CONSPIRACY theories abound as to the circumstances that led to the downing of MH17 over eastern Ukraine.
One politician theorised that Malaysia Airlines “serving alcohol and the flight attendants’ uniform crossing Islamic boundaries” had allegedly contributed to the tragedy.
A well-known Zimbabwean mufti, Ismail Musa Menk, countered the allegation by saying: “One cannot conclude the Almighty is angry. In fact, it’s a test that we who believe should accept that a test means a destiny we need to go through as best as possible under the circumstances.”
Another politician alleged that MAS’ rationale for still using that particular route over a conflict zone in Ukraine had put MH17 in harm’s way. Had the politician bothered to check, he would have found that 10 other airlines had used that very same route without getting shot at.
In fact, before the MH17 incident, about 100 aircraft a day from 60 different airlines were seen in the region (Ukraine). According to FlightRadar24 data, an SIA jetliner from Copenhagen to Singapore was flying within 20 miles of MH17 at the time of the crash, and there were other commercial aircraft within a 25km radius.
Eurocontrol which manages the European air transport network, also clarified MH17 was flying at about 33,000 feet – 1,000 feet about closed airspace – and not 30,000 feet or 300 feet above the safe level as some reports suggested.
Would any airline try to save fuel and fly over a conflict area? A question frequently posed after the MH17 incident.
It’s perhaps best answered by John Strickland, an independent aviation consultant.
“Airlines select routes based on cost efficiency but no airlines will risk the safety of their passengers, crew and aircraft for the sake of saving fuel. Airlines are certainly not wilfully putting their passengers and air crew at risk. Safety is always first,” he said.
Strickland added that although longer flights would “anger passengers and mean planes are not in the right places at the right time which can have a knock-on effect around the world,” all these are secondary to safety.
The International Air Transport Association (ITATA) which represents 240 airlines, is no less emphatic: “Airlines depend on governments and air control authorities to advise which airspace is available for flight and they plan within those limits. But safety is carriers’ top priority.”
Sources say the UN International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) will meet in Montreal next week to discuss airline safety to prevent a repeat of the MH17 incident which took 298 lives.
The ICAO has yet to hold any emergency meetings since the last two it convened after a Soviet jet downed a South Korean airliner in 1983 and a US cruiser downed an Iranian passenger jet in 1988.
But any major changes to the way global aviation is organised are not expected at the Montreal meeting with the US, the world’s biggest domestic aviation market, already casting an advanced damper by declaring it is currently “not seeking changes to ICAO’s guidelines after the MH17 disaster and the disappearance of another MAS plane in March.”
The ICAO, widely regarded as a civil aviation safety watchdog body, has also stated it does not declare airspace safe or unsafe or undertake any direct operational responsibilities with respect to civilian air services.
“It is up to individual member states to declare unsafe areas of airspace,” it said.
The ICAO’s non-committal stance does call into question the purpose of its existence. Industry figures have since urged the UN organisation to take on a bigger role and issue risk advisories as it rightly should.
As aviation experts explain: “It’s very much like driving a car – if the road is open, you assume it’s safe. If it’s closed, you find an alternate route. You either open or close it. Similarly, you cannot open a flight path and say use it at your own peril.”
That would, indeed, be irresponsible.
However, before the ICAO’s role can be increased, the Chicago Convention under which the organisation was set up in 1947, will have to be amended.
There have also been misreportings over the two MAS mishaps.
Maartyen de Jonge, a professional cyclist for the Terengganu cycling team, reportedly made bookings on MH370 and MH17. Both times, he changed his plans at the last minute. The only problem is there is no evidence he ever brough a ticket or even had a reservation for either flight.
“His miraculous survival is an artifact of the Internet’s echo chamber where freaky news gets amplified beyond all proportion and few bother to check whether it’s actually true,” said Martin Enserink, an Amsterdam-based science journalist and a contributing news editor of Science magazine.
On the home front, judging from the tirades hurled at MAS following its double whammy, it’s obvious some politicians are still suffering the bitter hangovers from the no-holds-barred politicking of the 2008 and 2013 elections.
Time and again, we see these politicians using the misfortunes befalling the national carrier to feather their political nest. Their sense of schadenfreude is a disgrace.
As a nation, we need to come to our senses and heal this sick divisiveness rather than indulging in hate mongering even in times of adversity.