Jump to content
Political Discussion Forums
ProudConservative

Ukrainian Passenger Aircraft Crashes in Iran

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, kactus said:

The Shah was already the monarchy and the King in Iran. He fled the country with Empress Farah in 1953 for dust to settle down. As much as I disagree with an assassination of a political figure, the emergence of Khomeini coming back from the shadows after living many years in exile is no coincidence. It was orchestrated by the West seeing through that his plane arrives safe at Iran and we witness the rules of Ayatollahs that took the upper hand on Tudeh party supporters who were essentially communists...

But going back to your point regarding the scenario if the plane carrying Shah in 1953 was shot down one can argue if the coup did not take against Dr Mossadegh by the Brits and US things may have been much different in 1978 and the revolution.

Shah in his interviews always warned two forces existent in Iran. Reds representing communism and Blacks representing Islamists....

 

The majority of the Iranian Army wanted  the pro-Communist Mossadeq gone...fast.

Remember...many of those fellows spent time in Stalin's POW system.

No doubt they also recalled that the Soviets wouldn't leave Iran at the end of WW2...sparking the UN's first crisis. Just a few short years previous.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The majority of the Iranian Army wanted  the pro-Communist Mossadeq gone...fast.

Remember...many of those fellows spent time in Stalin's POW system.

No doubt they also recalled that the Soviets wouldn't leave Iran at the end of WW2...sparking the UN's first crisis. Just a few short years previous.

The nationalisation of Iranian oil by Dr Mossadegh didn’t wash down with the Brits who did not want to have any of it. According to the constitution the nomination of Dr Mossadegh in parliament was by popular vote. One cannot negate the fact that he was the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and his idea of nationalising the oil showed a conflict of interest with the Brits whom particularly through BP had a vested interest. The nationalisation of the oil was the main precursor to orchestrate the coup....

I do agree that the Russian didn’t want to leave Iran post invasion of UK from south and Russians from North....This is not only unique to Iran however and this is the sort of behaviour we have seen from Russians across the region and the Baltics.....

Edited by kactus

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
36 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

Iran's murderous islamic regime mercenary thugs shoot at the peaceful plane crash protesters.

Sure thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, Marocc said:

Sure thing.

What the hell is that supposed t mean? I attached a video of the women shot in the leg!!! Or you are saying it wasn't the thugs who killed 1500 people last month in peaceful protests. I wonder what you get out of defending this murderous regime. Is that some kind of sick pleasure to see defenseless people killed or stupid fanatical beliefs or financial gain?

Edited by CITIZEN_2015

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 hours ago, Rue said:

In the legal sense,and I use the civil tort of acciden

Finger pointing is meaningless. It does not bring back the dead.

While I can agree with you on so many points, this one is where we part company in a radically different direction.

As I have already explained, ATC is who gives an airline a block of safe airspace, and THEY are the ultimate authority on what is and is not "open" or "closed" airspace, and THAT is what airlines and other users of the civil transport system rely upon.  When an IFR flight departs, it is not just wandering around for jollies, it is following an SID (Standard Instrument Departure) that is published for all users to follow.  The SID gives the heading on takeoff and climbout, as well as the climb gradient required.   We can figure out the times and positions pretty easily from the SID and what that aircraft could and DID do.  Anything below 10,000 ft. is restricted to 250 knots TAS, and normal normal initial climb from -800 with flaps and slats out is about 150kt at 1,500 ft/min changing to 2,000 ft/min and 250 kts for the main climbout.  The airplane is capable of much more, but unless there are obstacle clearace issues, this is about how it is flown. The flight in question was shot down at 8,000 ft., so it would have been airborne with an average speed of 200kt for about 5 minutes, giving 18 NM = about 30 kms.   Again, unless there is some big reason published on the SID or commanded by air traffic CONTROL, the PF (pilot flying) would have followed the SID very, VERY closely.  You can actually see these things on flight following websites, and the images I have seen show a very normal departure with an extremely small deviation from runway heading (i.e. turn from runway heading to the SID heading for climbout as EVERY flight would do).  The point of this is that the 737 was in the air for something like 5 minutes at 250kt, and the missile would not likely be flying any faster than 500kt, so it had to be launched at 2.5 minutes before impact - when the jet would have been less than 15 kms (my guess closer to 10) from the airport and barely finished initial climb.  That's the launch.   The DECISION to launch would have been before that, so the airplane was barely past the airport boundary when the someone started to think seriously about blowing it to bits.   Even a complete effing moron could EASILY have seen that this flight ORIGINATED from Iran's own civil airport.

So, the IRANIAN government's ATC directed a civil aircraft into the air when an IRANIAN government military force immediately decided to shoot it down.   IF what QM posted, and what I have heard from other sources is true, civil flights had departed before and immediately after the disaster flight.  Airlines are not in the business of running countries, they are in the business of carrying passengers under CONTROL of the air traffic system.  When the government that owns ATC and the military tells them they can fly, it is implicit it is safe from that government's perspective to do so.

So, an airline decided to do business in a normal manner on a day that military action was chosen BY THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN to be done in a different place.   What you are missing in this whole thing is the passengers boarded this flight OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, all obviously knowing that they were in the middle of a military conflict, and pretty much knowing that they were visiting a country ruled by some viscious, murderous fruitcakes - and you thing that is the airline's fault?????

If I were the airline, I would be suing the passengers and Iran for the cost of my goddamned airplane.

BTW: on the question of airplanes and the LLL (Legal Liability Lottery) - it is exactly that, a hoard of ambulance chasers who will sue the airline, the airplane manufacture, the engine manufacturer, the seat manufacturer, the radio manufacturer and ANYONE who has been anywhere near the airplane or its type certificate from day one (that can go back 3/4 of a century) that killed the general aviation industry in the USA and Canada.  When Cessna (then largest manufacturer in the world) suspended light aircraft manufacture in IIRC 1978, more than half of the cost of an airplane was insurance premiums.  The petitfogging assholes have handed yet another industry to China and Eastern Europe strictly due to their greed and avorice.

Edited by cannuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

176 people dead and what you are essentially left with is almost 80mil Iranians taken hostage by an old ayatollah.  What we would never know in public domain is how western governments are colluding with this barbaric regime for their own gain whether financial or winning the hearts of people before elections....

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
22 minutes ago, CITIZEN_2015 said:

What the hell is that supposed t mean?

Means you post a lot of trash that is mostly Untrue, highly biased and extremely hypocritical.

I saw no one shot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, cannuck said:

While I can agree with you on so many points, this one is where we part company in a radically different direction.

As I have already explained, ATC is who gives an airline a block of safe airspace, and THEY are the ultimate authority on what is and is not "open" or "closed" airspace, and THAT is what airlines and other users of the civil transport system rely upon.  When an IFR flight departs, it is not just wandering around for jollies, it is following an SID (Standard Instrument Departure) that is published for all users to follow.  The SID gives the heading on takeoff and climbout, as well as the climb gradient required.   We can figure out the times and positions pretty easily from the SID and what that aircraft could and DID do.  Anything below 10,000 ft. is restricted to 250 knots TAS, and normal normal initial climb from -800 with flaps and slats out is about 150kt at 1,500 ft/min changing to 2,000 ft/min and 250 kts for the main climbout.  The airplane is capable of much more, but unless there are obstacle clearace issues, this is about how it is flown. The flight in question was shot down at 8,000 ft., so it would have been airborne with an average speed of 200kt for about 5 minutes, giving 18 NM = about 30 kms.   Again, unless there is some big reason published on the SID or commanded by air traffic CONTROL, the PF (pilot flying) would have followed the SID very, VERY closely.  You can actually see these things on flight following websites, and the images I have seen show a very normal departure with an extremely small deviation from runway heading (i.e. turn from runway heading to the SID heading for climbout as EVERY flight would do).  The point of this is that the 737 was in the air for something like 5 minutes at 250kt, and the missile would not likely be flying any faster than 500kt, so it had to be launched at 2.5 minutes before impact - when the jet would have been less than 15 kms (my guess closer to 10) from the airport and barely finished initial climb.  That's the launch.   The DECISION to launch would have been before that, so the airplane was barely past the airport boundary when the someone started to think seriously about blowing it to bits.   Even a complete effing moron could EASILY have seen that this flight ORIGINATED from Iran's own civil airport.

So, the IRANIAN government's ATC directed a civil aircraft into the air when an IRANIAN government military force immediately decided to shoot it down.   IF what QM posted, and what I have heard from other sources is true, civil flights had departed before and immediately after the disaster flight.  Airlines are not in the business of running countries, they are in the business of carrying passengers under CONTROL of the air traffic system.  When the government that owns ATC and the military tells them they can fly, it is implicit it is safe from that government's perspective to do so.

So, an airline decided to do business in a normal manner on a day that military action was chosen BY THE GOVERNMENT OF IRAN to be done in a different place.   What you are missing in this whole thing is the passengers boarded this flight OF THEIR OWN FREE WILL, all obviously knowing that they were in the middle of a military conflict, and pretty much knowing that they were visiting a country ruled by some viscious, murderous fruitcakes - and you thing that is the airline's fault?????

If I were the airline, I would be suing the passengers and Iran for the cost of my goddamned airplane.

Absolute utter non sense blaming the passengers for a cock up by simply carried out by an official with triggered finger over the button.

 

I am disgusted by lack of empathy for passengers (Ukranians included) and their family who have to carry the burden of their deaths over a piece of metal and pay compensation!?!?


It is like saying the passengers knew the plane was going to be shut down. What a ridiculous statement. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, kactus said:

The nationalisation of Iranian oil by Dr Mossadegh didn’t wash down with the Brits who did not want to have any of it. According to the constitution the nomination of Dr Mossadegh in parliament was by popular vote. One cannot negate the fact that he was the democratically elected government of Iran in 1953 and his idea of nationalising the oil showed a conflict of interest with the Brits whom particularly through BP had a vested interest. The nationalisation of the oil was the main precursor to orchestrate the coup....

I do agree that the Russian didn’t want to leave Iran post invasion of UK from south and Russians from North....This is not only unique to Iran however and this is the sort of behaviour we have seen from Russians across the region and the Baltics.....

 

The Brits had a right to be pissed. Their wells...

You're aware of the Communist Tudeh Party...Mossadeq needed them to win the election...and ironically, they turned-on him during the coup.

This was an Iranian Army coup with CIA support. They were going be rid of him one way or another...there was no way they were going to break bread with the NKVD after the Gulags.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
37 minutes ago, kactus said:

Absolute utter non sense blaming the passengers for a cock up by simply carried out by an official with triggered finger over the button.

 

I am disgusted by lack of empathy for passengers (Ukranians included) and their family who have to carry the burden of their deaths over a piece of metal and pay compensation!?!?


It is like saying the passengers knew the plane was going to be shut down. What a ridiculous statement. 

You got my point:  it is as ridiculous as claiming the airline should have known that those who they are REQUIRED to place their trust in were going to either allow (through negligence) or cause (through treachery) the plane would be shot down.

They were given a clearance by the authority they are REQUIRED to yield to.

Both they and the passengers were reasonably likely to be aware of the tensions between US and Iran at that time they BOTH chose to fly.

Edited by cannuck
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, cannuck said:

You got my point:  it is as ridiculous as claiming the airline should have known that those who they are REQUIRED to place their trust in were going to either allow (through negligence) or cause (through treachery) the plane would be shot down.

They were given a clearance by the authority they are REQUIRED to yield to.

Both they and the passengers were reasonably likely to be aware of the tensions between US and Iran at that time they BOTH chose to fly.

It is the airline's responsibilty to assess whether it is safe to carry out the flight following the right protocols. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the timing of the retaliatory attack on the two bases in Iraq and the subsequent flight after a few hours I would not envisage any of the passengers would have known the full extent of this. No body knows.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kactus said:

It is the airline's responsibilty to assess whether it is safe to carry out the flight following the right protocols. Unfortunately, due to the nature of the timing of the retaliatory attack on the two bases in Iraq and the subsequent flight after a few hours I would not envisage any of the passengers would have known the full extent of this. No body knows.... 

Why is it the airline's responsibility, and where is that legislated?  THEIR responsibility is to rely on the authorities who grant or deny them privilege of access to SAFE airspace.  The "right protocols" are that you have a clearance from ATC or you do not. Very simple.  Their "mistake" was in trusting Iran, and that is exactly the same mistake that those visiting made.

Edited by cannuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Why is it the airline's responsibility, and where is that legislated?  THEIR responsibility is to rely on the authorities who grant or deny them privilege of access to SAFE airspace.  The "right protocols" are that you have a clearance from ATC or you do not. Very simple.  Their "mistake" was in trusting Iran, and that is exactly the same mistake that those visiting made.

 

I think the airport authority ultimately decides if flights are leaving...if it was up to the airlines individually there'd be chaos

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The Brits had a right to be pissed. Their wells...

So by your own admission ownership of oil gave context for the coup. 

It's Iranian oil btw....Without the oil those wells are as good as nothing....

Quote

You're aware of the Communist Tudeh Party...Mossadeq needed them to win the election...and ironically, they turned-on him during the coup. 

It wasn't just the Tudeh party....Dr Mossadegh had been democratically elected by the parliament which did not just consist of Tudeh party. 

This was an Iranian Army coup with CIA support. They were going be rid of him one way or another...there was no way they were going to break bread with the NKVD after the Gulags.

The CIA were involved on the backdrop of Brits to collude and remove Mossadegh before nationalisation of oil. As said the collaborations with Russians was not the main precursor. The nationalisation of oil was....

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

I think the airport authority ultimately decides if flights are leaving...if it was up to the airlines individually there'd be chaos

Close, but not quite.  It is up to the ATC system to ALLOW what flights can and can not leave, and where they can go.  Airlines, charter operators, private aircraft and passengers are free to choose if and when they want avail themselves of what ATC system is offering.  Well, more if than when, as the release of clearance applied for under the filed flight plan is at ATC's discression, and their's alone.

Edited by cannuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
30 minutes ago, cannuck said:

Why is it the airline's responsibility, and where is that legislated?  THEIR responsibility is to rely on the authorities who grant or deny them privilege of access to SAFE airspace.  The "right protocols" are that you have a clearance from ATC or you do not. Very simple.  Their "mistake" was in trusting Iran, and that is exactly the same mistake that those visiting made.

It is a joint responsibility with the authorities I believe which why I said following the right protocol. If they had followed the right protocol then yes this grave mistake could have been avoided. I don't claim to be an expert in flight aviation and for this incident will hold the Iranian government responsible. However, to say that passengers should have known better in the absence of credible directives from ATC, the governing authority and the airline and therefore responsible to pay compensation to the airline is illogical and insensitive to the families who have lost loved ones....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, kactus said:

It is a joint responsibility with the authorities I believe which why I said following the right protocol. If they had followed the right protocol then yes this grave mistake could have been avoided. I don't claim to be an expert in flight aviation and for this incident will hold the Iranian government responsible. However, to say that passengers should have known better in the absence of credible directives from ATC, the governing authority and the airline and therefore responsible to pay compensation to the airline is illogical and insensitive to the families who have lost loved ones....

I understand your sentiment, but in reality, airlines are just another business.  No different from a bus service or taco stand.  They are NOT diplomats with embassies.  THAT is where responsibility for this lies, NOT with either the airline or its passengers.  If either the airline or its passengers didn't feel safe, the answer is very simple: don't fly.  Further, if it is not legislated and regulated that they must do something, why would you reasonably expect them to do it?

Edited by cannuck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cannuck said:

Close, but not quite.  It is up to the ATC system to ALLOW what flights can and can not leave, and where they can go.  Airlines, charter operators, private aircraft and passengers are free to choose if and when they want avail themselves of what ATC system is offering.  Well, more if than when, as the release of clearance applied for under the filed flight plan is at ATC's discression, and their's alone.

 

It's been several years since I've been in the cockpit. You're licenced, I assume?

If so I'll take your word on it.

Edited by DogOnPorch

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

It's been several years since I've been in the cockpit. You're licenced, I assume?

If so I'll take your word on it.

see PM

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, cannuck said:

I understand your sentiment, but in reality, airlines are just another business.  No different from a bus service or taco stand.  They are NOT diplomats with embassies.  THAT is where responsibility for this lies, NOT with either the airline or its passengers.  If either the airline or its passengers didn't feel safe, the answer is very simple: don't fly.  Further, if it is not legislated and regulated that they must do something, why would you reasonably expect them to do it?

I am just saddened by the lost lives of so many people on that airline. They were there to visit families and friends for Christmas and were caught in this cross fire.... 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 minutes ago, kactus said:

I am just saddened by the lost lives of so many people on that airline. They were there to visit families and friends for Christmas and were caught in this cross fire.... 

 

The problem I'm having with the Mullah's story is that two missiles were now fired and one has to lock-on before any of that occurs. 

Either goats were running that SAM battery or someone's not being honest.

Not sure which...being Iran.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, kactus said:

I am just saddened by the lost lives of so many people on that airline. They were there to visit families and friends for Christmas and were caught in this cross fire.... 

I feel the same, plus worth noting that the Iranian Canadians lost were almost all academics and professionals.  HUGE loss to Canada, but more than that, THESE are the people who could return to Iran once the Mullah's are sent packing to put the country back together again.  I have a very good friend who is Iranian, and her whole generation plus all but her Mother from that generation are expatriots.  For that reason (she could easily have been on that flight, or any of her cousins) I was really touched by this disaster.

BUT:  I am even more disturbed that the ambulance chasers could even think of trying to make their blood money from such a tragedy.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, DogOnPorch said:

 

The problem I'm having with the Mullah's story is that two missiles were now fired and one has to lock-on before any of that occurs. 

Either goats were running that SAM battery or someone's not being honest.

Not sure which...being Iran.

According to the story I heard the man who was operating the anti missile asked the command centre for confirmation on the target and nothing was heard. So he decided to take action.... 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...