In hindsight, should MH17 have avoided Ukraine route?
YOURSAY 'Flying over a conflict zone carries risk, even if declared safe.'
PAS Youth blasts MAS for using high-risk route
Anticonmen: A warning had already been issued by the United States on the hazard of flying over Ukraine.
Why didn't Malaysia Airlines (MAS) heed this warning to avoid this conflict zone completely? Does MAS have flight risk assessment procedures in place?
Even in the case of missing Flight MH370, did MAS follow all checks and risk assessment procedures?
Hplooi: PAS Youth chief Suhaizan Kaiat's question is exactly what I wanted to post, but refrained for reasons of sensitivities and 'appropriateness'. Since PAS has raised this, in my opinion this is a fair question.
The route (despite being considered as 'open' and safe and despite four other flights flown through the route) is by all reckoning of risk-management risky.
So a fair answer should be expected both from MAS and KLM (which co-shared the flight). My condolences to the grieving family members.
Malaysiancare: Even though the airspace MH17 travels through is supposed to be safe, anything could have happen in a conflict zone. Just like when two men are fighting and you walk near them - you may get hit.
Why did other airlines avoid this zone and not MAS? Is it because of saving fuel as reported?
Kit P: Whether there was a review and action done on NOTAMS (notice to airmen) bulletins regarding flight safety concerns over Ukraine is something MAS' management must answer... but later.
The grieving families who have lost their loved ones need to be supported and comforted.
Brahman: Malaysians have this foot-in-mouth syndrome and it has spread to PAS. The route was declared safe for aircraft flying over 32,000 feet.
MAS' aircraft was at 33,000 feet and this route was used by other airlines when this incident happened.
I do not support the inefficiencies and cronyism of this present government, however MAS cannot be faulted for using this route, and I believe whoever was in power could not foresee this incident.
PAS should make constructive comments and suggestions in this moment of grief. Fingerpointing in an incident that could not be foreseen is uncalled for.
Ozzie Jo: I totally agree, people are just getting too emotional and frustrated and not thinking straight. They want a scapegoat, someone to blame and MAS is a clear choice.
The aircraft was blasted out of the skies in a flight route that was open and declared safe by International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO).
It didn't fall out of the skies due to mechanical failure. MAS was purely unlucky to be at the wrong place at the wrong time - a time when the insurgents decided to fire off a surface-to-air missile.
Another four airlines flew exactly that same route just afterwards, but MAS had the misfortune to fly past at the exact moment when the holes in the cheese aligned.
My deepest, deepest sympathies to passengers and crew of the flight - and I happen to know one of the crew members.
Sleepy: I am not trying to defend Suhaizan but I believe PAS was not finger-pointing but rather attempting to remind others, especially regulators, to be cautious when declaring safe zones.
R1: The route was as safe as Sabah, I presume? Flying over a conflict zone always carries higher risk, even if they are declared safe.
FellowMalaysian: Flying commercial jetliners over conflict zones can never be safe by any measure. Tell me if any airlines dares to fly over the Gaza Strip right now? What about over the Syrian airspace?
What have we learned from the MH370 disaster barely four months ago?
Anonymous_3e86: Many other airlines were using the same route as MAS as ICAO had declared it "safe enough" to operate above 32,000 ft. However MAS (and other airlines too) should have been wiser to pick a route that would avoid the troubled area.
It may have incurred a greater fuel cost but it eliminated the risks involved in flying over a conflict zone. MAS happened to be the unlucky one - it could have been Singapore Airlines (SIA) plane, which was flying not far behind MAS.
Progressive: We should have been concerned for the safety of our passengers. And we needed to be proactive. Two aircraft were shot down in that area. So MAS should have acted to have done the necessary to change the route.
Is that asking too much? Is that politicising? We have too many cases of sweeping things under the carpet. We need to get rid of the top management of MAS or else more tragedy will befall us.
Bad Head: They are too complacent in their job. They will never do anything differently if nothing serious happens (some other airlines had already used alternative routes even though the route was declared safe).
Just look at the Sabah situation, only now they talk about standard operating procedures (SOP) to shoot on sight - after five cases of kidnapping.
Malaysia Maju : That's what our beloved Bolehland has come down to. We compromise on everything. It has become the culture of the nation.
Quick gains are all that matters. Our army lets a jet fly over the airspace without batting an eye. Criminals run loose on the streets, our laws only bite political opponents. What do you expect the future of our country to be like?
Anonymous #61972288: You know what, everyone is entitled to their opinion, and everyone can choose whether to fly MAS or not in future.
The above is a selection of comments posted by Malaysiakini subscribers. Only paying subscribers can post comments. Over the past one year, Malaysiakinians have posted over 100,000 comments. Join the Malaysiakini community and help set the news agenda. Subscribe now .
These comments are compiled to reflect the views of Malaysiakini subscribers on matters of public interest. Malaysiakini does not intend to represent these views as fact.
For more news and views that matter, subscribe and support independent media for only RM0.36 sen a day:
Subscribe now