Talk:Crash of Malaysia Airlines flight MH17/Map

Interception Location
My best guess for interception location is at the intersection of the physical evidence heading east-west and the ephemeral trail heading North-West from that point.

I've done some searches on METARS at the time without useful result. My guess at this time it was a South-East wind - combined with a substantially West to East flight-track. Other METARS info welcome.

See image



--Charles Wood (talk) 11:12, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

That's an interesting graphic. It has way more dots than any I've seen. The Wall Street Journal's maps show less pieces, with whole areas blank, but the ones it does show, it says what they are. From this, it seems the nose came off first, and forward parts behind that. * The cockpit and lower nose cone came down like a bullet in that lonely middle dot. Higher drag but heavier forward fragments northwest, lighter forward fragments northwest of there. That's pretty clear - southeast means from that way, right? I've said northwest, meaning to specify to the northwest. These added dots give more shape and it seems a bit NNW. Hence, all debris is north of the flight path. The impact point will be back along that line, I don't think very far. FWIW I mapped it out and the intercept point seems to be no less than 25 km from the Snizhnoye firing spot, and I doubt it's more than 28 km out. But that's subjective, I don't know for sure how quickly it would fall apart. I know PA-103 popped like a balloon from the one little hole, but is it the same if there's a bunch of holes? Will it blow apart then, or just decompress more gently through all those holes and then tear apart over time? And how much time? How much does the decompression worsen the holes? Etc. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * All those yellow dots are just differences between satellite images on July 17 and July 26. The numbered areas are divisions they used when comparing the images. There is nothing to say any of the yellow dots are from MH17, especially as many are in areas the ground people were not allowed into, to look. Go back to this

http://graphics.wsj.com/mh17-crash-map/ to see what ended up where. beware the Grabovo (they spell it Hrabove) image is turned on its side,north is to the right on it.KatKan (talk) 01:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Dutch site described in detail their process. They used computer searching to identify points of difference, then each and every item was passed to a professional for assessment to exclude items such as stock being moved or normal farming activities. The yellow dots that remain have a high probability of being MH17 debris. However, because there was no recovery activity in the NW arm, it can be assumed that locals found no bodies or significant wreckage. So what fell to the NW is light debris of no serious interest.


 * Further to the international search, the local Ukranian authorities did their own search and recover operation - NB not the rebels but Ukrainian Government officials. They liaised with the international team and passed information about significant items they discovered as well as recovered and handed over the bodies --Charles Wood (talk) 03:14, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * METARS will be very useful. Too late for me to chase. If we know the wind direction we can start making sensible comments on the debris trails --Charles Wood (talk) 11:44, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * And/or we can measure the wind by how the stuff drifted. :) I also have as support apparent SE winds at Zuhres, but that was just after noon, and some kilometers west. We could also check the smoke plume video - U@War will know which direction that was filmed.--Caustic Logic (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Hey! an ACLOS First? Assuming no spoilers we have the exact interception point within a few hundred metres! A Km at worst!
 * How to pubish momentous moment? --Charles Wood (talk) 12:00, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Getting close anyway. At least you and I could agree on that - I like how that agreement has been working out. --Caustic Logic (talk) 12:46, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I certainly can't. Don't think that those guesses (can) make any sense. Just a remark on the Dutch map: Their purpose was to find human remains and personal belongings, so those yellow dots can be anything including pieces of clothing. --CE (talk) 14:07, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Well, disagreement keeps us working and on our toes, so good. Clothes are a good point to consider - very low weight, high drag. The extra dots continue way to the NNW. I think the breakup/wind/scatter part is pretty clear, it's just how far back the hit was (the main point) that can't se seen as clearly. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:25, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Someone at aviaforum.ru has found a possible impact point. It now seems that the FlightRadar24 flight path is almost correct. The cockpit, which is the part that is most likely to fall along a ballistic trajectory is only 0.5 km north of the flight path. This still does not explain why both FlightRadar24 and the Russian ATC radar put the last normal cruise point some 10-20 km ahead of the breakup point.

If this is the breakup point the the disintegration of the front part must have been extremely quick. This scenario assumes that the lighter roof sections drifted some 3-4 km downwind (points 66 and 63 on the Dutch map). -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:24, 11 August 2014 (UTC)




 * That last map is wrong. The interception has to be north west of the first wreckage. That wreckage did NOT float up there on the wind because it included 37 bodies from the business class section. The walls and roof of that section, and the bodies, all fell on the village Petropavlivka, which is the lefthand one on the maps. This is also where witnesses said they saw another plane go up into the clouds just before 2 explosions and everything starting to fall down
 * Then it continued to Rozspyne where ONLY the cockpit fell down. Then it turned towards north east, lost the tail and back fuselage crossing over some trees, then turned some more and crashed in front of the village Grabovo, where witnesses said they heard the hum of a plane (so engine still running) it turned towards them then bodies started to fall and it crashed. So the final path was a shallow V shape on the map. KatKan (talk) 01:02, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Breakup pattern
(not intercept-related: after the front came off, it looks like the rest of the plane crashed intact at Hrabove, with no real spread aside from what the fireball tossed up (that might have had a southward roll for whatever reason, and the wind to the NNW left it just south of the main impact - tail on the road, lighter stuff west) --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:38, 10 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No. The only part that crashed "intact" was the wing with its engines, landing gear and half-full fuel tanks. Everything else had peeled off, including the roof above the wing and the side panels. The wing section burnt, the other parts are still intact. See List of MH17 airframe parts. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:17, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not clear actually why plane disintegrated. Damage in front not that gross to suggest disintegration. Not much shrapnel damage elsewhere can be seen, from what can be seen on photos, to suggest structural damage. Plane may go into spin, but that should not disintegrate it in the air. So what happened? One fuel tank exploded? But no evidence of that was noted by commentators. Main fuel tank locations --Resup (talk) 12:41, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Look at the pictures in the List of MH17 airframe parts, on the main page here (not the talk). The curved white part peeled back, from the decompression, starting the whole front fuselage peeling open. The left engine was hit and stalled, and left wing damaged. so it went into a spin. That is plenty to make it break up, as it would be pulling at least 3Gs maybe more. In older times, planes have even been known to break up just from excessive turbulence. KatKan (talk) 15:17, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * I believe (not sure) Russian passenger planes, like TU 154, were reported to go into unrecoverable spins without breaking up, this may be one of those cases, or it could be earlier cases. About 777, not sure. From San Francisco crash footage, appeared very robust fellow. But perhaps not robust enough for this event. --Resup (talk) 19:03, 18 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Well that's my reading ATM, not gospel or anything. But it's from what parts landed where, what was damaged to explain that, and the video of the plane falling:

From 0:31 in the falling video. For the record, I had to cheat a bit to clarify it like this, selecting and amplifying darker and lighter areas. The right wingtip is unclear if there or not but otherwise the video (if no single still frame) is clear this is the plane seen from the underside, nose-diving, main body, left wing and engine, tail section all intact, right wing/engine on fire and maybe part of the wing gone, front part seemingly missing but otherwise intact. It's seen diving like this for about 1:00 straight with two explosive events (0:02 and 0:13), ending in the impact. --Caustic Logic (talk) 02:23, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I think the video shows an Ukrainian An-26 falling, mislabeled as MH17. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2014 (UTC)
 * As the picture's talk page now explains, apparently so. The video support part of my assessment falls apart and I think we have zero footage of MH17 falling. Also, the "what landed where" is incomplete, but a quick scan (of the simplified picture per the WSJ graphic) did suggest MH17 fell apart about like this video would have showed (the front-first part, at least...). But obviously, my reason to disagree with your assessment didn't hold and I'll defer to it until I can confirm it. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:09, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Weather Considerations
Wind direction: The (crash) plume video, if direction of view is known, will tell us what the wind was doing. I'd say it drifts to the left about 70%, towards camera about 30%, but maybe not. As noted, to the northwest in nearby Zuhres. Just looking the debris spread, I think it was northwest here as well. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:53, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That's an old comment to start. This seemed a good location to start with this copied segment regarding the inset alleged (missile launch) plume photo) --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:54, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

(Light/clouds) Snizhne (or the broader area) appear to have  15% or so cloud at the time  link. Visually  when plane hits the  ground it looks like more than that,  at a ground impact location. link, and "overcastish", not much light. Pretty sharp shadows can be seen there. I suppose the plume photo is claimed to be at a close time and not that far from there. Visually, there is much more light and essentially clear sky on the plume photo. It is not too shocking to observe some smoke plume in a war zone. Neither it is too surprising for the smoke to raise up. Accordingly, I cannot deduce from photo is it a plume going up, or washed up part of trajectory as it claimed to be. Somebody may be able to do better estimate of time based on shadows but I can't see those well on the smoke plume photo. If somebody is prepared to start some major ruckus based on that photograph (or twittered after a while time stamp on a digital camera ), that should be quite worrisome. --Chingachgook (talk) 02:25, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

(Wind). Reported wind is 9 mph ENE with 13 mph gusts. On the ground impact video, plume, raising from the ground, visibly drifts (quite a lot) on a scale of minute(s), in just one definite direction, with clearly seen gusts where it moves some more. White plume on the photo (unknown whether raising from the ground or rapidly formed as a tall column), and reportedly taken some 4 minutes or so after purported launch,  does not appear to move anywhere in particular. Something may be happening at the bottom, but it is not clearly seen. Knowing where is ENE may be of some help. There seem to be another, very faint, grayish smoke to the left. Bottoms of both smokes seem to be both tilted rightwards (all of that is barely seen). If anything at all, suggests they are both slowly rising from the ground (presumably a tall vertical column may stay vertical in the wind, just translating itself. This is not how it looks at the bottom, but it's hard to tell.  No definite wind-based conclusion to draw.  But light/clouds seem to be definitely off.        --Chingachgook (talk) 03:30, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Good assessment of the picture, second plume, lower smear to the right on both, and little evident direction otherwise. The weather records, if that site's reliable, are obviously very useful. It's a wrinkle for me, but I'm working on that. More details in just a bit. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Weather southeast of here: I didn't confirm it, but this image shows "P. Martin/Ukraine@War's line of sight - filmed from Torez, southeast past Snizneh, compass heading about 130. That way and further out (we see a ways off, and the clouds over even the launch site might be above/behind the view here) - you call 15% cloud cover, World Weather Online says* at 5:00 (those times must be local, I presume?) sunny, 10% cover, wind from ENE 9 mph, gusts 13. Now, I had been thinking the wind was SSE, which might explain this plume - its drift would be towards the camera, and thus not noticeable left or right. But by that record, this should be drifting a bit to the right. At the bottom, it is. And so is the other one. Otherwise, not. (or rather, everywhere but the bottom?) --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * note: the current date only comes up, but the town is pre-selected to re-do July 17 if you want to check)


 * I think the link shows the promoted official launch direction, not the photo  view of sight. While with us in Torez, our viewpoint, I understand, is   compass heading (130-180)= -60 , i.e. SE as google driving directions show     Indeed we know there is Saur Mogila in view  from the vanquished BBC report, --they could not get it THAT wrong .  Accordingly, wind smear we see is, well, SW . I perhaps can live with that, as it is smeared so much that who knows what's shown, maybe really big elephant stands there. But we are also told that the time is 16.25 (13.25 GTC/UTC +3) , and  this is just 4 hours before the sunset, so lighting must be fairly low and shadows must be long. We must have Sun almost proper  due west (as many applets will tell us immediately; -- we sunset at NW when it's July there so we are W at 4pm) . Thus, as my paper drawing now suggests, we must have the Sun kind of back and right. We just don't. It's sort of in front-left (zenith may be more accurate way to put it),  giving us some left glare   and some shallow shadows which are towards us.  Timing of photo is lunch time or something ( on some unknown day). Neither lighting intensity (a lot, towards violet), nor the Sun direction are correct, and the clouds are just not there. (It's a bit tricky with shadows and may be a bit off, but low shadows on a summer day by itself support the afternoon). And crash video just has different overall weather/time feel. This all just does not add up, and so  I propose to give the photo the proper burial  --Chingachgook (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The graphic shows the (claimed) line of sight - note the camera at its end. It's just pretty similar to the flight paths of both the missile and MH17. Sun angle: Azimuth is the word (what a sundial would show). I looked into it for a video placement Roszypne July 17, est. 5:22 PM (rough) = 272.1 degrees, just barely north of due west. This photo should be about the same or even duer west. I think that's what it shows. Foregraund trees are confusing with mainly underside shadr, but the middle distance ones - mostly just lit (from behind camera) but shadows tending to the underside, obviously, and left. More clearly, consider any house we see the "nw" corner of - west face lit, north maybe not. The larger pink building, lower right corner. "West" lit, "north" not yet. The real orientation isn't sure, but to me it seems rotated a bit so the north face is a bit NE - like all the homes in this block on Bing Maps on about that line of sight. All this to me says sun from behind and the right of the camera, or from the west. Going backwards with all this, I'd time it around 5 PM. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I guess I don't understand (if the blue box is the claimed camera position, then we should be looking south-east, as we should be looking on Saur-Mogila ?Or it says somewhere else explicitly that we look the other way? If camera is near Torez -- which I thought was claimed--then we do look southeast, not northwest) I guess we need at least to be sure in the  view of site for  a conclusion. I tried to find on google map-satellite  this place, but I could not  (it should be near an electricity/phone line seen on photo;but could not find even that. Local roads are seen, but utility lines, as it appears, are not, or I just could not find those)--Chingachgook (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On your map it seems the same basic angle, but starting and ending north, so it would be off-frame to the right. But if he turned, I guess it would be there. I didn't verify but the details (lots) are in that article. No one I've seen called it wrong, so if it is, you could be the first to show it. --Caustic Logic (talk) 21:19, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * ""Your map" = the one you presented, and I didn't measure, but feel free to compare - a line between those two spots, shifted a bit north, probably a bit different angle, should show the alleged launch spot but not the Saur Moghila (monument?). What a name BTW, extremely Godzilla. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:22, 14 August 2014 (UTC)
 * On finding the spots - pull up whatever mapping program - Torez-Snizneh - and the image, and compare features. Hints: camera is in north central Torez. A big oval pile you'll see: LoS seems to go just north of it. Etc. The U@W article shows power poles and claims it lines up - it could all be BS, it just looks okay to me so far. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:35, 14 August 2014 (UTC)


 * A smoke rising thought. If it's been rising, mostly drifting right of its apparent source, then in the latest seconds (the newest, lowest smoke) is more right over the source. That might suggest a slight northward shift in the wind at just this time. FWIW. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:15, 14 August 2014 (UTC)

Area Weather Records: I checked other regional towns at World Weather Online: Hrabove and Pelahiivka do not appear, but the following do (note: the current date only comes up, but the town is pre-selected to re-do July 17 if you want to check):
 * Snizneh 2:00 20% cloud cover, poss. rain, winds 11 mp gusting to 13, from the east. 5:00 sunny, 11% cover, winds ENE 9 to 13 mph.
 * Torez 2:00 cloudy, 18% cover, winds 11-14 mph from east. 5:00 sunny, 10% cover, winds ENE 9-11 mph.
 * Zuhres 2:00, sunny, 12% cover, winds from east 13-15 mph. 5:00 sunny, 9%, ENE 9-13 mph.
 * Rozsypne 2:00 showers, 15%, 12-14 from east - 5:00 10%, winds 9-12 ENE


 * A graphic someone else made


 * Clouds over Europe on the 17th, red dot on this app. area - time of image: 4:30 PM.


 * CL, do you know where to find weather records for 17 July at this location? Photo shows cirrostratus cloud which has a base height of 6000 metres.  Russian Defence Ministry states that Avdeyevka, to the west, had 70 to 80% cloud coverage and cloud base height of 2500m. But this photo is looking to the east of Torez Pmr9 (talk) 16:47, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * No, sorry. Was looking yesterday for Donetsk weather. Date and time.com goes back a few days too little to help in either. It's out there, somewhere. --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)
 * For the record, Weather Underground doesn't even have the airport basics. Donetsk, UKCC - last day with details: June 3. First day without, like all since, June 4. What exactly broke down at that point is not clear to me. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:36, 7 August 2014 (UTC)
 * What exactly broke down? Attack on Donetsk Airport! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:50, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * We have at least one source for that info now (see above) and also to note - the clouds seen here are southeast of that plume, SE of Snizneh, while Avdeyevka is just north of Donetsk, so, that's a huge span to try and connect between. The satellite imagery shows heavy clouds there (the missile base) and other satellite imagery seems to have heavy clouds to the east, thinner and mixed in the area under study.--Caustic Logic (talk) 11:58, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

November KP video, Wind Reading: New video, apparently, published Nov. 16 by Komsomollskaya Pravda, Nov. 16. Pretty sure it's filmed on Google Maps, looking west-northwest to the main crash site. With the plume of smoke rolling to the left and away from the camera, that means wind from the right, north, and behind the camera, east. So winds from north and east like the records show, exact angle unsure, could maybe get a narrower range. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:45, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Buk locations and flight paths
I am copying over part of a comment by Andrew over at Saker's blog. What we should have is a cooperative page on Google maps with all these points marked, or alternatively a Google Earth file.


 * ''The Telegraph has / had a post with a visual map reference and an image from the purported launch site toward Saur Moglia.


 * Alleged Rebel BUK at:
 * 47^58'26" North
 * 38^45'37" East
 * Exactly 2km due east of Pervomaiskyi village behind a row of trees.


 * The Ukrainian Buk's at:
 * 47^59'00"N
 * 38^27'03"E
 * and
 * 47^59'00"N
 * 38^27'00"E
 * 750M due south of Zaroschenske Village


 * I think your most conservative assumption would be to put the reported final flight bearing of 117^30' from TAMAK Waypoint
 * 47^51'23"N
 * 39^13'00"E
 * as the flight path at impact and draw your line back from there. On Google Earth this is a direct line from the dot representing Yenakijeve and TAMAK.


 * An intersection point is northwest of Kirovske village. I agree with the deflection of the plane by the missile, but would suggest the diversion was a curved path, not a direct intersection. :Possibly the entire fall was on a curve due to the aerodynamics of the plane breaking apart. This would account for the ejection of the cockpit and tail to the south of the fall path.


 * I also noticed this interesting conclusion tonight:
 * http://ukrainepost.blogspot.com/2014/07/mh17-tamak-waypoint_17.html


 * If they had fully carried through the math, thought about the detection range and flight time, they would have seen Snizhne to be impossible as they recognize the 1 minute missile flight time.
 * Too many people are confused and think the plane just falls down instead of taking a ballistic trajectory.
 * Why did MH17 leave L-69 for L-980 and then why did it attempt to return?
 * According to the Flight Plan I have seen, it was supposed to be flying Air Path L980. So the real question is what it was doing in L69 to begin with, as it implies it was diverted between Kiev and Dnipropetrovsk or the pilot got lost at GANRA waypoint and accidentally headed for Donetsk. At Donetsk it looks like it used Air Path W533 (?) to recover to L980 over Gorlivka.

More on the TAMAK waypoint:
 * Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 downed near Ukraine border
 * ''TAMAK is the waypoint where the air routes L980 and L69 converge over the boundary between Dnipropetrovsk airspace in Ukraine and Rostov-on-Don airspace in Russia.

TAMAK is located at 47°51'24.0"N 39°13'06.0"E (47.856667, 39.218333). The last normal point on MH17 flight path was 51 km in direction 300 degrees. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:28, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * This analysis does not take into account the Russian radar track that has the aircraft deviate significantly to Port / North from the planned track. Innocent explanations for this (if correct) include deviation to avoid thundery weather that is known to have been in the area - from public lightning servers.


 * --Charles Wood (talk) 09:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * That also shows a different final heading 111 instead of 118. For this final stretch, the deviation can be ignored, and the trajectory is only so important (as just one of the factors in determining spread). --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * "Too many people are confused and think the plane just falls down instead of taking a ballistic trajectory." Yes, but ... the factors in that will be: remaining flight trajectory (x mass, - drag, per piece), prevailing wind, and gravity. Averaged together, parts may wind up straight down, further along the path, or some other direction - even back on the path. "If they had fully carried through the math, thought about the detection range and flight time, they would have seen Snizhne to be impossible" It's this new report's calculated impact point that supposedly rules that out. But it is based on 20-30 km due east movement before the last debris, which is not very well explained (math not followed through?). See my new graphic and explanations at the report critique spot in a few minutes. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:30, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Historical evidence of similar inflight disruptions - TWA-800 and Pan-Am 103 - show the debris trail starts almost immediately at the point of explosion with heavier debris falling straight down. 'Ballistic' fall is a modern fiction. Either parts of the aircraft continue flying and in the case of TWA-800 actually gain altitude for a period, or they fall essentially based on density and drag. In no way do they fall based on classical ballistics.


 * TWA800 and Pan-Am 103 demonstrated how parts of the aircraft oversped and broke apart into major sections - exactly how evidence suggests MH17 broke apart. The MH17 tail detached and fell earlier than the main body. The cockpit section was in a completely different location.


 * --Charles Wood (talk) 10:40, 8 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Seconded - or firsted and thirded, whatever. PA 103 debris spread - almost totally perpendicular to flight path, due to wind. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * (except) "The MH17 tail detached and fell earlier than the main body. The cockpit section was in a completely different location." Correction: the cockpit and nose (and a bit of the forward plane behind that), perforated, came off first. The rest of it to the tail apparently hit in one piece, aside maybe from the (right?) wing, which was on fire. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Which air route was MH17 flying over Ukraine? Russian ATC radar says L69. FlightRadar24 says L980! -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:00, 8 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Not sure ATM, but keeping discussion moving. --Caustic Logic (talk) 13:11, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Location
Do we have this set? I don't. Reports say nearest towns are Snizhne and Torez, east of Donetsk. I looked between them, in the better-matching north part centered here on Google Maps. Was looking for the apparent church (?) but no clear luck. The area mifgt also be south of the highway. --Caustic Logic (talk) 23:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

If not, photos that might help:
 * Flight Deck photo with row of trees (road, presumably) and (church?)
 * Observers drive by recognizable buildings at "the main crash site"
 * Left wing tip photo shows the same area in the background. other buildings to the right.

That last area looks like maybe a small mining operation. Might be this spot, suggesting the road we mainly see is the one running southeast from there, little trees on left only facing southeast), wreckage mainly on the right. --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:09, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Sorry, the area is partly set. Digital globe crash site images. There was also a Hrabove mentiioned, but the one over by Poland came up ... now I see it's just at the edge of the Hrabove north of the spots I was checking above - homes just to the east may have been damaged. Sometimes my links come out goofed up, but hopefully this comes through - there used to be a cluster of buildings at the end of that little road, empty now. Coords 48.137 38.64 --Caustic Logic (talk) 00:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Lots of clues - unverified - at Wall Street Journal. e.g.


 * "The plane's cockpit and dozens of bodies plummeted into Rozsypne, about 2 miles from Petropavlivka. One body fell through a woman's roof. A pilot strapped to a seat wound up next to a flight attendant in a nearby field.


 * Charred remains of an engine, landing gear and wings fell in a fireball next to Hrabove, with a tumbling storm cloud of at least 70 bodies, some of them largely intact."
 * --Charles Wood (talk) 06:56, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The latter part sounds right. Rozsypne - in two sections BTW - is three creeks west of Hrabove. Exact area and even which part of the town not set by satellite images, but maybe can be matched by site photos. --Caustic Logic (talk) 07:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * According to this detailed NYT graphic nothing fell on either part of Rozsypne directly. One thing fell in the middle of Hrabove, most just south of there, and a couple doys even further west, just shy of Petropavlivka. --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:36, 28 July 2014 (UTC)


 * Wall Street Journal worked their clues into a list of parts with locations now. --CE (talk) 09:49, 30 July 2014 (UTC)
 * That is an excellent resource - photos next to labeled maps of the three areas, dots for each fragment, labeled. We can see where heavier and lighter parts landed, forward vs. main, etc. For a handy shortcut, the three maps are here combined into one image --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2014 (UTC)

Military Maps puts the cockpit here: lat=48.1231053 lng=38.5562914 -- Petri Krohn (talk) 13:00, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
 * That Military Maps is unavailable unless one signs in with Facebook which I won't do. The location is  48° 7'23.17"N

38°33'27.31"E according to my marker on my Google Earth from having once found the exact spot from images (marker #9 on Wall St Journal map linked above). This seems a long way from the military map, wonder what they used to locate it? KatKan (talk) 22:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Satellite Comparison
New Handy-dandy satellite image comparitor of before and after impact Crash Slider Viewer

From User blackbird69 on Pprune

The map is a result of the dutch governmental reply to an independent investigation by rtlnieuws (a dutch commercial news agency).

RTLnieuws bought satelite images of about 137 km2 of the area where MH17 had crashed. They bought images from 16th of july and the 26th july both taken around 09:00 in the morning. These images were analyzed by a company named NEO. This company used software to determine relevant differences between the two images. These differences were judged twice by experts to determine if these were trivial or not (i.e. moved garbage can, livestock, etc). The debris attributed to MH17 is on the map. From the satelite images it cannot be determined what the debris is.

RTL nieuws published the map, and the dutch government reacted by a fact sheet which includes the map mentioned in the post above. The colors mean: GREEN: inspected by investigation teams. RED: Areas forbidden by the rebels to be entered : ORANGE: Uninvestigated area.

The link to the RTLnieuws article is here (dutch): Groot deel rampgebied niet onderzocht door missie RTL Nieuws

Here is the actual images used to identify debris: MH17

The dutch investigation teams mentioned before in an interview that they were using satelite images.

RTLnieuws is trying to get reporters in the unsearched north-west area, but has not yet been successfull. It is unclear who has control of the area of the crash site.

The news agency also interviewed a refugee who claims to have seen the plane intact but burning breaking through the clouds and see it break into two. Couldn't find a link on internet.

--Charles Wood (talk) 01:54, 11 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Interesting. Dutch Prime Minister Mark Rutte has claimed that they searched the "main areas" before leaving. --CE (talk) 02:57, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Russia's Radar Evidence
At the same technical features of "Buk-M1" allow for the exchange of information on  air targets   between the batteries of one division. Thus, the missile launch could also be carried out on all batteries stationed in the village Avdeevka (8 kilometers north of Donetsk), or Gruzsko-Zoryanskoe (25 kilometers east of Donetsk), "- stressed in the military [(link)(places on a map). Those locations, to the rear (and left) are consistent with what I initially thought is most likely. [[Forensics#Direction_Cones|Direction cones]] make consideration more tricky --Resup (talk) 02:14, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Russian MoD: "On July 17 2014 Russian radar facilities detected operation of a radar station" Dome " of  a " Buk-M1 " battery, stationed near the village of Styla (30 kilometers south of Donetsk).
 * Roasaviation did not publish their response to preliminary Dutch report, but is said to drop a big hint still:  'In the briefing Storchevoy noted that in the case of Buk rocket launch by militias from   territory under their control, it would have been recorded by a Russian radar in Rostov. However, at the time of the accident that did not happen'. (he may have mentioned specifically  Snezhnoe, according to other commentators; I have not heard his presentation myself)--Resup (talk) 02:42, 18 July 2015 (UTC)
 * NSNBC July 22:
 * Tony Cartalucci (LD) : MH17 Show & Tell: It’s the West’s Turn. Russia has now shown its satellite pictures and radar information from the Donetsk, Ukraine region during the July 17, 2014 Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crash.

...(citing Wall Street Journal)...
 * In an elaborate presentation displaying radar and satellite imagery, (air force chief Igor Makushev) said it was likely that the second airplane was a Ukrainian fighter jet. He also showed satellite photos allegedly portraying several Buk ground-to-air missile systems in the area close to where the plane crashed. The systems, he said, could only belong to the Ukrainian military. Ukraine has accused Russia of giving the rebels a Buk system, with which they then shot down the passenger jet.


 * Mr. Makushev said the airplane deviated from its course by 14 kilometers, but then attempted to return to its course, before crashing shortly after.


 * He said Russia is prepared to hand all of the information it has to European authorities, which included satellite imagery and data from its own radars

An image from that, showing the deviation at Donetsk that Russia finds odd.
 * RT on the press conference.


 * CNN on the "propaganda war"
 * In the tangled aftermath of the Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 disaster, two narratives have emerged -- one that most of the world subscribes to, and another that Russia and the rebels are pushing.
 * Note: one side just presented its own detailed radar information. The other side relies on private company Flighttracker 24, it seems. Not field radar, this follows transponders only, I think. It would not see any fighter jet shadowing the plane. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:57, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

On August 5, it was reported, Russia's collected radar data and an anlytical report were handed to and received by members of the Dutch inquiry. As Flightglobal reported:
 * The data has been sourced from the area control centre at Rostov, which oversees the Rostov-on-Don flight information region to which MH17 would have been handed after exiting Dnipropetrovsk airspace.
 * Russian federal aviation regulator Rosaviatsia says its representative group, led by its deputy chief, has transferred requested information – including the Rostov air traffic data – to the Dutch inquiry. --Caustic Logic (talk) 09:55, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian military radar replay showing track Radar Replay --Charles Wood (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

By my NEW interpretation having rewatched it a few times in full screen, The point where the MH17 altitude changed from 330 to XXXX is when it was hit. I didn't see any other primary radar return showing another aicraft. There were then a number of primary radar returns that disappeared over time - as you would expect from breakup and fall with some items taking several minutes to hit the earth. --Charles Wood (talk) 02:33, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * Fucking morons! Why cannot the Russians do anything right? How do they think they can convince anyone with low-resolution crap? Besides they should make a download available. Anyway, I did not find any direct link to the .mp4 file, but some experimenting got me this (A direct link to the flash player):
 * http://stat.multimedia.mil.ru/images/flash_video/sxplayer.swf?id=b-777-1.mp4
 * The video displayed on the screen at the ministry was of higher resolution, so some of the text is readable from the YouTube video. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)



Taking Charles' cue, I took Petri's 50-km-in map and considered two spots on the Russian video. 'Red, last spot before it gets this new marking just before xxxx. I had mapped out the 50 and, as they actually say, 51 km in from the border station. The latter corresponds to a few pixels with this red dot. SOme of the offness suggested here is probably just imprecise scaling, but not all of it. I've been over correlating these points, and they all come out south of the crash zone, like just south, or too far east entirely. Some ambiguity with the shown final position - a north trend that makes some sense considering the orange dot, right? As I'll be noting, there's less sign than I thought of a southern wind (in the supp. launch plume video) or the records brought up elsewhere... Stuff all wound up north of the flight path, with a spread to the west, mainly. If not a wind partly from the south (records just say "east") I'm thinking the final maneuver at impact was a hard left bank to the north. Actual impact, just before the signs of it appear. Maybe at the last blip. (what's the interval here?) --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:32, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The video shows the time on the right, although it is poorly readable. The video starts at 13:18:59 UTC. To get the exact time add the number on the on-screen timer that runs up to 7:02. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 12:57, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * The Google Earth overlay/markup on the screenshot is wrong. The recorded track is North of the mark-up. It's apparent on the marked-up image itself where you can see the end-point of the MH17 box indicator away from the mark-up. --Charles Wood (talk) 11:44, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The overlay is just for comparison, or whatever. The red point is what we're talking about, and it roughly lines up. I think that dot too is a bit too far out, for whatever reason.--Caustic Logic (talk) 12:09, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I have no idea what the red dot is or even the yellow dot. I'm more than happy to use the screen location at the end of the MH17 indicator box callout. It's entirely in concord with the ground evidence that I know of.


 * I'm guessing the red dot is some earlier guesstimate maybe based on radar data and faulty interpretation?
 * Boloded above, from the same video, and the same 51 km - looks too far out --Caustic Logic (talk) 22:16, 13 August 2014 (UTC)
 * I suggest removing tin-foil-hats and accept Russian technical data as accurate until proved otherwise. --Charles Wood (talk) 13:37, 13 August 2014 (UTC)


 * I would really like to know when and where MH17 lost its transponder?
 * The Russian radar data is updated every five seconds. (Different planes get updated at different times as the radar beam sweeps clockwise.) The last five or six positions are shown as dots on the screen. Transponder data is shown inside the text box. The direction is indicated by a straight line extending forward. (The length depends on speed. The air traffic controller would monitor that the lines never cross each other.) I do not know if the direction is obtained from the transponder GPS data or from the difference to the previous point.
 * MH17 follows the same flight path along air route L980 as shown on the FlightRadar24 data and also flies some way past the crash site – the difference being that the radar data is some 20 seconds behind the FlightRadar24 data.
 * Something weird happens at 13:20:47 UTC (1:48 on tape): MH17 jumps 5 km north from where it was first seen at 13:20:42. The radar screen shows some data that should come from the transponder. I do not know if it received fresh values or is just remembering outdated data. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 14:45, 13 August 2014 (UTC)

Russian Humour
A remark on the Russian claim that the satellite data presented by Ukraine had to be from the US as the Ukrainian satellites Sich-1 and Sich-2 have not been in the area at the time of the satellite data: This was A JOKE by the Defense Ministry sticking it to the Ukrainians in a rather cruel way. Sich-1 has been the first satellite a post-Soviet country sent to space, in 1995. It had a lifespan of one year or so. Sich-2 was the effort to continue the glory of Ukrainian Space Exploration in the new millenium and had a long history of delays and failures before it was finally sent into Orbit in 2011 - and "stopped communicating with ground control on Dec. 12, 2012, as a result of a faulty power supply battery". In other words, Ukraine doesn't have any earth observation satellites over the scene at any given time. ;o) --CE (talk) 11:09, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Nearby Flights
(partly radar in nature, maybe more eyewitness related) This seemed interesting - not sure what to make of it except the Indians not wanting to get drawn into a he-saw-they-said dispute over this particular crime/accident/tragedy.
 * August 5 http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Singapore-govt-stand-suggests-AI-aircraft-was-flying-close-to-MH17/articleshow/39659173.cms
 * Singapore's transport minister Lui Tuck Yew told the parliament that Flight SQ351, headed to Singapore from Copenhagen, was just 90km (56 miles) from the Malaysian plane at that time. TOI had carried a report on July 20 saying AI's Delhi-Birmingham flight was flying barely 25km, or 90 seconds away, from the Malaysian aircraft when the latter was hit. All 298 people on board flight MH17 had died.


 * Within hours of the tragedy, the media had picked up data from flightradar24, a live flight-tracker website, showing the AI and Singapore Airlines aircraft in the vicinity. The two aircraft were at different altitudes though. The Malaysian one was flying east, while the AI and Singapore aircraft were flying west. The AI pilots were even asked by the Dnipropetrovsk (local Ukrainian) ATC to contact the Malaysian aircraft after it went off the radar.


 * The Indian civil aviation ministry continues to deny the AI aircraft was near flight MH17.

How plausible is their denial, and if not the truth, what else might be causing it? --Caustic Logic (talk) 10:22, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

Those other commercial flights are seen in the Russian  MOD presentation Singapore Airlines 351, Copenhagen -Singapore, Air India 113, Deli -Birmingham (Boeing 787-8), and a flight Paris-Taipei, labelled as Number 0368, time given as 17:24 Moscow Time (16:24 local), a Boeing 777-300ER. Plane types, correcting presentation errors, are taken from a blog.
 * One witness claims to be on a flight 'from Greece to Russia', in the area apparently some 20 minutes off the crash time; I do not see this flight on MOD presentation.   --Resup (talk) 07:40, 30 May 2015 (UTC)
 * The MOD presentation was of flights very close in time, and crossing E-W roughly over Donbass. The general route Greece to Moscow crosses Moldova and Transnistria before entering Ukraine, passing well to the west of Kiev, then crosses the eastern tip of Belarus before turning right/east to Moscow. As such it would be nowhere near the conflict zone, so not a potential near-miss/victim. Flightradar only goes back a week unless you're a paid member, so we can't check this flkight in detail. But the route would be suitable for a good view over the conflict zone. The witness is claiming he saw Ukrainian fighters flying around the area, so he's yet another witness to Ukies lying about not having planes up that day. KatKan (talk) 20:05, 31 May 2015 (UTC)

U-Turn?
here's an image from the Before its News analysis shows MH17 making a 180-degree U-turn that looks pretty unilkely. It's based on the final plots not lining up with the crash site, and reasonable attamps to connect them with two possible arcs. When I've seen that kind of mismatch before, it's meant nothing but something being off somewhere in recording, translating, and mapping the numbers. Described as "Reconstructed trajectory of the plane after last known “good” data transmission.," almost as if this is something they're really arguing for. Is it valid or a clue? I don't think so. --Caustic Logic (talk) 11:25, 30 July 2014 (UTC)


 * The Russian maps is wrong as it assumes the plane approached the crash site from the east. In fact it came from the west. Either the plane flew a 100 km full circle or the GPS data it broadcast is false. I believe the data recorded by FlightRadar24 is extremely reliable and I understand the Russian ATC tape to show that ATC received similar coordinates in the transponder beeps. The only explanation is that MH17 was guided off course by an escort fighter feeding it false GPS satellite signals. I explained the whole thing in my blog post, but don't think I even want to link to it here as someone might think we are conspiracy nuts. What I did not mention is that the Indian pilot overheard MH17 being given "direct routing" i.e. to screw beacons and fly by satellite. -- Petri Krohn (talk) 01:39, 5 August 2014 (UTC)

AWACS
There's a mechanism called "kleine Anfrage" with which members of the German parliament can ask questions to the government which it has to answer publicly. Members of the "Left Party" did so with regards to Ukraine and MH17. The answer is here (2MB PDF in German). They state (page 6/7) that AWACS planes in Poland and/or Romania surveilled MH17 until it left the space they covered at 14:52 MEZ, half an hour before crash, according to the Dutch report about the time it entered Dnepropetrovsk air control. The AWACS system tracked in its reach radar activity of an SA-3 surface-to-air missile system (automatically classified and routinely observed "in the whole region") and additionally a radar signal the AWACS system wasn't able to classify. --CE (talk) 11:50, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * SA-3 is an old system, still capable of doing the job. It was used by Warsaw pact countries, but nowadays mostly retired. It's range is up to 30 km, while a plane will travel some 400 km in 1/2 hour. So that SA-3 detected 1/2 hour earlier is almost surely out of the range. (Do they say where this SA3 was located? And that unclassified signal?)--Resup (talk) 12:23, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * Half an hour earlier is the time MH17 left the surveilled area. Given its route I think it's safe to conclude that the surveillance in this case happened from Poland, not Romania (they don't say). They are also vague about the radar signals. It seems they say that the SA-3 activity is a constant, regularly observed signal in the region. They don't even say it's in Ukraine, just in the area under surveillance. Same with the "other" signal. --CE (talk) 13:02, 12 September 2014 (UTC)
 * The wikipedia article says that the only relevant country here who operates SA-3 is indeed Poland. Not Ukraine, neither Belarus nor any other neighbour of Ukraine. So that's likely what they detected and completely irrelevant to the fate of MH17. --CE (talk) 16:47, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

It appears that AWACS data may exclude (or otherwise) MIG 29 (we quote MIG 29 theory, Pravda article,  in the sources on main page). Closest MIG 29 are in Kyiv and Ivano-Frankovsk, that is more than 400 km from the crash site and can show up on AWACS data--if it was there at all. --Resup (talk) 13:41, 12 September 2014 (UTC)

Road of Death

 * ''Moved to Talk:Rozsypne Road of Death

It is now established that the location is not in the MH17 crash area, but a similarly named village south of Snizhne in what is now known as "Southern Cauldron 2.0". -- Petri Krohn (talk) 19:46, 18 August 2014 (UTC)