Malaysia Airlines two lessons brought by the crash

Our commentator Qile

The more technology has the confidence, there is evidence to judge, intelligence resources, the more talk less. If there is any lesson from these two incidents, that is: Both aviation and military must do as much as they can and do not expect others to "help."

The same airline operator, known as Malaysia Airlines, suffered two large-scale airliner crashes four months apart. There seems to be no precedent in memory.

Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 crashed on the 17th of this month, killing all passengers and crew.

Previously, MH370 flight missing on March 8, so far there is no conclusive or physical evidence that the fate of passengers and crew.

Both incidents involved the Boeing 777 passenger aircraft, and inferred from common sense there are human factors.

Another similarity is the two incidents up to now. Compared with the day of the calamity, no matter how many days or months actually the substantive information has not increased, it means that the so-called investigation is worth mentioning, the search is worth mentioning, and to a certain extent, stay in the "origin."

Taking Flight MH17 for example, seeking the "truth" or the "culprit" instead of aftermath, the primary search objective is not believed to be the remains of the deceased, but the missile fragments, hoping to find some information, perhaps a "number" In agreement with the inventories of manufacturers and arsenals inventory, enough to indicate "black hand."

Passenger aircraft data and voice "black box" is of course useful to reveal which part of the passenger aircraft the missile caused the first damage, the pilot how to react, what is the last → what is the sentence ... news value may be higher than the technical value.

This incident, no matter resorted to the investigation of international organizations, the European Union investigation, or the investigation of the Ukrainian government, and even Malaysia or Russia investigation, there is no missile fragments, no fragments of the relevant information compared to all parties without the full release of military intelligence must be difficult to convince the public .

The most sensitive place, I am afraid that the information is open, it may mean intelligence capabilities open.

Looking back at the MH370 flight incident, despite the reluctance of the media colleagues to accept it, I judge in a few months: every few days, it gradually extends to a few weeks, and in the future it is estimated to be a few months. That airliner appears to be getting closer and closer. , Eventually more and more "far." Common sense points to a pilot "causing trouble", but no one at all has provided "evidence" of this judgment, perhaps with no ability. Perhaps the authorities are unwilling to ...

In the early days of the MH370, one country in the South China Sea had no fleet. Only the boat fleet meant that the vessel was too small to be overnight at sea and actually involved in the search for aircraft debris. Almost the earliest reports of "discovery" were of course proved to be false afterwards. Only, no one thinks that is "malicious."

This Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 seems a bit different. In the same initial phase, one of the parties involved continued to provide details that seemed too detailed to me. For example, military aircraft shot down the passenger plane first. Later, the armed personnel shot down two radio calls after they shot down the plane, followed by a video video of a missile launch vehicle.

Instead of releasing details that are not sufficient to identify others involved in the case, it is better to provide our own radar data and deployment of missiles and to fight as soon as possible on a broader search for missile fragments than to exchange and disclose information with our allies.

From the MH370 incident, we got in touch with some professional and technical people and got the impression that the more technology has the confidence and the basis for judging, the more information resources and the less speaking. Passenger aircraft, engineered and assembled by Boeing of the United States, manufactured by a British company; satellite communications, provided by → British operators ... All of these, all key technologies, are not familiar with air carriers.

Malaysia Airlines, the two crashes within a few months, search, investigation and conclusions, I am afraid it is not associated with it.

If there is any lesson from these two incidents, that is: Both aviation and military must do as much as they can and do not expect others to "help." As far as China is concerned, whether it is a civil aircraft or a variety of missiles, it is possible to grasp the initiative and handle all the consequences of its own by using technology, manufacturing itself, operating and controlling itself.