Boeing 737-Max. Another one down.

[jacko 8,814]

3 hours ago, Butch said:

I'm surprised that the SAM didn't have "friend or foe" recognition software built in, plus don't SAM systems have a safety net built in against stuff like this by not targetting passenger airliners because they emit specific squawk?.

My very limited and probably incorrect take on things anyway.

 

Suspected Tor (Russian made) radar guided from a ground launch unit. I don't think it gets that clever after launch Butch, the squawk you talk of will be radio transponder and I doubt the Tor is looking for it. Sounds pretty effective and I think the only 'safety' would be an ability to abort between firing and proximity to target. That would be a pretty short time frame.  

[forcebwithu 4,853]

Here's a very detailed accounting of what happened, straight from the guy that would know. Surprised at his candor, not something we normally see after a tragic incident such as this one.

Commander of the Aerospace Force of the Islamic Revolution Guards Corps (IRGC) Amir-Ali Hajizadeh has, in a press conference, outlined the details of an “unintentional” downing of the Ukrainian passenger plane, which crashed in Tehran Wednesday.

At several stages, the Alert Level 3, which is the highest level, is communicated and emphasized to the entire network. So all air defence systems were at highest alert level. For several times, these systems including the one involved in the incident were notified by the integrated network that cruise missiles have been fired at the country. For a couple of times, they receive reports that ‘the cruise missiles are coming, be prepared’.

So you see the systems were at the highest alert level, where you should just press a button. They had been told cruise missiles were coming, and the air defence unit engaged in this incident and fired a missile. Now we have arranged an interview with this operator, which will be released soon as part of the plan to publicize the issue. He says in this interview that “we requested for several times that the country’s airspace be cleared of [civilian] flights.’ At the Alert Level 3, this is normal; such requests are made; well our dear brothers didn’t follow up the issue for certain considerations. So the planes fly despite the wartime situation.

In those moments when the incident happens, this air defence unit realizes that there is a target – which it identified as a cruise missile – at a distance of 19 kilometres. Now I’m explaining it on the map. This is the place where the air defence unit is deployed … here is the city of Tehran … This is the air defence unit deployed here at 00:00 (Wednesday), and was prepared. And here’s the Imam Khomeini Airport. This plane takes off from here and takes this direction. It means this is the impact point. Given the information sent to this operator – that it is a wartime situation and a cruise missile has been fired – this poor guy identifies it as a cruise missile.

Well at such a situation, he was obliged to contact, get approval. This is where this operator makes the mistake; but at that moment, his communication system was apparently disrupted – whether because of jamming systems or the high traffic. For that reason, he fails to contact [his commanders]. He had 10 seconds to decide; he could hit or not hit [the target]. Under such circumstances, he decides to make that bad decision; he engages, the missile is fired, and the plane is hit at this place. Then it returns through this track, and here’s the point where it hits the ground. I must explain some points here.

The above is a snippet from this press release: https://ifpnews.com/irgc-releases-details-of-accidental-downing-of-ukrainian-plane

 

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

That is the best cover story for incompetence from system design, to operator, to general staff.... that I have ever read.

[jacko 8,814]

3 hours ago, midlifecrisis said:

That is the best cover story for incompetence from system design, to operator, to general staff.... that I have ever read.

It does reveal the short time frame involved, the target is detected only 19km away,  maybe 45 seconds or less window.The big error, not grounding all flights. Also the claim or report that cruise missiles were in the air.... I do not believe that was the case.

Edited January 13, 2020 by jacko

[awesum4 2,332]

5 hours ago, midlifecrisis said:

That is the best cover story for incompetence from system design, to operator, to general staff.... that I have ever read.

At least they have openly admitted it in only a few days. Which means they may learn from their mistakes.

The USA denied they shot down the Iran air flight in 1988. Then they explained it was in international airspace and descending towards the ship that shot it down, when it was in Iranian airspace and climbing. Two other American warships recognized it as a commercial flight.

The captain of the ship who shot it down was given a medal for his services during that time. He should have been punished instead.

Quite a contrast in handling very similar fuckups.

[Butch 3,456]

8 hours ago, awesum4 said:

At least they have openly admitted it in only a few days. Which means they may learn from their mistakes.

The USA denied they shot down the Iran air flight in 1988. Then they explained it was in international airspace and descending towards the ship that shot it down, when it was in Iranian airspace and climbing. Two other American warships recognized it as a commercial flight.

The captain of the ship who shot it down was given a medal for his services during that time. He should have been punished instead.

Quite a contrast in handling very similar fuckups.

That was an interesting scenario and gave rise to more research into the psychological condition of "scenario fulfilment". Way above my level of understanding but it is a kind of "brain fog" in high stress situations whereby the persons is faced with a certain a scenario and course of action, then fills in any gaps using their own judgement, or that's what Air Crash investigation said on Discovery ?

Back to the topic, the TOR system does have IFF but it seems in this case, the difficulty faced was identifying the targets which were non hostile:

https://uk.reuters.com/article/uk-iran-crash-missiles-explainer/explainer-missile-system-suspected-of-bringing-down-airliner-short-range-fast-and-deadly-idUKKBN1Z90A0

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

9 hours ago, awesum4 said:

At least they have openly admitted it in only a few days. Which means they may learn from their mistakes.

The USA denied they shot down the Iran air flight in 1988. Then they explained it was in international airspace and descending towards the ship that shot it down, when it was in Iranian airspace and climbing. Two other American warships recognized it as a commercial flight.

The captain of the ship who shot it down was given a medal for his services during that time. He should have been punished instead.

Quite a contrast in handling very similar fuckups.

I agree. I am not certain about your second sentence. 

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

21 hours ago, awesum4 said:

At least they have openly admitted it in only a few days. Which means they may learn from their mistakes.

The USA denied they shot down the Iran air flight in 1988. Then they explained it was in international airspace and descending towards the ship that shot it down, when it was in Iranian airspace and climbing. Two other American warships recognized it as a commercial flight.

The captain of the ship who shot it down was given a medal for his services during that time. He should have been punished instead.

Quite a contrast in handling very similar fuckups.

The U.S. did apologize for the downing of the Iran Air Flight 655 (REAGAN APOLOGIZED TO IRAN FOR DOWNING OF JETLINER).  The U.S. also paid over $60 million in compensation to the families of the victims and another $70 million to Iran Air for the plane.

The Pentagon denied the intital report of a U.S. warship shooting down a civilian airliner, stating the USS Vincennes had shot down an Iranian military plane.  That's what the crew and captain of the Vincennes believed at the time, but the Pentagon acknowledged within a couple of hours it had been a civilian passenger jet.  What has remained a point of dispute for over 30 years is the reason why the captain of the Vincennes ordered the firing of missiles at the Airbus A300.

The answer is very complicated and involves many factors, but basically the crew members assigned to the Aegis combat control system misinterpreted the information the system gave them.  The captain was at the time engaged in directing a battle against Iranian gunboats and based his order to fire at the Airbus on the crew's belief it was military aircraft that had ignored 10 messages from the Vincennes.  He received a medal for his two-year service as commander of the Vincennes, during which he saved many lives, including the rescue of Vietnamese boat people.

Evil

Edited January 14, 2020 by Evil Penevil

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

10 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

The U.S. did apologize for the downing of the Iran Air Flight 655 (REAGAN APOLOGIZED TO IRAN FOR DOWNING OF JETLINER).  The U.S. also paid over $60 million in compensation to the families of the victims and another $70 million to Iran Air for the plane.

The Pentagon denied the intital report of a U.S. warship shooting down a civilian airliner, stating the USS Vincennes had shot down an Iranian military plane.  That's what the crew and captain of the Vincennes believed at the time, but the Pentagon acknowledged within a couple of hours it had been a civilian passenger jet.  What has remained a point of dispute for over 30 years is the reason why the captain of the Vincennes ordered the firing of missiles at the Airbus A300.

The answer is very complicated and involves many factors, but basically the crew members assigned to the Aegis combat control system misinterpreted the information the system gave them.  The captain was at the time engaged in directing a battle against Iranian gunboats and based his order to fire at the Airbus on the crew's belief it was military aircraft that had ignored 10 messages from the Vincennes.  He received a medal for his two-year service as commander of the Vincennes, during which he saved many lives, including the rescue of Vietnamese boat people.

Evil

Thanks for the clarification!

[awesum4 2,332]

16 hours ago, Evil Penevil said:

The U.S. did apologize for the downing of the Iran Air Flight 655 (REAGAN APOLOGIZED TO IRAN FOR DOWNING OF JETLINER).  The U.S. also paid over $60 million in compensation to the families of the victims and another $70 million to Iran Air for the plane.

The Pentagon denied the intital report of a U.S. warship shooting down a civilian airliner, stating the USS Vincennes had shot down an Iranian military plane.  That's what the crew and captain of the Vincennes believed at the time, but the Pentagon acknowledged within a couple of hours it had been a civilian passenger jet.  What has remained a point of dispute for over 30 years is the reason why the captain of the Vincennes ordered the firing of missiles at the Airbus A300.

The answer is very complicated and involves many factors, but basically the crew members assigned to the Aegis combat control system misinterpreted the information the system gave them.  The captain was at the time engaged in directing a battle against Iranian gunboats and based his order to fire at the Airbus on the crew's belief it was military aircraft that had ignored 10 messages from the Vincennes.  He received a medal for his two-year service as commander of the Vincennes, during which he saved many lives, including the rescue of Vietnamese boat people.

Evil

Thanks for the clarification.

The points in dispute are worrying aspects to this case.

The captain was ordered to stop pursuing the iranian gunboats, had he have obeyed that    order he would not have been in the position to need to fire on the aircraft. Was he reprimanded for this?

The plane was on a commercial flight path heading for Dubai. It was climbing as normal, not descending to attack.

They mistook a civilian airliner for a much smaller jet fighter. Were the aircraft recognition systems that enable antiaircraft systems to tell friend from foe and military from civilian aircraft in place at that time?

The pilots were on a civilian band communicating with air traffic control, not monitoring military bands, so to claim it ignored warnings was hspurious.

 

Edited January 14, 2020 by awesum4

[jacko 8,814]

On 1/13/2020 at 12:50 PM, awesum4 said:

At least they have openly admitted it in only a few days. Which means they may learn from their mistakes.

The USA denied they shot down the Iran air flight in 1988. Then they explained it was in international airspace and descending towards the ship that shot it down, when it was in Iranian airspace and climbing. Two other American warships recognized it as a commercial flight.

The captain of the ship who shot it down was given a medal for his services during that time. He should have been punished instead.

Quite a contrast in handling very similar fuckups.

Both incidents seem extremely similar, the criminal downing of a commercial and harmless  aircraft full of innocent people, followed by a pack of lies, then contrite admissions of guilt with a few excuses thrown in. Both shameful and hinting of incompetence and lack of safeguards. Add MH17 to the mix and we can see the world's military appear to be making commercial flying unsafe. If it wasn't for the 737 Max the major cause of airline deaths would be the military, rather than accidents.  Trigger happy is the best I can come up with. Two incidents would have been avoided if the USA were not involved, playing away from home.... 

Many of us Europeans fly over these areas en-route between Thailand and home, and I must admit to a slight trepidation, mellowed by Drambuie, as I could see my aircraft deviating from the usual route.   

 

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

2 hours ago, jacko said:

Both incidents seem extremely similar, the criminal downing of a commercial and harmless  aircraft full of innocent people, followed by a pack of lies, then contrite admissions of guilt with a few excuses thrown in. Both shameful and hinting of incompetence and lack of safeguards. Add MH17 to the mix and we can see the world's military appear to be making commercial flying unsafe. If it wasn't for the 737 Max the major cause of airline deaths would be the military, rather than accidents.  Trigger happy is the best I can come up with. Two incidents would have been avoided if the USA were not involved, playing away from home.... 

Many of us Europeans fly over these areas en-route between Thailand and home, and I must admit to a slight trepidation, mellowed by Drambuie, as I could see my aircraft deviating from the usual route.   

 

I disagree with the characterization of criminal. When the Soviets shot down the Korean Air jet in 1983, that was a situation where the Soviet pilot should have been able to could clearly tell it was a civilian airliner but was commanded to shoot it down (they still deny it that it was anything but a legal shootdown). That happened at a time of increased tensions between the USSR and USA.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Korean_Air_Lines_Flight_007

I have been in combat. It is very chaotic and adrenaline is pumping. Decisions are made with limited time for thinking. I think that both the US incident and this latest incident were tragic mistakes when blood was up. 

Also, the Iranians announced the arrest of over 30 people for this. I find that crazy. There is no way 30 people were in the chain of decision making to shoot that missile as it is. I doubt it is all low level guys but that is just a hunch.

https://abcnews.go.com/International/iran-announces-arrests-shootdown-ukrainian-passenger-plane-killed/story?id=68264760

There have been a number of incidents, including over the Ukraine, where flights should have not taken off during hostilities or over territory going through hostilities. Those are the idiots I blame. These planes should have been grounded.

As to the original topic, Boeing announced its worst year in 3 decades because of the 737 Max grounding and cancelled orders.

https://www.businessinsider.com/boeing-737-max-loses-orders-negative-2019-2020-1

 

 

[jacko 8,814]

37 minutes ago, midlifecrisis said:

I disagree with the characterization of criminal

I have to stop there, because if you do not categorize it as criminal, I presume you say it was legal? 

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

1 hour ago, jacko said:

I have to stop there, because if you do not categorize it as criminal, I presume you say it was legal? 

No. Not all deaths cause by human error are criminal. Even with those that are categorized as criminal, there are degrees.

So whose a criminal? The guy who pressed the button who thought he was defending his country?

His superior (fog of war?)

edit: a non war example. Today, a jet had to dump fuel over LA. A bunch of kids and adults got wet. The rules say over 5000 ft so that the fuel evaporates. Usually it is over water or rural areas. This was at 3000 fet and lower.

Is someone at fault? The pilot could have been thinking it was his/her only choice. This is non combat but the principle is the same. This is a tense situation and mistakes can be made when there is no time to reflect. You act. You rely on your training.

 

 

Edited January 15, 2020 by midlifecrisis

[nkped 1,208]

I would be at least uncertain as to whether a civilian airliner would have an IFF transponder.  My very dated understanding of the concept was that the targeting radar pinged a targeted military aircraft and, if it is a good guy, it returns the code for "I'm one of yours."  Not much good if a random commercial aircraft comes back friendly.

Designing an air defense system which doesn't periodically shoot down commercial aircraft must pose challenges.  I suspect the South Koreans would have insight on that given that given the location of Seoul Incheon and Kimpo.

[jacko 8,814]

3 hours ago, midlifecrisis said:

Is someone at fault?

Yes, and had a kid been smoking and burst into flames who would have been responsible then? The pilot actually ignored training and regulations! Like the drunk driver killing a pedestrian. 

The military are responsible and if training made them do it, the training is inadequate, or not fit for purpose. We have 2 instances where an UNIDENTIFIED flying object, one climbing and one heading in a different direction were fired upon.

Add in the others and it is becoming all too common.

Edited January 15, 2020 by jacko

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

9 hours ago, jacko said:

Yes, and had a kid been smoking and burst into flames who would have been responsible then? The pilot actually ignored training and regulations! Like the drunk driver killing a pedestrian. 

The military are responsible and if training made them do it, the training is inadequate, or not fit for purpose. We have 2 instances where an UNIDENTIFIED flying object, one climbing and one heading in a different direction were fired upon.

Add in the others and it is becoming all too common.

Perhaps in your country. It would be handled civily here because the pilot may have been forced by circumstances to dump his fuel sooner. He was handling an emergency situation and you have classified him a criminal without knowing all of the facts.

Edited January 15, 2020 by midlifecrisis

[jacko 8,814]

59 minutes ago, midlifecrisis said:

He was handling an emergency situation and you have classidied him a criminal without knowing all of the facts.

Quote me where I said that! 

Here is the incident you mention... not a 737 Max  or otherwise.

Edited January 15, 2020 by jacko

[wacmedia 277]

Hi,

The MAX problems seem to have hit the company hard.

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-51115650

737 Max crisis: Boeing sees lowest orders in decades

The company also said deliveries of its planes slumped to an 11-year low last year.

It means the US firm has lost its title as the world's biggest plane maker to European rival Airbus.

The 737 Max has been grounded since March after two crashes in which 346 people were killed.

Boeing said net orders after cancellations for 2019 totalled just 54 planes. That compares with 893 the previous year.

At the same time deliveries fell by 53% to 380 planes, the lowest number since 2007.

In comparison, Boeing's main rival Airbus said earlier this month that it delivered a record 863 planes in 2019 and racked up a net 768 orders after cancellations.

 

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

7 hours ago, jacko said:

Quote me where I said that! 

Here is the incident you mention... not a 737 Max  or otherwise.

You are saying that if someone had died because of this, it would be a crime.

"The pilot actually ignored training and regulations! Like the drunk driver killing a pedestrian."

Not necessarily in my country. Perhaps in yours. BTW, The rules for fuel dumping are not laws but guidelines here. Perhaps in your country that is different.

I remember in France after Princess Di died, all civil suits were tied to the criminal complaint. If found not guilty in the criminal complaint, the civil complaints are dismissed. So. laws are much different from country to country.

Edited January 15, 2020 by midlifecrisis

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

The attached video contains disturbing footage starting at about 3 minutes in.

The police were exonerated. Not everything we think should be classified as criminal is classified as criminal.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/national/fresno-police-release-body-camera-footage-of-fatal-dylan-noble-shooting/2016/07/14/d1cc3aec-499f-11e6-8dac-0c6e4accc5b1_video.html

I won't say more on this particular sidetrack.

[jacko 8,814]

13 hours ago, midlifecrisis said:

You are saying that if someone had died because of this, it would be a crime.

"The pilot actually ignored training and regulations! Like the drunk driver killing a pedestrian."

Not necessarily in my country. Perhaps in yours. BTW, The rules for fuel dumping are not laws but guidelines here. Perhaps in your country that is different.

I remember in France after Princess Di died, all civil suits were tied to the criminal complaint. If found not guilty in the criminal complaint, the civil complaints are dismissed. So. laws are much different from country to country.

I am saying charges likely would have been brought. And since the pilot ignored rules there would have been a likelihood of him or the airline having to answer to them. Particularly in your country where litigation is made for passing gas and blood-sucking lawyers creep out of the woodwork.  But haven't we gone off topic... innocent airline passengers have again been killed by negligence and an apparently trigger happy military. You are playing both sides. 

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

10 hours ago, jacko said:

I am saying charges likely would have been brought. And since the pilot ignored rules there would have been a likelihood of him or the airline having to answer to them. Particularly in your country where litigation is made for passing gas and blood-sucking lawyers creep out of the woodwork.  But haven't we gone off topic... innocent airline passengers have again been killed by negligence and an apparently trigger happy military. You are playing both sides. 

No. I just understand how the US law works. And again, in LA these were not "rules". It is not a law. They are FAA guidelines.

enough of this sub thread for me.

Edited January 16, 2020 by midlifecrisis

[Evil Penevil 7,628]

 

On 1/15/2020 at 2:07 AM, awesum4 said:

The points in dispute are worrying aspects to this case.

Before I get into the nitty-gritty, it's important to note the downing of  Iran Air 655 in July , 1988,   came in the wake of the Stark incident.  About a year earlier,  in May, 1987, the USS Stark had been attacked in neutral waters by a Iraqi jet that mistook it for an Iranian oil tanker.  Two missiles hit the Stark,  killing 37 sailors and wounding 21.  This caused huge public outrage in the U.S. and prompted some major policy changes within in the U.S. government and Navy.  A court of inquiry recommended the court martial of the Stark's captain and chief executive officer, both career Navy men, for failing to defend their ship.  The top Navy brass chose not to court martial them, but they were reprimanded and forced to resign.  

The two officers had been accused of delaying defensive action too long as they attempted to determine if the plane was military and had hostile intentions.  The Navy sent a clear message to all its captains that defending their ships and the lives of U.S. personnel were their primary duties.   

On the technical side, the radar of the Stark's anti-missile system had failed to pick up the two missiles attacking it.  This exposed weaknesses in the naval radar used to defend many U.S. warships at the time.  

It was against this background the USS Vincennes had been ordered into the Persian Gulf as part of Operation Good Will to protect U.S. vessels that were escorting Kuwati oil tankers during the "Tanker War" phase of the Iran-Iraq War.

On 1/15/2020 at 2:07 AM, awesum4 said:

The captain was ordered to stop pursuing the iranian gunboats, had he have obeyed that    order he would not have been in the position to need to fire on the aircraft. Was he reprimanded for this?

This could get complicated and very lengthy.  Some of the  accounts of the incident that appeared in the mainstream media weren't accurate. You can find the best and most complete account here.  The USS Vincennes was one of the first Navy warships to be equipped with the Aegis integrated naval defense and weapons system.  The commander of the Vincennes was thought to be under "secret" orders to test the system as thoroughly as possible under actual combat conditions.  He also had very firm orders to protect the billion-dollar Aegis system as well as the ships which were being escorted.

But to answer your question-  no, he was not reprimanded for his actions in connection with the downing of Iran Air 655.  The official report felt he had ordered the shooting down of Iran Air  655 on the basis of faulty information from his crew.

On 1/15/2020 at 2:07 AM, awesum4 said:

The plane was on a commercial flight path heading for Dubai. It was climbing as normal, not descending to attack.

They mistook a civilian airliner for a much smaller jet fighter. Were the aircraft recognition systems that enable antiaircraft systems to tell friend from foe and military from civilian aircraft in place at that time?

There was a design flaw in the display function of the Aegis system that had to do with the tracking numbers assigned to aircraft which the system detected.   For a long time investigators were mystified as to how the 18-man crew that manned the Aegis system could have mistaken the Airbus for a military  jet.  For over a decade, the Navy felt the most plausible explanation was a mass psychological factor called "scenario fulfillment."  However,  other information emerged after 2000 that indicated the screens of the Aegis system were confusing and may have displayed the wrong information.  

Basically,  the display led the crew to believe the ascending Iran Air 655 was a descending Iranian military plane much farther away.  There were also mistakes regarding time zones and air speed vs ground speed when identifying Iran Air 655, which had taken off from an airport used for both civilian and military flights.

On 1/15/2020 at 2:07 AM, awesum4 said:

The pilots were on a civilian band communicating with air traffic control, not monitoring military bands, so to claim it ignored warnings was hspurious.

The U.S. government issued a NOTAM (Notice to Airmen) warning airlines that operated flights that crossed the Persian Gulf.  The need to respond to messages from U.S. military vessels was emphasized. It's crazy the Iranian government allowed a civilian flight to take off when a naval battle was raging directly under its flight path.  It's almost as if they wanted it shot down

At that time, Iran was using human-wave suicide attacks in its land battles with Iraq.  Ten of thousands of "matyrs," mostly civilians,  were used in these attacks.    A version of the "swarm" suicide attack was also tried by groups of Iranian gunboats.  Suicide attacks were a big part of Iran's strategy.  Some observers believed Iran was trying to manipulate the U.S. into attacking a civilian flight as this would put pressure on the U.S. to stop its tanker escort missions. Two hundred ninety "martyrs" is nothing to the Iranian government in this connection.   The Iranians were getting their asses kicked at this point in the Iran-Iraq War and needed either a miracle to turn the tide or an excuse for seeking a cease-fire.  

The shooting down of Flight 655 didn't provide the mullahs with a miracle as the U.S. continued esorting tankers and attacking Revolutionary Guards' unit.  It did give the Iranian government an excuse for a cease-fire.

Evil

[midlifecrisis 4,048]

Thanks to EP for posting that excellent account of the 1988 incident.

In large part I blame the airline company and the pilot. The pilot has the final say if it is safe to fly or not. In the latest incident and in 1988, airline companies seemed to put profit over the safety of their passengers and crew. 

As one who flies, I wouldn't have boarded any flight knowing that missiles were flying. There have been too many incidents where civilian planes have been shot down in areas experiencing violent conflict.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_airliner_shootdown_incidents

Edited January 17, 2020 by midlifecrisis