world

Iran probe says Ukrainian jet was on fire before crash

20 Comments

The requested article has expired, and is no longer available. Any related articles, and user comments are shown below.

© (c) Copyright Thomson Reuters 2020.

©2021 GPlusMedia Inc.

20 Comments
Login to comment

Or it could have been taken down by an errant missile. We'll probably never know, as the Iranians are holding onto the black box that could tell us.

5 ( +9 / -4 )

errant missile.

sure... thanks for the input...

-4 ( +1 / -5 )

Oh my Serrano how do you come up with this stuff....So if a jet crashes on US soil you going to hand the black box over to the Iranians I get it I really do..you need to try to stick with things you have some idea about like well.....By the way how do you feel about 3000 more troops getting sent to the area no wars have been stopped...what was that you said about your god...

-8 ( +3 / -11 )

Everybody can only speculate. But the idea that it was a faulty Iranian air defense missile is reasonable, and is supported by the fact that they will not release the black boxes, as they should normally do. If they release them, that would clarify this. As long as they are not, this remains a reasonable explanation.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Strange that Iran won't also share the black box with Boeing, the maker of the plane

Then again, with Boeing's recent history..........

(But it's for everyone's safety that flies the popular 737 that Boeing gets to know exactly what went wrong)

0 ( +2 / -2 )

Strange that Iran won't also share the black box with Boeing, the maker of the plane

Why should they? Serious question. I've read that the International Civil Aviation Organization rules say that the country where an incident occurs is in charge of the investigation.

1 ( +4 / -3 )

@Zaphod

But the idea that it was a faulty Iranian air defense missile is reasonable

Why?

-3 ( +0 / -3 )

Strange that Iran won't also share the black box with Boeing, the maker of the plane

Why should they? Serious question. I've read that the International Civil Aviation Organization rules say that the country where an incident occurs is in charge of the investigation.

Because that's what is usually done - the info are shared with the manufacturer of the plane because (a) it's the manufacturer that knows the plane the most and (b) it's for the safety of the passengers flying the same plane everywhere that the manufacturer is in the loop.

(Btw, sharing the info with the plane manufacturer does not take the charge of the investigation away from the country of incidence.)

2 ( +2 / -0 )

Or it could have been taken down by an errant missile

sure... thanks for the input...

the idea that it was a faulty Iranian air defense missile is reasonable, and is supported by the fact that they will not release the black boxes, as they should normally do. If they release them, that would clarify this. As long as they are not, this remains a reasonable explanation.

Why?

Iranian officials don't plan to share information from the black boxes with the plane's manufacturer, US company Boeing, as is usual in crash investigations.

"We will not give the black box to the manufacturer or America," Ali Abedzadeh, the head of Iran's Civil Aviation Authority, told the semi-official Mehr news agency.

The US will not be involved at any stage of the investigation, he said.

Under international rules, Iran is responsible for the investigation, but Ukraine should participate in the probe as the state of registry and state of operator. So should the US as the state of design and manufacture of the Boeing aircraft.

There's no way Iran could refuse to work with Boeing and do justice to the investigation, Former FAA chief of staff Michael Goldfarb said.

"They have to work with Boeing. Boeing has all the data, owns all the drawings and designs, they have the engineers, they know the plane," he said.

Well, so much for ruling out the possibility of an errant missile.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Well, so much for ruling out the possibility of an errant missile.

Anything that corroborate the theory of an errant missile?

-5 ( +0 / -5 )

Asakaze:

Why should they? Serious question. I've read that the International Civil Aviation Organization rules say that the country where an incident occurs is in charge of the investigation.

In charge of the investigation, yes. But the black boxes are always sent back to the manufacturer for analysis. Read up on the history of plane accidents.

2 ( +3 / -1 )

Well well well. The UK media are currently reporting that... it WAS an errant missle fired by the Iranians.

3 ( +3 / -0 )

The OPS group (aviation experts) says there is a high likelyhood it was a shootdown event:

https://ops.group/blog/

So, not just a couple of JT readers section commentators.

1 ( +3 / -2 )

Anything that corroborate the theory of an errant missile?

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/iran-plane-crash-shootdown-ukraine-boeing-latest-a9275051.html

I absolutely hate conspiracy theories, but there are photos of the fuselage with what appear to be shrapnel holes that very likely could have come from a missile strike.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

And, extanker, THAT is exactly why you should hate conspiracy theories (And anonymous US government sources)

People who didn't tracked down the original, high resolution versions of those photos, and in those, the details show the 'shrapnel holes' are rocks and dirt that ended up on TOP of the pieces of fuselage.

The troubling thing is how likely those 'shrapnel holes' are going to be what Trump hears, and, het, presto, attacks Iran AGAIN, something they'll have no patience with, and the response will not be a live round target practice (with everyone given a warning that they were firing then, and at that) of 'tens of missiles', it'll just be the designation of an American military base in the region as the target, and the order to 'turn that into a hole in the ground, NOW', followed by a phone call to whichever country is unfortunate enough to be playing host to it to see if they want any more American bases eliminated or if they feel capable of escorting the American soldiers presently in their country onto flights out.

-2 ( +0 / -2 )

Richard Pearce:

The troubling thing is how likely those 'shrapnel holes' are going to be what Trump hears, and, het, presto, attacks Iran AGAIN, something they'll have no patience with, and the response will not be a live round target practice (with everyone given a warning that they were firing then, and at that) of 'tens of missiles', it'll just be the designation of an American military base in the region as the target, and the order to 'turn that into a hole in the ground, NOW', followed by a phone call to whichever country is unfortunate enough to be playing host to it to see if they want any more American bases eliminated or if they feel capable of escorting the American soldiers presently in their country onto flights out.

Is that a prediction? Because I would like to take you up on that, when it precisely does NOT happen. So please give me a time frame when I should remind you.

As you know, making correct or wrong predictions is the best lithmus test about who has the correct view on reality.

I understand in your reality, Trump is the war president; in mine is is precisely NOT. The idea of having Clinton in charge now gives me goose bumps.

So.... when should I remind you?

0 ( +1 / -1 )

@richardpearce

(And anonymous US government sources)

What? That article cites multiple aviation organizations... But I'm glad to know that you have a crystal ball and can see the actual cause of an air disaster. Also, please provide a source for the holes being confirmed as dirt and rocks. Some people are warning that's what they might be because it happened in the past, but no one has confirmed it that I can find.

The troubling thing is how likely those 'shrapnel holes' are going to be what Trump hears, and, het, presto, attacks Iran AGAIN,

Why would he attack Iran, even if they did it? It was a Ukranian airliner and no Americans were killed. You're getting a little ahead of yourself here.

2 ( +2 / -0 )

But the black boxes are always sent back to the manufacturer for analysis. Read up on the history of plane accidents.

That's not my understanding. For example, in the case of the Ethiopian Airlines accident last year, it was the French aviation accident investigation agency that analyzed the flight recorders (according to Wikipedia anyway). Is not normally the case that an international group investigates crashes, and that group would include representatives of the aircraft manufacturer. But the flight recorders would remain under control of the investigating authority?

0 ( +0 / -0 )

@albaleo

the point is that Iran isn’t going to let Boeing anywhere near the black boxes for a plane that crashed that they manufactured. That is not normal and could be indicative of something being hidden.

0 ( +0 / -0 )

the point is that Iran isn’t going to let Boeing anywhere near the black boxes for a plane that crashed that they manufactured.

This has moved on a little, but at the time all I read was that they weren't going to "hand over" the black box to Boeing. (On the BBC today I read this: "However, an Iranian official later told Reuters the US had been formally invited to take part in the investigation, and the US National Transportation Safety Board (NTSB) confirmed it had assigned an investigator.")

1 ( +1 / -0 )

Login to leave a comment

Facebook users

Use your Facebook account to login or register with JapanToday. By doing so, you will also receive an email inviting you to receive our news alerts.

Facebook Connect

Login with your JapanToday account

User registration

Articles, Offers & Useful Resources

A mix of what's trending on our other sites