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.

(Visited 129 times, 1 visits today)