Airline Safety
Malaysia MH17

Russian manufacturer refutes Dutch crash report of MH17

Burgess COMMENTARY

Peter Burgess

HOME / RUSSIAN MANUFACTURER REFUTES DUTCH CRASH REPORT OF MH17 Russian manufacturer refutes Dutch crash report of MH17 by ASC Staff on Oct 14, 2015 Be the first to comment RSS Feeds Print this page A presentation of the final report on the cause of the crash was given at the Gilze Rijen airbase on October 13, 2015. A presentation of the final report on the cause of the crash was given at the Gilze Rijen airbase on October 13, 2015. RELATED ARTICLES: PHOTOS: Wreckage of Flight MH17 presented to the press l Dubai pilot predicted cockpit dangers before Alps crash l REVEALED: Five of the world's worst cargo plane crashes by Raman Narayan The investigation report published by the Dutch Safety Board that the crash of flight MH17 on 17 July 2014 was caused by Russian manufactured Buk surface to air missile has been contradicted by the Russian state-controlled consortium Almaz-Antey at a press meet held in Moscow yesterday. This comes as a response to the report published by the Dutch Safety Board which concludes that flight MH17 progressed normally up to the moment when the aeroplane was fired at by a 9N314M warhead, launched by a Buk surface-to-air missile system from a 320-square-kilometre area in the eastern part of Ukraine. This detonated to the left and above the cockpit and the forward section of the aircraft was penetrated by hundreds of high-energy objects coming from the warhead. As a result of the impact and the subsequent blast, the three crew members in the cockpit were killed immediately and the aeroplane broke up in the air. The investigations by the Dutch safety board identified the weapon system used on the basis of, among other things, the damage pattern on the wreckage, the fragments found in the wreckage and in the bodies of crew members, and the way in which the aircraft broke up. The findings, it claims, are supported by the data on the flight recorders; the Cockpit Voice Recorder picked up a sound peak during the final milliseconds. In addition, traces of paint on a number of missile fragments found match the paint on parts of a missile recovered from the area by Dutch Safety Board. Other potential causes, such as an explosion inside the aeroplane or an air-to-air missile, have been investigated and excluded. No scenario other than a Buk surface-to-air missile can explain this combination of facts, claims the report. The 320-square-kilometre area from which the missile was launched has been determined on the basis of various simulations. On the other hand, the Russian version gives details of its own internal investigations into the crash, including a simulated reconstruction of the crash. This was done using a Ilyushin IL-86 that was fired at using a 9M38M1 missile procured from the Russian Defense Ministry's stocks. In the experiment the approaching angles matched the scenario; however, the nature and patterns of damage, the company concludes, were quite different from what had happed to the ill-fated Malaysian airline MH17 flight. The Russian concern concludes that while the port side of the Malaysian aircraft — the cockpit, the left wing, the left engine and the left part of the tail — took the the brunt of the impact from fragmentations, in their simulated experiment, the left engine of the IL-86 jet had gone through VKO Almaz-Antey's experiment completely unscathed. The bulk of bomblets — the 'scalpel' — sliced through the cabin, which rules out any possibility that its right half might have remained intact. As for damage patterns, the IL-86 predominately displayed damages that had butter-fly shapes normally left by 9М38М1 missiles armed carrying I-beam shaped fragments whereas the MH 17was allegedely found with diamond rather than butterfly shaped holes. Such damages, the company claims are traceable to the missile of the older modifications that is the 9M38 unarmed with I-beam fragments. The company concludes that while such missiles have long since been out of service in Russia, they have remained in service with the Armed Forces of Ukraine since the Soviet times. The Russian consortium has been on the EU sanctions list and is hoping their thesis of how the crash occurred will help shed light on the crash and clear their name. Contradictions apart, the tragedy had brought to the fore issues regarding the need for better safety measures in conflict zones. The Dutch safety Board’s report says that the current system of responsibilities with respect to flying over conflict areas is inadequate. Operators assume that unrestricted airspaces are safe. When assessing the risk, the operators do usually take into account the safety of departure and arrival locations, but not the safety of the countries they fly over. When flying over a conflict area, an additional risk assessment is necessary, according to the report. Therefore, the Dutch Safety Board considers it extremely important that parties involved in aviation – including states, international organisations such as ICAO and IATA, and operators – exchange more information about conflict areas and potential threats to civil aviation.