Serving the Flathead Valley & Montana since 2006. A reality based independent journal of observation & analysis. © James Conner.
Blogger’s note. There’s a discussion on Flight 17 at Missoula’s 4and20blackbirds blog, where there’s not a lot of love for, or trust in, the United States. Or Israel. And navigation is one of my prime interests. Ergo, an excursion beyond the Flathead and Montana.
At the New York Times today, James Fallows, writer for The Atlantic, former aide to President Carter, and pilot, defends Malaysia Airlines’ decision not to emulate Air France and give wide berth to Ukraine’s war zone. Fallows’ is a legalistic defense that, as I noted in the comments, doesn’t cut the mustard all that well as common sense.
There’ll be more pleadings of the Fallows genre as the aviation community defends business as usual with the usual defense of “what we did was legal and standard procedure.” Whether the aviation community’s risk assessment withstands detailed scrutiny remains to be determined.
Although jetliners seldom fly perfect great circle routes, the shortest possible routes, they try to keep as close as possible to great circle routes to minimize fuel consumption and travel time. Malaysia Flight 17 was fairly close to the great circle route from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur when it crossed the conflict zone and was shot down.
What distance, time, and fuel penalties would Flight 17 have paid for a route that avoided Ukrainian air space? Visiting Google Earth reveals the distance penalty: approximately 120 miles if a two-leg great circle route with a turning point below Ukraine is substituted for the great circle route. Below, a map displaying two routes from Amsterdam to Kuala Lumpur, one the definitive great circle route, the other a hypothetical conflict avoidance route. Consider the map illustrative rather than definitive.
A Boeing 777 cruises at 560 mph, so the conflict avoidance route would have extended a 12-hour flight by approximately 13 minutes. Reckoning the 777’s fuel burn is an exercise with wide error bars, but I did find a figure at Ask Captain Lim: 14.4 imperial gallons per engine per minute, which converts to 35 U.S. gallons per minute for both engines. Thus the conflict avoidance route would have consumed an extra 450–500 gallons (approximately 3,000 pounds) of fuel, which at current prices might cost $2,500–3,000. That would increase the price of a ticket by approximately ten dollars, which seems a small price to pay for staying out of SAM infested airspace.
That remains unknown, although there’s no shortage of finger-pointing. The U.S. government believes the missile was launched from territory, near the Russian border, held by Ukrainian separatists, thinks the separatists, possibly assisted by Russians, most likely pushed the launch button, and that the separatists probably acquired the missile from Russia. The Guardian reports the separatists are trying to cover up the evidence, and that the separatists are denying unfettered access to the crash site by recovery teams and investigators, behavior associated with people who have something to hide. The separatists, of course, denying they have missiles that can bring down a jetliner at cruising altitude, urge turning a suspicious eye on the Ukrainian government. No one seems to know where the cockpit and flight data recorders are.
Someone other than the missile crew undoubtedly saw the missile(s) being launched, so there’s a very high probability the truth will come out, and come out, I suspect, fairly soon. Someone will talk. Too many people know what happened for the truth to remain secret. In the meantime, I would welcome less speculation, especially from people like Hillary Clinton who know little but say much to keep themselves in the limelight.
