# Ukraine International Airlines PS752



## Crimea_River (Jan 9, 2020)

Just turned on the news to see video evidence that this aircraft was brought down by a missile shortly after departing Tehran airport.

176 lives lost, 63 of whom were Canadian citizens.

I'm upset, sad and angry and don't know what to think. This will not doubt get political and will get shut down quickly. In the meantime, I can only hope this stupid world comes to its senses. F!ck me.....

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Agree Agree:
8 | Like List reactions


----------



## rochie (Jan 9, 2020)

I agree my friend, sad times indeed

Reactions: Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Airframes (Jan 9, 2020)

Agree too. When I first saw the reports and video / stills, yesterday, my initial reaction was that this didn't look like a crash due to "engine failure", as the debris field seemed wide and scattered, more in line with an airborne explosion, or very large explosion on impact.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 10, 2020)

I couldn't understand how engine failure was determined before the black boxes and wreckage were examined, especially with no distress call. I read on the BBC this morning that the site was being bulldozed.

Regardless, it really is tragic.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 10, 2020)

Aside from the amateur video, the remains of a Russian SAM were found on the ground, which was the first tip off. They apparently fired two of them.

And reportedly, USAF missile early warning satellites saw not only the Scud launches but also the missiles that brought down the airliner. 

Iran has said, "Prove we did it!" But they have agreed to accept some Transport Canada investigators.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Jan 10, 2020)

Who were the Cretins that decided: "Gee Guys were in the middle of a potential war zone with missiles zooming through the sky all around us, let's take off and fly through them."

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2020)

vikingBerserker said:


> I couldn't understand how engine failure was determined before the black boxes and wreckage were examined, especially with no distress call. I read on the BBC this morning that the site was being bulldozed.
> 
> Regardless, it really is tragic.



It was “determined” to be engine failure by the Iranians before an investigation had been done because they already knew that they shot it down. What were they going to say? “Oops, sorry. We shot it down.”


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 10, 2020)

Well, supposedly the airport was still open and other flights were arriving and departing. Maybe they did not have their radar transponder set correctly. 

The Ukrainians themselves shot down a Air Siberia commercial flight with a SAM in 2001. They were conducting military exercises and I guess they mistook it for a target drone.

Or, it could be like what occurred at the first operational Nike Ajax site in the US, at Ft Meade. It was the first site built and the only one that was entirely above ground, since it was on Federal Govt property and they did not have to pay for the greatly increased land area. It was normal procedure to run simulations by tracking passing airliners, and one day they were doing just that when rain water caused a short circuit and a simulated launch turned out to be a real one. Fortunately, the safety pins were still in the missile and as it launched it broke up. Debris fell on the BW Parkway, and the site commander ran over to the impact area, gathered the missile parts, and threw them in the trunk of his car. The nitric acid propellant ate the bottom out of his trunk; his next assignment was in Northern Canada. 

At another Nike site in NJ they were installing new safe and arm devices for the missile warheads and found that the S&A's did not fit into the screw in sockets very tightly. Ever see anyone take wire and wrap it around a light bulb socket because it fits too loosely? Well, that is what they did. The missile they were working on exploded, killing everyone in the immediate vicinity. One of the adjacent missiles ignited and took flight but fortunately hit a low hill before it could end up in NYC or somewhere. Damage to the surrounding facilities and civilian buildings was extensive.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 10, 2020)

From the BBC:
On 8 January, at 06:12 local time (02:42 GMT), UIA flight PS752 took off from Tehran's Imam Khomeini International Airport.
The plane was a Boeing 737-800 - one of the international airline industry's most widely used aircraft models.
*Before it had left the airport's air space, the plane turned around and tried to return to the runway.* Shortly afterwards, it crashed.
Iranian authorities have blamed technical issues, but the crash's timing - just hours after Iran launched missiles at US targets in Iraq - provoked speculation about other possible causes.
Tom Burridge, the BBC's transport correspondent, said the rapid disappearance of tracking data suggested a catastrophic incident occurred.
Some aviation experts have also cast doubt on claims, made shortly after the crash on Iranian state media, that the crash was likely to have been caused by an engine fire.
Commercial aircraft are designed to be able to withstand - in general - a failed engine and to land safety.
On Thursday, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau said evidence suggested an Iranian missile brought down the aircraft by accident.
"We have intelligence from multiple sources, including our allies and our own intelligence," Mr Trudeau told a news conference in Ottawa. "The evidence indicates that the plane was shot down by an Iranian surface-to-air missile. This may well have been unintentional."
He was echoing earlier reports in US media, which said Pentagon officials were confident that the aircraft was shot down.
Newsweek cited Pentagon and Iraqi sources as saying the strike was probably accidental. CBS News then said US intelligence officials had picked up signals indicating a radar was turned on and two missiles launched.
Iran's Civil Aviation Organisation (CAOI) released its own initial report into the crash on Thursday.
It said the Boeing 737-800 suffered a technical problem shortly after take-off, and cited witnesses, including the crew of another passenger plane, that it was on fire prior to impact.
Authorities said they lost radar contact when the plane was at an altitude of about 8,000ft (2,400m), minutes after taking off.
*No radio distress call was made by the pilot,* the report said. *"Several domestic and foreign flights were flying in Iranian space at the same altitude.* The issue of the missile's impact on the aircraft cannot be true in any way," CAOI chief Ali Abedzadeh said.

I added the italics. I had not heard that the aircraft tried to turn and return. Seems like something you'd do if there were some type of failure developing. I don't think that commercial aircraft have missile/radar lock warning systems like fighter jets.
No distress call seems to indicate a a rapid catastrophic event. Hopefully the black box will have cockpit recordings.
Several flights in the air at the time so why would the Iranians target a Ukrainian flight. A US aircraft would seem a more more likely target.
In any case if it were missiles they can't totally vanish after exploding something should remain as evidence


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 10, 2020)

The attached photos compare debris found in the area with a Russian built TOR missile. Accuracy of the info is unknown.

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## buffnut453 (Jan 10, 2020)

mikewint said:


> Several flights in the air at the time so why would the Iranians target a Ukrainian flight. A US aircraft would seem a more more likely target.



I'm not sure this was a deliberately targeted act. It's entirely possible, given the raised tensions, that an Iranian SAM crew may have mistaken the Ukrainian flight for a hostile act by an American military aircraft, and so launched missiles. 

Whatever the cause, the loss of life is truly tragic.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2020)

Mike, it’s highly unlikely they intentionally picked out and targeted the aircraft. It was most likely mistaken as a military hostile threat.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 10, 2020)

Might be a similar to the chain of events that led to the USS Vincennes shooting down the Iran Air flight # 655 Airbus in 1988, 290 people died.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2020)

Iran has now admitted to shooting it down...

Iran Says It Unintentionally Shot Down Ukrainian Airliner


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 10, 2020)

tyrodtom said:


> Might be a similar to the chain of events that led to the USS Vincennes shooting down the Iran Air flight # 655 Airbus in 1988, 290 people died.



The official Iranian statement says that it was mistaken as a military target when it turned toward a Revolutionary Guard facility, and that those responsible will be prosecuted. We all know what that means.


----------



## GrauGeist (Jan 11, 2020)

Interesting how Iran's statement has changed from "probably engine failure" to "oops, we accidently shot it down"...


----------



## Airframes (Jan 11, 2020)

Pressure of suggestion, offering an opportunity to save face, important in the Arab world.
Canada for example, "suggested" it might have been shot down unintentionally. World media and political pressure offer evidence, including video footage, that it _was_ a missile strike. Rather than bluster further, Iran states it has investigated, and now admit it was an error etc etc.
Saving face.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 11, 2020)

In the case of the USS Vincennes, the ship had been in combat with Iranian naval forces all morning. Then an airliner took off from Tehran and headed toward the ship. Admittedly, later there was concern at the Pentagon that the ship's systems had not been tested in an environment where multiple powerful RF emitters are operating and that may have led to an inaccurate radar presentation. But just as in this case, no one ever thought anyone would be stupid enough to route a commercial airliner through a combat area.

While in the West we think of war and peace as being distinct and separate conditions, it seems that in Muslim countries they are always simultaneously at war and at peace. The idea of doing something differently because there is shooting going on never occurs to them, perhaps because in their societies there is always combat of some kind going on somewhere.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Informative Informative:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## tyrodtom (Jan 11, 2020)

MIflyer said:


> In the case of the USS Vincennes, the ship had been in combat with Iranian naval forces all morning. Then an airliner took off from Tehran and headed toward the ship. Admittedly, later there was concern at the Pentagon that the ship's systems had not been tested in an environment where multiple powerful RF emitters are operating and that may have led to an inaccurate radar presentation. But just as in this case, no one ever thought anyone would be stupid enough to route a commercial airliner through a combat area.
> 
> While in the West we think of war and peace as being distinct and separate conditions, it seems that in Muslim countries they are always simultaneously at war and at peace. The idea of doing something differently because there is shooting going on never occurs to them, perhaps because in their societies there is always combat of some kind going on somewhere.




When all else fails, always blame the victim.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 11, 2020)

The West may have been about to drop evidence that clearly showed the 737 was shot down. So Iran had to fess up or look like fools. 

Although pretty obvious it was shot down and that was my first thought when I heard it had crashed. 

I imagine walls and shooty things are in the future for the SAM crew. 

To be honest the whole thing puzzles me. Iran launched a deliberate military attack against a USA base and doesnt turn into a glowing moonscape. Its almost like it was a deal so Iran can keep face and de-escalate the conflict. 

Strange business but Iran is known for giving it back so maybe this was a way to keep the peace.


----------



## at6 (Jan 11, 2020)

Either way, my condolences to the families of the victims.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
5 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 11, 2020)

Exactly. It really was a needless tragedy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
4 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Jan 11, 2020)

To say the very very least. There was no rhyme or reason to it, proved nothing, accomplished nothing. Either deliberate or the grand-daddy of all screw-ups. At the commercial airport, hours after their missile strike, multiple civilian commercial flights in the air, ONE makes a turn towards a military base and the cretins launch two SAMs to blow it out of the sky. Oh yea, sounds reasonable, US military bombers ALWAYS take-off that way. They'll probably round up a group of untrained impressed country bumpkins, blame them, and do a quick head-lop. Just one of those whoopsies


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 12, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> What were they going to say? “Oops, sorry. We shot it down.”


That would be a good start.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Jan 12, 2020)

Total honesty in government???....Yea...and the Check is in the mail!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 12, 2020)

mikewint said:


> Total honesty in government???....


Well, saying you did it by accident is very useful, as it averts the possibility of a war.


> Yea...and the Check is in the mail!


*does his country bumkin accent* Why do I have the feelin' I won't be seein' that check?


----------



## MIflyer (Jan 12, 2020)

Best theory I've heard is that the movie "Argo" finally made it to Iranian TV and they were so POed that they just had to shoot down an airliner loaded with Canadians, figuring they were all US spies.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 13, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I won't be seein' that check?


Honest, it's just a cold sore!

Reactions: Funny Funny:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Crimea_River (Jan 13, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> ....
> *does his country bumkin accent* Why do I have the feelin' I won't be seein' that check?





mikewint said:


> Honest, it's just a cold sore!



Disappointing, if not surprising, that you two can make light of this.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Winner Winner:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 13, 2020)

Crimea_River said:


> Disappointing, if not surprising, that you two can make light of this.


I doubt either of us are happy that an airliner was blown out of the sky killing a whole bunch of innocent people.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 13, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> I doubt either of us are happy that an airliner was blown out of the sky killing a whole bunch of innocent people.



I don’t think he said anything about being happy.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Jan 14, 2020)

NOT making light of *ANYTHING* related to this terrible and deliberate act (no matter what they say now). Personally what I (speaking for myself) am casting aspersions on the this so called theocratic government initially lying through its collective teeth THEN backtracking with a forked tongue: " WHOOPSE!! our Bad so sorry". So simply put I intended a barb toward any notion that governments are honest and have any intent other than their own self interest.

As to the use of Humor consider that at first thought Humor and tragedy together may seem an oxymoron but the reality of the human condition is that Humor and Tragedy are inextricably linked. We laugh at the comedian doing a Pratt-Fall. The potentially deadly violence of the Three Stooges. Today there are jokes on line about 9/11. In the words of Mark Twain: "Humor is tragedy plus time"
Erma Bombeck once said, “There is a thin line that separates laughter and pain, comedy and tragedy, humor and hurt.” 
Mel Brooks summed it up best: “Tragedy is when I cut my finger. Comedy is when you fall into an open sewer and die.”

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 14, 2020)

I don’t think there was any notion that Iran was being honest and had any intent other than their own self interest, so the point was moot.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
3 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 14, 2020)

mikewint said:


> As to the use of Humor consider that at first thought Humor and tragedy together may seem an oxymoron but the reality of the human condition is that Humor and Tragedy are inextricably linked. . . . Erma Bombeck once said, “There is a thin line that separates laughter and pain, comedy and tragedy, humor and hurt.”


Usually true.


----------



## vikingBerserker (Jan 14, 2020)

Mike, reread the very first post in this thread. There is a time and place for bad humor, and this is not one of them.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
2 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 15, 2020)

Dictatorships work like we will protect you from the bad guys. So there is always an external threat so in the Iranian case that will be the Great Satan Good ol' US of A. 

However oddly most dictatorships are instead the gravediggers of their own people not the saviours.

So when Iran shoots down an airliner and then tries to cover it up it says exactly what you need to know about Iran.

This could be the domino effect which could bring down the house of cards. Iran is to be busy shooting Iranians to bother with a war in which it will be stomped.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Jan 15, 2020)

vikingBerserker said:


> bad humor, and this is not one of them.


Apologies to all who took it in that light. My statements were directed towards anyone naive enough to believe, even for an instant that Iran could even begin to define HONESTY. NOT, NOT, in anyway shape or form towards the actual shoot down of that aircraft.

I would again reiterate that humor and tragedy do go hand in hand. After the 9/11 terrorist acts there were jokes about everything from creating a parking lot out of the Middle East to kicking Afghan puppies. One joke told of rumors that a large retail store was moving to Afghanistan: Target! Sick? Morbid? Indeed but nay-the-less a coping mechanism. The Onion on September 26, 2001 published a series of articles on the attack. Two of the most popular of their articles were: “God Angrily Clarifies ‘Don’t Kill’ Rule.” and “Highjackers Surprised to Find Selves in Hell -- Insist they were promised eternal paradise and 67 virgins!” Sick? or a type of humor that denigrates the enemy 
Consider the sign by a bombed out, roofless store during the London Blitz: “More open for business than usual.” If you can laugh at something it can’t be so overwhelming. 
Humor is individual, and everyone moves through a tragic event at a different speed. Some people need more time to process an event than others. These differences can cause conflicts especially when one person takes offense at another’s humor.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Snautzer01 (Jan 15, 2020)

I for one do not think Mike tried to be funny of any sort in his post that vikingbeserker mentioned. I appreciat the fine line here because of the terrible loss of life. I read a well thought through post and not for a second thought a cheap shot.

Reactions: Agree Agree:
1 | Friendly Friendly:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2020)

mikewint said:


> Apologies to all who took it in that light. My statements were directed towards anyone naive enough to believe, even for an instant that Iran could even begin to define HONESTY. NOT, NOT, in anyway shape or form towards the actual shoot down of that aircraft.
> 
> I would again reiterate that humor and tragedy do go hand in hand. After the 9/11 terrorist acts there were jokes about everything from creating a parking lot out of the Middle East to kicking Afghan puppies. One joke told of rumors that a large retail store was moving to Afghanistan: Target! Sick? Morbid? Indeed but nay-the-less a coping mechanism. The Onion on September 26, 2001 published a series of articles on the attack. Two of the most popular of their articles were: “God Angrily Clarifies ‘Don’t Kill’ Rule.” and “Highjackers Surprised to Find Selves in Hell -- Insist they were promised eternal paradise and 67 virgins!” Sick? or a type of humor that denigrates the enemy
> Consider the sign by a bombed out, roofless store during the London Blitz: “More open for business than usual.” If you can laugh at something it can’t be so overwhelming.
> Humor is individual, and everyone moves through a tragic event at a different speed. Some people need more time to process an event than others. These differences can cause conflicts especially when one person takes offense at another’s humor.



The fact that you think anyone was naive enough to think Iran was honest is rather insulting to our intelligence I think.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 15, 2020)

The BBC's report that the aircraft: *Before it had left the airport's air space, the plane turned around and tried to return to the runway.* Did give me, at least, a thought that just possibly a mechanical/electrical problem had occurred. The thought that missiles had been launched, and two at that, at a helpless commercial airline flight was difficult to comprehend and a few here speculated that it was an accidental missile launch. Buffnut also speculated that perhaps it was not deliberate. Then Zipper's "what were they going to say" post. To which I sarcastically replied "Yea and the check is in the mail" It never occurred to me that anyone could believe Iran capable of such open forthright honesty and that my comment would be taken in the manner intended. Toward *ANYONE *naive enough to believe the Iranians possessed such honesty.

So Chris et al, if you felt splattered by my paintbrush I would reply that: Someone can be offended without you having been offensive. Being offended is not an objective reality. There is no measuring stick of offense. Being offended is an internal response based on how a person interprets a situation. It’s highly subjective.


----------



## fubar57 (Jan 15, 2020)

Probably a good thing I now have Mike blocked. Terrible chain of events. https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/flight-ps752-garneau-update-iran-1.5424649


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2020)

mikewint said:


> The BBC's report that the aircraft: *Before it had left the airport's air space, the plane turned around and tried to return to the runway.* Did give me, at least, a thought that just possibly a mechanical/electrical problem had occurred. The thought that missiles had been launched, and two at that, at a helpless commercial airline flight was difficult to comprehend and a few here speculated that it was an accidental missile launch. Buffnut also speculated that perhaps it was not deliberate. Then Zipper's "what were they going to say" post. To which I sarcastically replied "Yea and the check is in the mail" It never occurred to me that anyone could believe Iran capable of such open forthright honesty and that my comment would be taken in the manner intended. Toward *ANYONE *naive enough to believe the Iranians possessed such honesty.
> 
> So Chris et al, if you felt splattered by my paintbrush I would reply that: Someone can be offended without you having been offensive. Being offended is not an objective reality. There is no measuring stick of offense. Being offended is an internal response based on how a person interprets a situation. It’s highly subjective.



Mike first of all, it was not necessarily deliberate. Was the plane shot down deliberately? Yes, because they thought it was a military aircraft, but even Iran did not go...

“Oh jeez, looky there, it’s a Ukranian airliner full of civilians. Lets fire a missile at it.”

So yes they mistakenly shot it down, not deliberately. So yes it was an accident. Just like when the USS Vincennes shot down an airliner full of civilians back in the 80’s.

Secondly, trust me mike you did not offend me. Re-read what I said carefully. Here, I’ll help...

I said that you thinking people here on the forum are naive to think that Iran was being honest is insulting to our intelligence. 

Most of us are not idiots here...

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## The Basket (Jan 15, 2020)

Problem here that modern Russian SAM are killers to civilian airliners as has been proven on occasion.

So maybe the missile was not deliberately targeted at a civilian airliner.

The Iranians got Moe, Larry and Curly on this absolute beast of a device and we can blame them for that.

You put eejits in charge and they do eejit things. A properly trained crew who are light on their feet and copulate with the Prom Queen are not going to do stupid.

Trick is that if the standard of the SAM crew is so poor then the Americans must be happy as the threat from such devices are considerably lower.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 15, 2020)

Iran certainly needs to be held accountable for this.


----------



## Crimea_River (Jan 15, 2020)

Yep.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 16, 2020)

The Basket said:


> Dictatorships work like we will protect you from the bad guys.


They justify their power by using (or creating) a terrifying external or internal threat to justify their actions.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 16, 2020)

They saying they arrested the guy who took the video of the SAM hit on the jet.

So that solves the problem.


----------



## The Basket (Jan 16, 2020)

Problem is that the SAM boys are going to get justice of the 7.62 by 39 variety.

One issue of dictatorships is a fair trial and a fair hearing are not going to happen.

A kangaroo court on live TV followed by swift execution of sentence is best they can hope for.

Dictatorships may have issues and shortages but bullets are plentiful and cure all ills.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 16, 2020)

Sadly


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> They justify their power by using (or creating) a terrifying external or internal threat to justify their actions.



That is not limited to dictators...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 16, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> That is not limited to dictators...


Yeah, but I wanted to avoid it becoming political so I kept it very narrow...


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2020)

Zipper730 said:


> Yeah, but I wanted to avoid it becoming political so I kept it very narrow...



It will not go further than my comment. That us for sure...


----------



## mikewint (Jan 16, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> So yes they mistakenly shot it down, not deliberately. So yes it was an accident.


Chris, a picky point but the use of the word "accident" as it is used here and in so many other instances colors perception of the event. An "accident" is, by definition, unintentional. We accidentally drop dinner plates, or send e-mails before we're done writing them. The word also suggests something of the unforeseen — an event that couldn't have been anticipated, for which no one can be blamed and yet Iran is offering up Moe, Larry. and Curly.

If I stand in the middle of an interstate highway and wiggle my behind and get hit by a semi, is it an "accident". If I'm in the middle of a Duck Sanctuary with a multitude of ducks flying overhead and I shoot into the air have I "accidentally" shot a duck? 
Moe, Larry, and Curly were stationed next to a commercial civilian airport. It was days after the US drone strike and hours after their retaliatory missile strike. There are several commercial civilian flights that have and are in the process of taking off. I know nothing about the type of targeting/guidance used, RADAR, IR, VISUAL, LASER, or what information the device provided to the launch crew but seriously, assuming that one dot that turns the wrong way is somehow Military with hostile intent is beyond credibility. 
Accident? Probably not deliberate in the sense that the Gomers decided "Let's shoot down a passenger jet today" but "deliberate" and "intentional in the sense that someone decided to launch not one but two SAMS and some pushed a button.

Iranians have constantly referred to July 3, 1988 when the USS Vincennes shot down Iran Air flight 655 The Airbus had taken off from Bandar Abbas, Iran, heading for Dubai in the United Arab Emirates. The Airbus A300 began its ascent as normal, part of a twice-weekly route flown by the airline for over 20 years. The captain communicated with air traffic controllers in English. His last message was: "Thank you, good day."
The Vincennes meanwhile had mistaken the commercial aircraft for an Iranian F-14, despite having state-of-the-art combat equipment at the time. The U.S. says the Navy made 11 radio warning calls on different frequencies before the Vincennes fired two missiles at the airplane, bringing it down and killing all aboard. Again perhaps my lack of knowledge of combat RADAR but mistaking an Airbus for an F-14??? stretches my credulity


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2020)

mikewint said:


> Chris, a picky point but the use of the word "accident" as it is used here and in so many other instances colors perception of the event. An "accident" is, by definition, unintentional. We accidentally drop dinner plates, or send e-mails before we're done writing them. The word also suggests something of the unforeseen — an event that couldn't have been anticipated, for which no one can be blamed and yet Iran is offering up Moe, Larry. and Curly.
> 
> If I stand in the middle of an interstate highway and wiggle my behind and get hit by a semi, is it an "accident". If I'm in the middle of a Duck Sanctuary with a multitude of ducks flying overhead and I shoot into the air have I "accidentally" shot a duck?
> Moe, Larry, and Curly were stationed next to a commercial civilian airport. It was days after the US drone strike and hours after their retaliatory missile strike. There are several commercial civilian flights that have and are in the process of taking off. I know nothing about the type of targeting/guidance used, RADAR, IR, VISUAL, LASER, or what information the device provided to the launch crew but seriously, assuming that one dot that turns the wrong way is somehow Military with hostile intent is beyond credibility.
> ...



You are purposely being obtuse here Mike. Did they deliberately and intentionally target a civilian aircraft, or did they accidentally mistake a Ukrainian airliner for a military aircraft. Hence it was a tragic accident. An accident that Iran must be held accountable for.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 16, 2020)

Chris, not, if you'll re-read my post I asked a question. Do you or anyone else for that matter know/suspect what kind/type os SAM system was used. In general I'm a bit incredulous that, much like with the Vincennes incident how do you "mistake" an Airbus for a F-14? Are these systems THAT inexact?
I'll grant that the grunt operators probably had little or no training besides "Push this button when I tell you to" but one would thing someone with more training/authority was present.


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2020)

mikewint said:


> Chris, not, if you'll re-read my post I asked a question. Do you or anyone else for that matter know/suspect what kind/type os SAM system was used. In general I'm a bit incredulous that, much like with the Vincennes incident how do you "mistake" an Airbus for a F-14? Are these systems THAT inexact?
> I'll grant that the grunt operators probably had little or no training besides "Push this button when I tell you to" but one would thing someone with more training/authority was present.



Mike, I don’t know. I’m not an expert on Russian built air defense systems. I am also not a conspiracy theorist. For those reasons I do not speculate.

I do know that tensions were very high at the time. I also know that stress can make people do odd things. I also know that transponders fail, and radar can return all sorts of signatures. I also know that there are plenty of military bombers that will put off a signature similar to a 737.

I also know that even a country like Iran has nothing to gain from deliberately targeting a Ukrainian airliner.


----------



## Zipper730 (Jan 16, 2020)

I guess the issue comes down to the following

Deliberate action: Self explanatory
Forseeable Accident: It wasn't deliberate, but one should have known better
Unforseeable Accident: It wasn't deliberate and it would have been hard to have dodged that figurative landmine.


----------



## mikewint (Jan 16, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> nothing to gain from deliberately targeting a Ukrainian airliner.


Chris, that was my first thought as well which is why that BBC "turned back toward the airport" gave some hope that it was mechanical/electric.
With your close association to military aircraft I hoped that you had some insights into the operations/returns on a MIL-type RADAR. Transponders can of course be set to give any signature desired and/or turned off. I can see a big Mil-bomber giving the same or similar RADAR signature as 737-800 BUT a B-52 or other type US bomber would standout like a sore thumb at the civilian airport. Were/are they that paranoid that the could think that the US would outfit a 737 as a bomber or perhaps take a play from their own playbook and crash a fuel-laden passenger jet into their Mil-base.
In the true sense of the word "accident" I still don't buy it. Jihadists don't really spend a whole lot of time distinguishing one type of Christian from another. So I'm not promulgating a "Conspiracy" here just ignorance, hatred, and a total lack of forethought. "I killed you 176 Christians my 67 virgins are waiting"


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 16, 2020)

mikewint said:


> Chris, that was my first thought as well which is why that BBC "turned back toward the airport" gave some hope that it was mechanical/electric.
> With your close association to military aircraft I hoped that you had some insights into the operations/returns on a MIL-type RADAR. Transponders can of course be set to give any signature desired and/or turned off. I can see a big Mil-bomber giving the same or similar RADAR signature as 737-800 BUT a B-52 or other type US bomber would standout like a sore thumb at the civilian airport. Were/are they that paranoid that the could think that the US would outfit a 737 as a bomber or perhaps take a play from their own playbook and crash a fuel-laden passenger jet into their Mil-base.
> In the true sense of the word "accident" I still don't buy it. Jihadists don't really spend a whole lot of time distinguishing one type of Christian from another. So I'm not promulgating a "Conspiracy" here just ignorance, hatred, and a total lack of forethought. "I killed you 176 Christians my 67 virgins are waiting"



He turned back to the airport because that is what he is trained to the do. He was still climbing to cruising altitude, and he was hoping to make it back to a runway for landing.

Transponders do not give off a "signature", they give off a specific code or squawk, that is assigned to the aircraft. In addition to identification information, the transponder can also give off altitude information for instance in the case of Mode C. The code is either a general code, or an assigned code. 1200 for instance is the code that is used for VFR flight. If an aircraft is operating in controlled airspace it is given a squawk code by ATC. For instance when I am out flying, and I ask for flight following, the tower will assign me a squawk code. I enter the code into the transponder, and that code then identifies myself to the tower. Other "codes" that can be used are 7500 for instance, when an aircraft has been hijacked. or 7700 when an aircraft is in an emergency situation. Lets say an aircraft loses its radios, the pilot can dial in 7600 into the transponder and it will show up on ATC's radar identifying the aircraft as having lost coms.

Whenever I fly into a controlled airspace, I have to contact the ATC. The tower will ask me to IDENT. "Cherokee 678CA, Squawk 2738, IDENT". I enter in 2738 into the transponder. There is a button on the transponder controller labeled IDENT. When I press IDENT, it lets them know which aircraft on their radar screen is my aircraft. Then they know which aircraft on the screen they are talking to, and have my altitude information. I am now differentiated from all the aircraft they are currently controlling.

As for radar signatures. Can you tell me how a B-52 would look on a screen, or how a 737 would look on a screen? Can you differentiate? I cannot, but then again you and I are not trained on such. So, therefore we can only speculate what we think they see. Speculation is worthless. 

It is irrelevant how you or me for that matter define it. It was a tragic accident because the aircraft was misidentified as a military target. That is the exact meaning of an accident. Like it or not. That does not mean that Iran should not be held accountable and face the consequences of this, but that does not change the fact that it was an accident.

*One final note before I bow out of this conversation. Your last comment "I killed you 176 Christians my 67 virgins are waiting", shows your ignorance, and quite honestly is a very stupid remark. You are aware that 82 of the passengers were Iranians Nationals, 7 were citizens of Afghanistan, and the vast majority of the 63 Canadians were Iranian-Canadians who lived in Canada and were visiting their families in Iran. The majority were of Muslim faith. So your Christians and Virgins comment was uncalled for, and quite honestly lacked class. *

I will leave it at that...

Reactions: Like Like:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## mikewint (Jan 17, 2020)

DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> hoping to make it back to a runway for landing.


Why?? I don't think passenger jets have RADAR warning receivers like fighter jets.
Secondly I really appreciate all the rest of your post. I did not know a lot of what you posted abut transponders so thank you



DerAdlerIstGelandet said:


> As for radar signatures. Can you tell me how a B-52 would look on a screen, or how a 737 would look on a screen? Can you differentiate?



The answer is of course NO. I've seen radar screens from the back of some helos but paid little to know attention, but you missed my point which is/was that I would THINK that a B-52 and 737-800 would possibly look quite similar BUT, I would think that either of those would "look?" different than an F-14 which is much smaller. So while I could understand an ID mistake between the B-52 and 737-800 the very presence of a B-52 at the Iranian airport would have stood out like a neon sign EVERYONE would have been aware of it.
Going back to the US shoot-down of the Iranian passenger jet-
Scientific American stated in an article that in the USS Vincennes incident: 
The Aegis System software reuses tracking numbers in its display, constituting a user interface design flaw. The Aegis software initially assigned on-screen identifier TN4474 to Flight 655. Then just seconds before Vincennes fired, the Aegis software switched the Flight 655 tracking number to TN4131 and recycled Flight 655's old tracking number of TN4474 to label a fighter jet 110 miles away. When the captain asked for a status on TN4474, he was told it was a fighter and descending.
A psychological evaluation of the crew, concluded that stress and inexperience of the crew in warfare, resulted in misjudgment and unconscious distortion of data which played a significant role in the misinterpretation of the data of the Aegis System.
The ship's crew did not efficiently consult commercial airliner schedules due to confusion over which time zone the schedules referred to. The airliner's departure was 27 minutes later than scheduled. "The Combat Information Center (CIC) was also very dark, and the few lights that it did have flickered every time Vincennes fired at the speedboats. This was of special concern to Petty Officer Andrew Anderson, who first picked up Flight 655 on radar and thought that it might be a commercial aircraft. As he was searching in the navy's listing of commercial flights, he apparently missed Flight 655 because it was so dark.
The Navy also re-emphasized to all officers that defense of their ship was their first duty. With this event fresh in the minds of all Navy COs operating in the Persian Gulf,Vincennes' crew may have felt that after making attempts to contact the airliner and receiving no response, their first duty was to defend the ship against hostile action. 

Lastly Chris in reference to your bold face paragraph I stated: #1. that I sincerely doubt that the missile crew had a passenger manifest handy to consult and even if they had it would have made no difference because -
#2. *JIHADISTS- * In 1998, Osama Bin Laden and the heads of four jihadist groups in Egypt, Pakistan and Bangladesh signed a declaration of total war against the United States and its allies, and called for the targeting of both soldiers and *civilians.*
The Prophet Muhammad said Muslim armies should do their best to avoid harming children and other non-combatants. But the declaration says that killing them is an act of reciprocity for the death of Muslim civilians. After 11 September 2001,Bin Laden sought to justify attacking American civilians by arguing that as citizens of a democratic state who elected its leaders, they bore responsibility for their leaders' actions.
ISIS targets religious minorities within its held territory, the group also calls for attacks *against Christians, so-called apostates, Jews, and Hindus worldwide*. One article from ISIS’s online English-language magazine _Dabiq _declared that the militant group rejects any religion that does not parallel its own extremist brand of Sunni Islam. “We hate you,” the article directed at its secular readers, “first and foremost, because you are disbelievers; you reject the oneness of Allah – whether you realize it or not.
As to the presence of non-Christians on the aircraft - the Islamic State *does not view its victims as Muslims*. Indeed, mainstream Sunni Islam—the world's dominant strand of Islam which 90 percent of the world's Muslims, including ISIS, adhere to—views all non-Sunnis as false Muslims; at best, they are heretics who need to submit to the "true Islam." IF a True Muslim gets kill by their actions it is also not a concern because in their view they will immediately ascend to Paradise, E.G. - On Friday, November 24, some 30 gunmen carrying the Islamic State flag bombed and stormed a Sufi mosque in Egypt's North Sinai, about 125 miles northeast of Cairo. They managed to massacre at least 305 people, 27 of whom were children.
As my 67 virgins I was off by 5 - The Quran states that all Muslim males, not only martyrs, will be rewarded with virgins. However, the Quran does also mention that those who fight *in the way of Allah (jihad) *and get killed will be given a "great reward", and there are also hasan (good) hadith which refer to 72 virgins as one of the "seven blessings from Allah" to the martyr. This has lead to the 72 virgins concept being widely used as a way to entice martyrdom.

Reactions: Dislike Dislike:
1 | Like List reactions


----------



## DerAdlerIstGelandet (Jan 17, 2020)

mikewint said:


> Why?? I don't think passenger jets have RADAR warning receivers like fighter jets.
> Secondly I really appreciate all the rest of your post. I did not know a lot of what you posted abut transponders so thank you



Is this a serious question? Why would a pilot try and return back to base after his aircraft was hit by a missile? If you actually read the info, he did not return back to the airport until after he was hit by the 1st missile. He was still able to fly the aircraft for several minutes after the missile hit. When you are within distance of an airport with an actual paved runway, and you can still control the aircraft you try and land the aircraft back at the airport, rather than in the dirt.

Think about it...



mikewint said:


> The answer is of course NO. I've seen radar screens from the back of some helos but paid little to know attention, but you missed my point which is/was that I would THINK that a B-52 and 737-800 would possibly look quite similar BUT, I would think that either of those would "look?" different than an F-14 which is much smaller. So while I could understand an ID mistake between the B-52 and 737-800 the very presence of a B-52 at the Iranian airport would have stood out like a neon sign EVERYONE would have been aware of it.



You of all people should understand the "fog of war". Think about it...



mikewint said:


> Lastly Chris in reference to your bold face paragraph I stated: #1. that I sincerely doubt that the missile crew had a passenger manifest handy to consult and even if they had it would have made no difference because -
> #2. *JIHADISTS- *



I got this far, and seeing that it was only going to be jibberish that has nothing to do with the shooting down of the Ukrainian Airliner, and was just grasping at straws to explain the classless comment you made earlier, I will read no further. Nor does it warrant a response in context to the shootdown of the Ukrainian airliner.

As a matter of fact, I think this thread has completely run its course. And just as Crimea River predicted, the thread would go the way of the dodo bird. *Crimea River* since you obviously have a crystal ball, can you please tell me the next lottery numbers.

Reactions: Bacon Bacon:
2 | Agree Agree:
1 | Like List reactions


----------

