in our ear demanding instant analysis and answers that conform to ignorant preconceptions.

MTF...P2

[Peetwo]

Airshow crash: "It was like a war movie.. "

Courtesy of the AFP via the Oz:

Shoreham Airshow crash: Pilot Andy Hill fights for life as seven killed

• The Australian
  
• August 24, 2015 12:00AM
  

European correspondent
London

A Hawker Hunter jet crash-landed into a busy road in Sussex, killing 7. Source: Lee Allwright
The death toll from the plane crash has risen to 11, with the number of victims expected to rise further once investigators bring in a crane to lift the wreckage of the plane.

Sussex Assistant Chief Constable Steve Barry said police were keeping an open mind about possible victims of the crash as worried relatives contacted them.

“This has been an enormously traumatic incident and our thoughts are with everyone who has been affected, from those who have suffered bereavement, to those in the local community, who are deeply shocked,” Barry said. “The scene itself is incredibly large. A lot of specially trained officers are sifting, as we speak, so we do need to keep an open mind, but from what we have seen at this stage it is possible that we will find more fatalities.”

A pilot was fighting for his life last night after his vintage fighter jet crashed on a busy road in ­England, killing seven people.

Occupants of four cars, including a wedding limousine, and two cyclists were killed instantly in a stream of fire that engulfed the coastal road in southern England.

The highly experienced pilot, Andy Hill, was in a critical condition after the cockpit broke away from the main wreckage when the plane stalled in a loop-the-loop at the popular Shoreham Airshow in West Sussex.

The death toll from the plane crash has risen to 11, with the number of victims expected to rise further once investigators bring in a crane to lift the wreckage of the plane.

Sussex Assistant Chief Constable Steve Barry said police were keeping an open mind about possible victims of the crash as worried relatives contacted them.

“This has been an enormously traumatic incident and our thoughts are with everyone who has been affected, from those who have suffered bereavement, to those in the local community, who are deeply shocked,” Barry said. “The scene itself is incredibly large. A lot of specially trained officers are sifting, as we speak, so we do need to keep an open mind, but from what we have seen at this stage it is possible that we will find more fatalities.”

Onlookers could do little for the 11 people confirmed to have died in the fireball just across from the airfield. A total of 14 people were injured, some with burns.

Sussex police were scouring the blackened area for any other victims last night. It was unclear if the limousine had wedding party passengers. Sussex police Superintendent Jane Derrick said all of the victims were killed on the road and warned there could be more casualties.

A passenger in a vehicle on the road, Jasper Vincent, likened the disaster to a war movie.

“It was like it was about to strafe us and two cars behind us were hit by the fireball and debris … By the grace of God we got away from it, we put the foot down to speed away,’’ Mr Vincent told London radio.

Stephen Jones was watching the display. “He made a quick pass along the crowd line and pulled up into a loop and as he came out of it, I thought, ‘This is wrong, you’re too low, you’re not going to make this’,” he said.

“He just disappeared behind some low trees at the edge of the airfield and then there was a huge explosion.’’

The Hunter Hawker aircraft, first commissioned by the Royal Air Force in 1955, brushed trees as Mr Hill, a British Airways pilot, desperately tried to keep the nose of the aircraft up.

But it collided with a Vauxhall Corsa on the road, spewing ­aviation fuel across the A27 and enveloping the wedding car, a Daimler DS420, which was travelling on the opposite side of the road. One witness said: “I could see the pilot fighting, fighting, fighting until the last second. It’s a sad day for a lot of people.’’

Emergency fire crews were on the scene immediately and dragged the pilot away from the wreckage.

A fellow pilot in the Tiger Nine display at the airshow, David Wildridge, said Mr Hill was a former Harrier pilot — “one of the best of the best” — and was well known and loved.

Several of the aircraft performed a missing man formation over the crash site before organisers cancelled the two-day event.

The crash occurred just outside the dormitories of a private school, Lancing College, which had insisted the airshow be held in the school holidays to minimise danger to pupils.

The tragedy is the third aerial display accident this year, but none have been as deadly.
Earlier this month former RAF jet pilot Kevin Whyman was killed at the CarFest event in Cheshire, and in April an expert aerobatic pilot, David Jenkins, was killed in an Edge 360 plane when launching the Old Buckenham Airshow in Norfolk.

Eight years ago at the Shoreham Airshow James Bond stuntman Brian Brown was killed when his World War II Hurricane crashed during a barrel roll during a re-enactment of the Battle of Britain.

MTF...P2

[ventus45]

http://www.aviationfigure.com/qatar-777-...-13-hours/

[Gobbledock]

Ventus, WTF? Hit the RWY lights and kept going? Reminds me of EK Fl 407!
To start with it's very naughty to hit the lights in the first place. Naughty boy shouldn't have been there. But why did he hit the lights will be the more interesting piece of the puzzle. But I find it unbelievable that the Crew kept going. Surely they felt the strike? And if they did, why the hell keep flying? Death wish? And how did nobody spot the busted lights for 13 hours, Miami not have any safety vehicles doing safety checks?

What the hell is happening to this industry?

[ventus45]

Gobbles, a B-747 Captain once explained it to me (about 5 years ago).
These incidents are simply a result of the current thinking in the industry, which is: "go mindednes".

The tick-tock of "minutes" is moving into the "seconds" in this industry.
Perhaps we need to get a stop watch, like 60 minutes.
There are no more "tocks" left for this industry.
It is now "tick-tick-tick-tick-ti..................."

[Gobbledock]

Herr Ventus,

There still isn't a lot printed on the accident, and yes the NTSB has classified it as an accident, not an incident. However they have also agreed to let Qatar do the investigation! WTF?
Minor links below;

http://onemileatatime.boardingarea.com/2...-13-hours/

http://www.jacdec.de/2015/09/17/2015-09-...-at-miami/

This bit is interesting;

"The aircraft lined-up on runway 09 via taxiway „Tango 1“, reducing the available take-off distance by approximately 1370 meters (from 3968 meters to 2600 meters)" 

Obviously it was a heavy aircraft due to a 13 hour flight ahead of it, yet he chooses to shorten the takeoff length? Time/slot pressure? Operational pressure? Incompetence? Fatigue? Incorrect weight data? Then the airline allegedly took 2 days to advise the NTSB of the incident occurring!  And as I said in a previous post, no crew on the aircraft felt anything at all?

Something doesn't 'feel right' about this. Perhaps the missing jigsaw pieces will all be displayed eventually, but Ventus I am tending to agree with your thought of  "These incidents are simply a result of the current thinking in the industry, which is: "go mindednes". And perhaps there is a correlation between this incident to the EK Melbourne incident, even though it is two different airlines involved? It is also interesting to note that in recent times the Yanks have also run into the habit of flying aircraft to the wrong airports, I shit you not!!

http://roadwarriorvoices.com/2015/05/06/...r-the-faa/

http://www.ntsb.gov/safety/safety-recs/r...09-010.pdf

So in light of some of the bizarre incidents happenning of late, some of which to say the least are perplexing, I think a tick tock is definitely in order.

TICK TOCK

[Kharon]

Good list of the ‘usual suspects’ there GD; but, there’s a couple of others which may be added:-

Reduced (alternate) power for take-off and the company instilled mind set not to cob the throttles (power levers) when the do-do hits the whirly-gig.

There are many ‘authoritative’ studies which show RTO at high speed is a risky business:- particularly with ‘alternate power’, contaminated runways and a no wriggle room take off accepted only to reduce the bean counters numbers.

HERE – and  - AGAIN, here.

Of course we cannot safely discount the monster ‘stuff up’ and associated penalties.  But in this case the RTO was not an option, was it? The TODA may well have stacked up in calculation; but I wonder, was the ASDA considered?  My favourite question; why do we see a negative rate of climb after rotation?  Cos the arse end is still going down, approach lights beware.   

Toot ???? toot.

[Gobbledock]

K;

"There are many ‘authoritative’ studies which show RTO at high speed is a risky business:- particularly with ‘alternate power’, contaminated runways and a no wriggle room take off accepted only to reduce the bean counters numbers".

Agree old chap agree! It's a strange thing, at the moment I feel like I am in a scene from the film 'Back To The Future' and we are slipping back in time. Over the past decades we have seen advancement in all manner of aviation technologies and methodologies which includes GPWS, TCAS, safety management systems, Human Factors and CRM, yet we have seen an increase in things like runway overruns, commercial aircraft flying to the wrong airports and landing on incorrect runways, and the habit of taking out airport lighting and infrastructure!

It does my head in on a Sunday morning. Coffee please!!

[P7_TOM]

Or; automaton pilots and SOP v Command and nouse.

[Peetwo]

MH17 & the elephant in the sky.



Pending the release on Tuesday of the Dutch DSB Final Report into the MH17 disaster, the MSM coverage is beginning to ramp up:

Courtesy NYP - Russian missile shot down Malaysian flight: probe

Courtesy NST - Russians angered by Dutch probe

Meanwhile Ben Sandilands quietly points (IMO) to the more important air safety message that will no doubt be lost under all the world geo-politics & diplomacy - i.e.  'he said, she said' bollocks... :

MH17, Russia shot it down, but negligence made it a target

Ben Sandilands | Oct 11, 2015 5:39PM |


Opinion

This Tuesday’s release of the Dutch investigation into the destruction of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 over Ukraine in July 2014 is already setting off leaks and previews, but it should also raise the issue as to why a number of airlines were dicing with death by flying thousands of their passengers through manifestly unsafe air space.

By far the most detailed and convincing nailing of a Russian surface to air missile as the the weapon that destroyed the Boeing 777-200ER and all 298 people on board to yet appear has been from the Bellingcat group.

It is republished, obviously with copyright permission, in Business Insider UK. 
Unless the aggrieved pro-Russian campaign against Bellingcat above all others can focus itself on a line by line refutation of the evidence assembled by that group, it is all over as to the physical cause of the disaster.

Had Russia admitted the circumstances of the shoot down, some rather ferocious attention might by now have been paid to the appalling lack of judgment and responsibility on the part of airlines in accepting tainted advice from Eurocontrol and the Ukraine air space control management that if they flew at not less than 32,000 feet over parts of eastern Ukraine, they would be safe.

Airlines know full well that when a twin engined airliner has an engine failure (rare, but they do occur) or a cabin depressurization (less rare, and thus brought to every passenger’s attention in the flight safety briefing) the sustainable altitude of the jet is either reduced, or in the case of the oxygen masks popping, rapidly lowered so that the serious health risks of exposure to very low atmospheric pressure are mitigated within a matter of minutes.

Yet airlines like Malaysia Airlines, Air-India and Singapore Airlines, knowingly flew their jets over a war zone into which either an engine failure, or a cabin presssurization crisis, would cause them to descend to a much lower altitude.

They would end up in air space where there was intermittently, an air war as well as ground war underway between Russia backed separatists and Ukraine forces.

It was, on the part of the airlines, Eurcontrol, and the Ukraine ATC, a massive act of ignorance or stupidity to think it was safe to fly through such air space.  Or in the case of the Ukraine economy, self interest, since Ukraine was collecting north of several hundred million dollars a year in overflight fees from carriers who benefited from the shorter routes possible in terms of their networks by using it.

It seemed as though the concept of continually asking questions about the safety of air space over areas of military hostilities had somehow died in airlines and organisations that held positions of trust.

In its draft report to interested parties, including Australia, the Dutch authorities made it clear that this issue of how the safety risks were, or were not, managed in controlled international airspace was of interest.

Whether that interest survived the ICAO protocol whereby the parties to an air accident investigation are given a period in which to review and seek to amend a final accident report is unclear.

We should find out for sure on Tuesday.

Either way, it isn’t an issue that will go away, and will most likely, if the history of air crash litigation is a guide, result in claims against Malaysia Airlines and perhaps other organisations in a US court.

   
And Des Ross follows this up with an excellent blog piece that looks at the broader issues of Airlines and the commercial realities of air safety...

Aviation safety vs commercial profits
The push to make airlines more competitive and affordable for travellers could also mean that safety is compromised
Desmond Ross

October 2015
Is a flawed system of aviation safety being challenged by competition and financial pressures brought about by relaxation on the issuing of airline licences?

The Dutch report on the destruction of Malaysian Airlines MH17 in Ukrainian airspace is imminent, but it is now clear that the aircraft was shot down by a missile fired from the ground. This criminal act must be properly investigated and prosecuted.

But who is responsible in the end? The man who fired the missile, the politicians prolonging the war, the Ukrainian government for failing to close their airspace. or the airline itself and the captain of the aircraft for flying through that airspace knowing there was a war in progress?

Perhaps it is a flawed system of aviation safety being challenged at every turn by competition and immense financial pressures brought about by Open Skies policies and relaxation on the issuing of airline licences.

Malaysian Airlines, like many others, would have wanted to fly the shortest route between Amsterdan and Kuala Lumpur on that fateful night.  It aimed to minimise the amount of fuel burned (equals cost) during the flight. So it planned a direct route which took it over the Ukrainian territory. They had been told it was safe to fly above 32,000 feet because weapons known to be used in the conflict could not reach that height. Other airlines had also followed the same route without incident.


Image by Bernal Saborio on Flickr. https://www.flickr.com/photos/44073224@N04/16225395606/

Airline management cannot deny that costs are their major consideration and some airlines are known to have offered pilots financial rewards for cost saving. This practice is contrary to a proper safety culture and encourages operational decisions to be made on economic rather than safety considerations.

Liberalisation of airspace over the last decades and the growth of airline companies has generated an intensely competitive market, which is exactly what the architects of the policy had in mind, as more competition generates lower ticket costs for the consumer. However, this also generates the risk that some air carriers may reduce their expenditure on training and maintenance.

Passengers now have the choice to fly on a low cost carrier (LCC), or a full service airline – but at a greater cost for the full in-flight service and highly experienced crews.

The queston then is whether the lower cost ticket entitles the passenger to the same standards of safety and security as with a more costly ticket on a full service carrier.

In theory it should, and protection is provided by the various national aviation authorities whose job is to ensure that proper safety and security standards are maintained by all air operators under their jurisdiction. The International Civil Aviation Organization, (ICAO) is responsible for developing the rules with the aim of maintaining a consistent standard across all international borders.

Unfortunately this lofty objective is not always achieved.

Many of the worlds’ national aviation regulators are deficient in their operations and are not sufficiently resourced by their governments. This is revealed in safety audit documents published by ICAO.

The European Union takes action to safeguard its airspace by prohibiting the operation of many airlines in European skies, a decision based on the capability of the national regulatory authority to manage aviation safety.

Now turn back to MH17, QZ8501 and other similar incidents.

Were the pilots under pressure from company management to save money and shave their safety margins? Would they have had to undergo an inquisition if they diverted or turned back from their assigned routes for safety reasons?

Pilots’ salaries are lower now than they were before the advent of LCCs and there are some airlines where inexperienced pilots can pay for the opportunity to gain flight experience. These pilots are not employees on a salary. Do the passengers know of this situation?

The safety culture of any organisation, particularly an air operator, starts with the Directors of the company. The CEO and Chairman are responsible for ensuring that a good safety culture permeates the entire organisation. But, in the reality of the commercial world, is this entirely possible? The costs of maintaining high safety standards is high but it is certainly less expensive than having a disaster!

Should MH17 have diverted and flown an extra hour to ensure it was clear of the war zone? Should the pilots of Air Asia QZ8501 have turned back to Surabaya to avoid the massive storm system in their path?

In either of these cases would the pilots have still had their jobs the following day or would they have been penalised for adding to the costs of their flights?

It is ironic that the very policy of making airlines more competitive and affordable for travellers could also mean that safety is compromised, and nobody in the aviation industry would argue that profit is more important than safety. However, there is call for better policy in an increasingly competitive market.  

Cheers & MTF..P2

[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!

[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  

[Peetwo]

MH17 - DSB Annex 13 Final Report

Due to understandably high internet traffic, access to the download of the full DSB report is not yet available but here is Youtube footage of the DSB Final Report presentation. 

Courtesy of Planetalking:

Inquiry finds MH17 destroyed by BUK missile over war zone

Ben Sandilands | Oct 13, 2015 11:49PM |


Dutch Safety Board graphic of warhead detonating near MH17 cockpit

The Dutch led investigation into the MH17 atrocity has found a late model warhead compatible with the Russian built BUK missile system destroyed the Malaysia Airlines 777 over eastern Ukraine last year after it was allowed to fly over a war zone by an airline that never recognised the safety risks that killed all 298 people on its flight from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur.

The media presentation of the detailed report heard scathing analysis of the conduct of the airlines that continued to use the disputed airspace in which at  least 16 military flights, including some helicopters, had been shot down in the month before the jet was destroyed.

The Missile strike
Tjibbe Joustra, the chairman of the Dutch Safety Board said fragments of metal alloys unique to a recent production warhead compatible with the Russian BUK ground to air missile system were found in the bodies of the three pilots who died instantly when it detonated in a tight one cubic metre space close to the left hand side of their cockpit.
The fracture lines found in the reassembled pieces of wreckage showed that the cockpit was blown off the jet where the business class cabin began, setting off the mid air disintegration of the airliner.

Three simulations of the trajectory that would have been followed by the ascending missile placed the launch site within 320 square kilometres of eastern Ukraine. Those simulations, made for the inquiry by the Russian Federation, Ukraine, and the Dutch Safety Board all lie close to each other within that wider area covering possible launch sites.

Chairman Joustra said further refinement of the modelling and analysis as to the more precise location of the missile launch location was potentially a matter for the criminal inquiry being pursued by the Netherlands’ public prosecutor.


The reconstructions of damage on the forward section of MH17

The use of unsafe airspace
The investigation found that 61 airlines flew through the airspace over the disputed areas of eastern Ukraine on the day MH17 was shot down. Between them they send 160 airliners into harm’s way on 17 July 2014 until airspace was closed immediately after the Malaysia Airlines jet took a missile in a region where a large number of military shoot downs had recently occurred.

Chairman Joustra said “We asked ‘Why did these airlines continue to do this’ and the answer was straightforward, and disquieting.

“Every single one of those airlines thought that it was safe. No one considered the possibility that civil aviation was at risk.

“Some airlines had thought otherwise. In the month before MH17 was destroyed at least 16 aircraft, including some helicopters, had been shot down.

“Despite this Ukraine did not close this airspace as a precaution. Ukraine said it didn’t think there was good reason to do so.

“We have concluded that there was sufficient risk for Ukraine to close this airspace.

“No one gave any thought to the possible risk to civil aviation. (Yet) on 6 June there was a NOTAM to pilots that airspace below 26,000 feet was closed because of the hostilities, and on 14 July that exclusion zone was lifted to 32,000 feet. ”

Mr Joustra said that during the previous month before MH17 was shot down targets flying at more than 32,000 feet had been destroyed.

The Dutch Safety Board has made a set of safety recommendations that airlines consider the risks of flying through airspace which is above war zones in which known armed combat has included the use of missiles to destroy aircraft.

He said that the investigation had eliminated theories that MH17 had been brought down by machine gun fire or an air-to-air missile  because the former would have caused different damage patterns in the airliner, and the later would have produced a radar return from  another aircraft.

There were no radar traces of any other aircraft close to MH17 before it broke up and crashed over a wide area of scattered woods and farmlands. There were three other commercial flights in the general area of the missile shoot down of the Malaysian jet but none that were close to it, or saw its destruction.

The Dutch Safety Board showed a video simulation of the events that destroyed MH17, which like the full report of the international investigation, is on its website which in the immediate aftermath of the release of its findings has experienced very high traffic.

Mr Joustra said that a number of counter claims made by the Russian Federation concerning the destruction of MH17 had been carefully considered, with some being incorporated in its findings but others rejected for reasons which are published at length in the full report.

MTF...P2

[Kharon]

This ‘You Tube” report is pretty good – English Spoken – HERE -.

[Peetwo]

Thanks "K"..& finally..




[/url]

Final report MH17

• Language: [url=http://mh17.onderzoeksraad.nl/nl.html]Nederlands / English
  

---

Press release
Download press release



read more
Download press release
Reports

13 October 2015
Report MH17 Crash (30 MB)

---

APPENDICES:

• Appendices A - U (13 MB)
  
• Appendix V – Consultation Part A
  
• Appendix W – Consultation Part B
  
• Appendix X – NLR Report (9 MB)
  
• Appendix Y - TNO Report (15 MB)
  
• Appendix Z - TNO Report (5MB)
  

13 October 2015
Brochure report MH17 Crash (6 MB)

---

APPENDICES:

• Brochure report MH17 Crash – Russian version (6 MB)
  
• Brochure report MH17 Crash – Ukrainian version (6 MB)
  

13 October 2015
Report MH17 Passenger information (6 MB)

---

APPENDICES:

• Appendix B – Review (74 KB)
  

13 October 2015
Brochure report MH17 Passenger information (1 MB)



 

[Peetwo]

Update to 7K9268:

Russia Confirms Bomb Brought Down Plane in Egypt

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
NOV. 17, 2015
 



 

The crash site of the Russian jetliner in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula in October. Credit Maxim Grigoryev/Russia's Emergency Ministry, Agence France-Presse — Getty Images


MOSCOW — Russia confirmed for the first time on Tuesday that a bomb brought down a Russian charter jet over the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt more than two weeks ago, killing all 224 people on board.

The head of the Federal Security Service, Alexander Bortnikov, said “an improvised explosive device” had detonated soon after the plane took off from the resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh.

“The plane disintegrated in midair, which explains the widely scattered fuselage pieces,” Mr. Bortnikov said.

Experts have focused on the idea that a bomb brought down the plane since it went down on Oct. 31. The Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, claimed responsibility for the attack within hours, although it did not provide any proof.

The announcement from the Kremlin was the first, clearly definitive statement from Russia that the plane was brought down by a terrorist act, although leaders had been moving in that direction after initially criticizing other governments that suggested a bomb was responsible.

What We Know and Don’t Know About the Russian Plane Crash
[/url]
A Russian flight crashed in the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt on Oct. 31, killing all 224 people on board. Officials are investigating what might have caused an explosion that brought down the plane.






Most tourist flights to the Red Sea resort have been suspended since the crash because of security concerns that a member of airport staff was able to slip the bomb on board

The bomb contained up to 1 kilogram, or 2.2 pounds, of TNT, Mr. Bortnikov said, adding that “foreign made” explosive material was found on parts of the plane and other objects that were examined.

Russia has offered $50 million for any information leading to the capture of those who carried out the attack, and President Vladimir V. Putin vowed to track them down.

“We will search for them everywhere, no matter where they are hiding,” Mr. Putin said at a meeting with his security council that was broadcast on national television. “We will find them in any place on the planet and will punish them.”

Mr. Putin said the attacks by the Russian air force in Syria would not only continue but intensify.

“Our military work in Syria must not only be continued, but strengthened so that criminals understand that punishment is inevitable,” Mr. Putin said.

The Ministry of Defense and the military had been ordered to draw up plans, he said.

In claiming responsibility, the Islamic State branch on the Sinai Peninsula said the attack came in retaliation for Russia’s deployment of its military in Syria, where it is trying to shore up the rule of President Bashar al-Assad by attacking his opponents.

A spokesman for Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment on the Russian statement.

Egyptian officials have dismissed the possibility of terrorism, sometimes suggesting that theories of a militant attack are part of an international conspiracy against their country.
Confirmation that a bomb brought down the plane — and was presumably smuggled through the Sharm el-Sheikh airport — would represent a devastating blow to the country’s [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/travel/russian-airplane-crash-egypt-tourism.html]tourism industry, and would undermine government claims that the authorities are prevailing in the war against militants based in the Sinai Peninsula.

MTF..P2

[Peetwo]

Update to 7K9268:

Russia Confirms Bomb Brought Down Plane in Egypt

By NEIL MacFARQUHAR
NOV. 17, 2015
 



 

The crash site of the Russian jetliner in Egypt's Sinai Peninsula in October. Credit Maxim Grigoryev/Russia's Emergency Ministry, Agence France-Presse — Getty Images


MOSCOW — Russia confirmed for the first time on Tuesday that a bomb brought down a Russian charter jet over the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt more than two weeks ago, killing all 224 people on board.

The head of the Federal Security Service, Alexander Bortnikov, said “an improvised explosive device” had detonated soon after the plane took off from the resort city of Sharm el-Sheikh.

“The plane disintegrated in midair, which explains the widely scattered fuselage pieces,” Mr. Bortnikov said.

Experts have focused on the idea that a bomb brought down the plane since it went down on Oct. 31. The Islamic State, also known as ISIS or ISIL, claimed responsibility for the attack within hours, although it did not provide any proof.

The announcement from the Kremlin was the first, clearly definitive statement from Russia that the plane was brought down by a terrorist act, although leaders had been moving in that direction after initially criticizing other governments that suggested a bomb was responsible.

What We Know and Don’t Know About the Russian Plane Crash
[/url]
A Russian flight crashed in the Sinai Peninsula in Egypt on Oct. 31, killing all 224 people on board. Officials are investigating what might have caused an explosion that brought down the plane.






Most tourist flights to the Red Sea resort have been suspended since the crash because of security concerns that a member of airport staff was able to slip the bomb on board

The bomb contained up to 1 kilogram, or 2.2 pounds, of TNT, Mr. Bortnikov said, adding that “foreign made” explosive material was found on parts of the plane and other objects that were examined.

Russia has offered $50 million for any information leading to the capture of those who carried out the attack, and President Vladimir V. Putin vowed to track them down.

“We will search for them everywhere, no matter where they are hiding,” Mr. Putin said at a meeting with his security council that was broadcast on national television. “We will find them in any place on the planet and will punish them.”

Mr. Putin said the attacks by the Russian air force in Syria would not only continue but intensify.

“Our military work in Syria must not only be continued, but strengthened so that criminals understand that punishment is inevitable,” Mr. Putin said.

The Ministry of Defense and the military had been ordered to draw up plans, he said.

In claiming responsibility, the Islamic State branch on the Sinai Peninsula said the attack came in retaliation for Russia’s deployment of its military in Syria, where it is trying to shore up the rule of President Bashar al-Assad by attacking his opponents.

A spokesman for Egypt’s president, Abdel Fattah el-Sisi, did not immediately respond to messages seeking comment on the Russian statement.

Egyptian officials have dismissed the possibility of terrorism, sometimes suggesting that theories of a militant attack are part of an international conspiracy against their country.
Confirmation that a bomb brought down the plane — and was presumably smuggled through the Sharm el-Sheikh airport — would represent a devastating blow to the country’s [url=http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/15/travel/russian-airplane-crash-egypt-tourism.html]tourism industry, and would undermine government claims that the authorities are prevailing in the war against militants based in the Sinai Peninsula.

And from Ben courtesy of Crikey's Planetalking:

Sinai crash bomb confirmation is bad news for airport owners

Ben Sandilands | Nov 17, 2015 10:00PM |
Investigators searching for clues in the debris that was Metrojet flight 9268

Russia’s confirmation that traces of explosive have been found on baggage and debris from the Metrojet A321 that crashed in the Sinai desert is very bad news for privately owned airports as well as airlines.

It also implies dissatisfaction with the Egyptian government’s capacity to tell the truth about the disaster that killed 224 people on 31 October in a full and timely manner.
Egypt should have released the news. It is leading the the accident investigation, and it has an obligation to the safety reporting requirements of ICAO to confirm that security at its popular airport at Sharm el-Sheikh failed to protect an airline and its customers.

The Russian announcement was inevitable after Moscow banned Egyptian carriers from flying to its airports from last Satuday, an announcement overshadowed in news reports by the terrorist attacks in Paris last Friday night.

This report in the Crikey subscriber Insider bulletin eight days ago anticipated the bomb finding and looked at the risks that arise for airport owners world wide as well as travellers in countries targeted by IS.

These are parts of that Insider report:
A genuinely secure and bomb-proof airport is incompatible with the private enterprise idea of lucrative revenue streams from a thriving, cashed-up and semi-captive flow of consumers.
The crush of people who are essential to servicing a profitable airport contribute enormously to their porous nature in terms of workable security.
Everyone — baggage-handler unions and non-union contractors, pilot associations, and the airlines — is fiercely resistant to subjecting staff to the same intensive screening that is supposed to be applied to passengers.
If you’re catching a flight, you cross from “landside” through security to “airside” (via customs, passport control, etc) but once. But if you are staff on any of dozens of services or enterprises, you might have to cross landside/airside/landside many times a day.
And you don’t (unless you are a pilot) generally have to queue, get X-rayed and take off belts, shoes and put computers and keys in separate bins. That would mean your employers were paying you for hours in a shift just to be stuffed around.
Instead you have a special pass, sometimes a special door, and special secure access to the underbelly of an airport. In some jurisdictions, but notably in the United States, poorly paid security personnel have been busted at regular intervals for stealing passenger valuables in the confusion that often occurs when you are parted from computers, watches, wallets, liquids, aerosols and gels, and at times your belt, shoes and even artificial limbs.
In the US, the issue of employee crime is an everyday concern, especially compared to terrorism — the last high-profile terror attempt was the crotch bomber, who set his underpants alight as his plane approached Detroit airport from Amsterdam on Christmas Day in 2009.
But in terrorism hotspots, and Egypt’s Sinai is one of them, the risk of theft is nothing put beside the availability of flights to those who see killing civilians, including those of target nationalities, as the serving the needs of revenge or revolution.
Consider the risks and procedures in this country. The most obvious targets are the terminals themselves. It is blindingly obvious to regular travellers in the major Australian airports, domestic and international, that the availability of thorough and efficient (and well-spaced) security or border checkpoints isn’t being grown at the same pace as increases in travel activity.
In theory a bomb will be detected by molecular sniffers, which aren’t used on all travellers, or seen in your scanned luggage, which is questionable. It won’t be seen if it has been stuffed up your rectum, vagina, or secreted in continence pads for the aged.
Freight that is loaded into the hold of some airliners is problematic, in that the logistics industry and the airports have for years fiercely argued to largely compliant government agencies that the needs of security and commerce “need to be balanced”, which, for fans of Don Watson, means watered down.
There are, of course, only two pathways to be followed on airport security.
One is to do what is “possible”, which is the present approach, which is diluted to an extent by the definition of “possible” being business friendly first, and secure second. It’s common sense, yet it carries risks.
The other is to retain a lower-key theatre of security for its feel-good effects and marginal-risks reduction benefits, and accept that life  doesn’t come gift wrapped and lovely, and that everyone should be alert, go along with the farce, and hope for the best.
Just getting on with it in air travel arguably leads to the same result as draconian security. Atrocities will happen over time, whichever approach to air-transport security is taken.
But the human herds will continue to surge through the airports, and after brief ripples of horror, look the other way when some of us die, and keep on with keeping on.

 
MTF..P2