Missiles Are Now the Biggest Killer of Airline Passengers (wsj.com) 71
Accidental missile attacks on commercial airliners have become the leading cause of aviation fatalities in recent years (Warning: source paywalled; alternative source), driven by rising global conflicts and the proliferation of advanced antiaircraft weaponry. Despite improvements in aviation safety overall, inconsistent risk assessments, political complexities, and rapid military escalations make protecting civilian flights in conflict zones increasingly difficult. The Wall Street Journal reports: The crash Wednesday of an Azerbaijan Airlines jetliner in Kazakhstan, if officially confirmed as a midair attack, would be the third major fatal downing of a passenger jet linked to armed conflict since 2014, according to the Flight Safety Foundation's Aviation Safety Network, a global database of accidents and incidents. The tally would bring to more than 500 the number of deaths from such attacks during that period. Preliminary results of Azerbaijan's investigation into the crash indicate the plane was hit by a Russian antiaircraft missile, or shrapnel from it, said people briefed on the probe.
"It adds to the worrying catalog of shootdowns now," said Andy Blackwell, an aviation risk adviser at security specialist ISARR and former head of security at Virgin Atlantic. "You've got the conventional threats, from terrorists and terrorist groups, but now you've got this accidental risk as well." No other cause of aviation fatalities on commercial airliners comes close to shootdowns over those years, according to ASN data. The deadliness of such attacks is a dramatic shift: In the preceding 10 years, there were no fatal shootdowns of scheduled commercial passenger flights, ASN data show. The trend highlights the difficulty -- if not impossibility -- of protecting civilian aviation in war zones, even for rigorous aviation regulators, because of the politics of war. Early last century similar woes plagued sea travel, when belligerents targeted ocean transport.
Increasing civilian aviation deaths from war also reflect both a growing number of armed conflicts internationally and the increasing prevalence of powerful antiaircraft weaponry. If a missile was indeed the cause of this week's disaster, it would mean that the three deadliest shootdowns of the past decade all involved apparently unintended targetings of passenger planes flying near conflict zones, by forces that had been primed to hit enemy military aircraft. Two of those incidents were linked to Russia: Wednesday's crash of an Embraer E190 with 67 people aboard, of whom 38 died, and the midair destruction in 2014 of a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 flying over a battle zone in Ukraine, on which all 298 people aboard died. The other major downing was the mistaken shooting in 2020 by Iranian forces of a Ukraine International Airlines Boeing 737 departing Tehran, killing all 176 people onboard. Iran's missile defense systems had been on alert for a potential U.S. strike at the time.
"It adds to the worrying catalog of shootdowns now," said Andy Blackwell, an aviation risk adviser at security specialist ISARR and former head of security at Virgin Atlantic. "You've got the conventional threats, from terrorists and terrorist groups, but now you've got this accidental risk as well." No other cause of aviation fatalities on commercial airliners comes close to shootdowns over those years, according to ASN data. The deadliness of such attacks is a dramatic shift: In the preceding 10 years, there were no fatal shootdowns of scheduled commercial passenger flights, ASN data show. The trend highlights the difficulty -- if not impossibility -- of protecting civilian aviation in war zones, even for rigorous aviation regulators, because of the politics of war. Early last century similar woes plagued sea travel, when belligerents targeted ocean transport.
Increasing civilian aviation deaths from war also reflect both a growing number of armed conflicts internationally and the increasing prevalence of powerful antiaircraft weaponry. If a missile was indeed the cause of this week's disaster, it would mean that the three deadliest shootdowns of the past decade all involved apparently unintended targetings of passenger planes flying near conflict zones, by forces that had been primed to hit enemy military aircraft. Two of those incidents were linked to Russia: Wednesday's crash of an Embraer E190 with 67 people aboard, of whom 38 died, and the midair destruction in 2014 of a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777 flying over a battle zone in Ukraine, on which all 298 people aboard died. The other major downing was the mistaken shooting in 2020 by Iranian forces of a Ukraine International Airlines Boeing 737 departing Tehran, killing all 176 people onboard. Iran's missile defense systems had been on alert for a potential U.S. strike at the time.
Russian antiaircraft missile, or shrapnel from it (Score:5, Informative)
Well yeah, that's typically how they work -- they're not designed to directly impact. Anyways, just stay away from Russia and any of her allies (i.e. Iran) and you'll probably be fine. The US gave the civilian world access to GPS specifically because Russia shot down a Korean airliner in 1983.
Re: Russian antiaircraft missile, or shrapnel from (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: Russian antiaircraft missile, or shrapnel from (Score:5, Insightful)
In case there was ever any doubt: Putin's Russia is a terrorist - mafia state.
Ever wonder why all terrorists and insurgents across the world are armed with AK rifles? Because the Russian government is only interested in making money and will sell their weapons to anyone.
After toppling Syrian dictator and Russian ally Assad, they uncovered his drug-labs and huge stockpiles of Captagon. He was one of the biggest drug dealers in the world.
Other allies of Russia are the worst regimes in the world, interested only in maintaining their hold on power, or terrorist organizations: North Korea, Iran, Hamas.
Russia also funds mercenaries in Africa to exploit resources like golds and diamonds, terrorizing locals, sometimes blackmailing governments.
If the current Russian regime went away and Russia become a normal democratic nation, the conflict level in the world would almost instantly drop by 50%.
Re: (Score:3)
Most of them aren't actually Russian AK rifles - they're clones. It's a simple, well-understood design. It's one of the most widely cloned guns in the world.
Re: (Score:3)
Well yeah, that's typically how they work -- they're not designed to directly impact.
Some missiles are made to destroy a target with shrapnel, some by direct impact.
Control of missiles a got to be so precise that there's been missile strikes against individuals in moving cars. Granted this is with slow moving cars but still there's been successful strikes on a singular person in a car that left the others in the vehicle alive. They were injured, and certainly had psychological damage, but alive and likely to recover fully from all physical injuries.
The USA has missiles that can give a let
Re: (Score:2)
Some missiles are made to destroy a target with shrapnel, some by direct impact.
In particular look up continuous-rod warheads, which are designed to cut their targets in half.
Re:Russian antiaircraft missile, or shrapnel from (Score:4, Insightful)
So the civilians, wedding guests, the children killed by US missile strikes are all deliberate then?
Yes. The same ones Israel is using to kill civilians, children, and doctors.
Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)
It's a vassal state, close enough.
But yeah when you have access to these hyper-accurate weapons and choose to flatten a city and everyone in it anyway - it's clear your goal is to remove the population in its entirety. (If that hadn't already been clear through the preponderance of evidence that extends way beyond military action, going back decades.)
Of course Israel's blanket defense is that every house is a bomb, every citizen is a combatant. How else would you defend this kind of behavior?
Re:Russian antiaircraft missile, or shrapnel from (Score:4, Interesting)
It's a vassal state, close enough.
Not really. As best I can tell, the U.S. government puts up with Israel because of a sense of NATO obligation to Great Britain after WWII, so it feels some responsibility to keep the country from completely imploding. But make no mistake, the U.S. doesn't control Israel. If it did, a lot of the events of the last year or so wouldn't have happened. The civilian casualties in their latest war have been happening at a level that would be considered completely unacceptable by U.S. military standards, and from all outward indications, even the U.S. government is getting fed up with Israel at this point.
If Israel keeps being as reckless as they have been at various times in recent months, they will likely eventually go too far and find themselves facing the wrath of their neighbors without U.S. backing. They got dangerously close earlier this year. When historically pro-Israel leaders like Biden start criticizing Israel publicly, it really means that in back room discussions, there's mounting pressure from all sides to cut off support for Israel entirely, and he is being diplomatic to avoid causing outright panic.
The only question is whether Donald Trump cares enough to push back similarly. His choices of cabinet posts and similar suggests that maybe he does, but we won't know for sure until Israel's military screws up and blows up another large group of aid workers or innocent civilians. Given their history, I doubt we'll have to wait too long. At that point, we'll see see whether the U.S. still stands with Israel or tells them that they're on their own.
Re: (Score:1)
The only question is whether Donald Trump cares enough to push back similarly.
That depends on exactly one thing: What will benefit Trump the most, personally?
That, and only that, will be the basis for any of his decisions in this, and any other, matter.
But you all know this already.
Re: (Score:3)
GB doesn't seem to be overly concerned with Israel anymore. Besides the US, the only one significantly arming them is Germany.
The criticisms from Biden were incredibly weak and strictly verbal. The weapons deliveries never slowed. Smells like a PR move: Biden asked them to please stop killing the kids, then sent more bombs. This doublespeak demonstrates Biden's unconditional support while trying to temper the blowback for the election. He set so many red lines ("Don't invade Rafah") only to have Israel brea
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
The Israelis and the Palestinians have been carrying out war crimes against each other since '48- both "liberal" and "conservative" governments.
I think anyone with an opinion for or against either side of that conflict is likely a fucking moron.
Re: Russian antiaircraft missile, or shrapnel fro (Score:2)
I don't use the terms "liberal" and "progressive" interchangeably. I consider there to be quite a difference. Progressives, among other things, want to impose their morals on others and overall have decided what the future world order looks like, and anything not in furtherance of that is "regressive" or "backwards".
When I say things like "free speech is critical to a well functioning democracy", they are the first to poo-poo that idea. It's very illiberal. rsilvergun, for example, routinely makes the argum
Re: (Score:2)
Easier said than done. When you're a Russian ally and a risk taker you can save huge amounts of money and give you a massive competitive edge on some routes. E.g. Amsterdam to Beijing takes KLM 12.5hours of flight time vs China Southern's 11.1hours. That is a huge difference in operational cost that either needs to be eaten or passed on to consumers (who will book with the competition because the risk of being shot down actually is still insanely low).
Re: (Score:2)
Its not just Russia, remember https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] but I agree that Russia seems a lot worse than anyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
just stay away from Russia and any of her allies (i.e. Iran) and you'll probably be fine.
Well, about that... Quote from an official speech: "American aggressor interferes in the internal matters of the Soviet Union on the whole world".
Re:Russian antiaircraft missile, or shrapnel from (Score:4, Funny)
"just stay away from Russia and any of her allies (i.e. Iran)"
How does Azerbaijan stay away from Russia and Iran?
Re:*Russian* missiles (Score:5, Informative)
A quick browse of wikipedia and some napkin math tells me that, this century so far, a total of 234 passengers died in non-russian missile attacks on passenger planes (if you count the 34 people who died in the Balad aircraft crash, the cause of which seems unclear) and 339 in russian missile attacks. So yeah, its pretty much Russia being Russia. I'm sure there are more passenger plane shootdowns to come.
Russia killed 269 people in a passenger airplane over the pacific ocean in 1983 and they tried pretty hard to cover it up.
The US killed 290 people in a passenger airplane in 1988 btw.
This doesn't count the 10 people who died last year in the 2023 Wagner Group plane crash the cause of which is unknown.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Re:*Russian* missiles (Score:4, Funny)
Wagner Group plane crash the cause of which is unknown.
Whether they fall out of windows, accidentally sink their flagships, or the wing falls off of one of their planes...It's gotta be something in the vodka IMO.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm pretty sure it is the vodka in the vodka that is the issue.
TU-22 used vodka for air con (Score:2)
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Air for the crew was provided by a bleed air system on the engine compressors. This air was hot and had to be cooled before being pumped into the cockpit. This cooling was provided by a large total-loss evaporator running on a mixture of 40% ethanol and 60% distilled water (effectively vodka). This system garnered the aircraft one of its many nicknames, the "supersonic booze carrier".[11] As the system vented the coolant after use, the aircraft could run out during flig
Re: (Score:2)
They could have just denatured it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org] This is not new, complex, expensive, or difficult.
Some "problems" are ridiculously easy to solve with just a slight amount of thought put into them. Amazing this wasn't done from the start, especially in USSR/Russia.
Re: (Score:2)
They could have just denatured it. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
From that link:
so, apparently, no, denaturing the alcohol wouldn't stop Russians from drinking it.
Re: (Score:2)
>"so, apparently, no, denaturing the alcohol wouldn't stop Russians from drinking it."
I think it probably just wasn't "denatured" enough, then :) There are things that can be added that would cause immediate/horrible vomiting. I can't imagine someone continuing to try and drink something like that! Anyway, we have no evidence the liquid used on the planes was denatured or not nor how or to what extent.
Re: TU-22 used vodka for air con (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I would never advocate putting anything lethal or extremely dangerous as a denaturant. Just things that make it taste and smell horrible and things that cause vomiting.
I never considered the idea "re-distillation".... that is a lot of work.
Re: (Score:2)
The point of using ethanol and water was that if there was a leak in the cooling system then the crew would not be poisoned. Denature the alcohol and you get back to the risk of killing, or at least incapacitating, the crew and losing the aircraft. Best to leave in the reasonably safe ethanol than create some greater risk to the crew and aircraft by putting in something in the coolant that could make them sick.
I worked with some people that were making a food grade oven of sorts that needed food grade coo
Re: TU-22 used vodka for air con (Score:2)
Re: *Russian* missiles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
the 10 people who died last year in the 2023 Wagner Group plane crash the cause of which is unknown
Cause: Putin's thugs couldn't find a window high enough.
Re: (Score:3)
the 10 people who died last year in the 2023 Wagner Group plane crash the cause of which is unknown
Cause: Putin's thugs couldn't find a window high enough.
They wouldn't eat the Polonium or Dioxin flavored soup, so an alternative accident had to be found.
Re: (Score:2)
Are you including the Malaysian airliner Russia shot down over Ukraine in 2014?
Re: (Score:2)
This doesn't count the 10 people who died last year in the 2023 Wagner Group plane crash the cause of which is unknown.
I believe the industry calls this one "Scheduled Rapid Disassembly"
Re: *Russian* missiles (Score:3)
Re: *Russian* missiles (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A quick browse of wikipedia and some napkin math tells me that, this century so far, a total of 234 passengers died in non-russian missile attacks on passenger planes (if you count the 34 people who died in the Balad aircraft crash, the cause of which seems unclear) and 339 in russian missile attacks. So yeah, its pretty much Russia being Russia. I'm sure there are more passenger plane shootdowns to come.
Russia killed 269 people in a passenger airplane over the pacific ocean in 1983 and they tried pretty hard to cover it up.
The US killed 290 people in a passenger airplane in 1988 btw.
This doesn't count the 10 people who died last year in the 2023 Wagner Group plane crash the cause of which is unknown.
Russia also shot down MH17 from a Russian Buk system killing 298 people.
no people are (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
people built the missiles, people built the targeting systems, and people push the fire button.
Interesting. A logical argument but still we see so many politicians blaming firearms for violence in America, they are not making the connection made in the parent post. The problem is not the tool, it is the person wielding the tool.
The reason missiles are most often used for taking down aircraft is artillery has proved ineffective against modern aircraft that fly higher and faster than was possible in WW1 and early WW2 where weapons like the German 88mm flak cannon was feared. Analogous to that is the
Re: (Score:3)
Boeing execs breathe a sigh of relief (Score:5, Funny)
"Pfffew, it's not us anymore!"
Re: (Score:2)
"Pfffew, it's not us anymore!"
That's gonna last right up until they have themselves another brainstorm and come up with a new genius business model involving extensive reliance on the lowest bidding contractor without paying that contractor's competence and QA any heed.
Boeing is still better at it. (Score:4, Interesting)
"Pfffew, it's not us anymore!"
TFS cites a window of 10 years. If I were to pick just one more major incident beyond the obvious 737 MAX deaths of recent times, it puts Boeing as having more fatalities. And this list is quite long:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Boeing is still more deadlier than missiles. Sorry to disappoint the clickbait pimps writing bullshit headlines.
Re: (Score:2)
What about the South Korean jet?
good guy? (Score:2)
Obviously .. to stop the bad guys with an surface-to-air missile we need ... a good pilot with air-to-surface missile on all commercial planes!
Right?
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously .. to stop the bad guys with an surface-to-air missile we need ... a good pilot with air-to-surface missile on all commercial planes!
Right?
Obviously .. to stop the bad guys with an surface-to-air missile we need ... a good pilot with air-to-surface missile on all commercial planes!
Right?
Or they should lease planes from FedEx, since they have missle defense systems installed.
Re: (Score:2)
Obviously .. to stop the bad guys with an surface-to-air missile we need ... a good pilot with air-to-surface missile on all commercial planes!
Right?
That is what an AGM-88 HARM [wikipedia.org] is for.
nope still remains (Score:2)
Putin is so stupid (Score:3, Insightful)
No investigation would have been made and the world would have said "oh, carry on then"
Re: (Score:2)
All he had to say was: "There were suspected Hamas fighters on that plane" No investigation would have been made and the world would have said "oh, carry on then"
Nonsense. Everyone would have wanted to know why he'd blow up his allies.
Re: (Score:2)
There's no evidence of Russian support for Hamas. Israel [wikipedia.org] though...
The Biggest Killer of Airline Passengers (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless the plane is a Boeing.
Good news (Score:2)
That plane has now been properly denazified.
Why are you flying into a war zone country? (Score:2)
Because cheaper or government sources? (Score:2)
I can see costs going down as technology improves, and new companies start selling missiles to whoever has cash/gold/bitcoin. And lower prices might increase access.
Or that governments would have easier access to weapons like those, and if they're firing them more often...
But maybe someone can explain the dividing lines between all the flying weapons? Like an RPG vs. a bazooka vs. a missile vs. a whatever... RPG's are so cheap compared to flying stuff that they were supposedly really scary to have around