Blog AnalysisPolice TerrorismRussia Caucasus Ukraine

MH17 crash. The guilty, the responsible. As a European problem too!

The wing of MH17 in eastern Ukraine (credit: Onderzoeksraad)
The wing of MH17 in eastern Ukraine (credit: Onderzoeksraad)

(BRUSSELS2) After the crash of the Boeing MH17 of the malaysian airlines, which occurred in eastern Ukraine on Thursday (July 17), it will certainly be necessary to wait a bit before finding the perpetrators of this "attack" which caused 298 victims (including 200 Europeans *). But the information known today reveals, too, as a European problem. A serious shortcoming in the air traffic control of the "Single Sky". And a responsibility from which the Ukrainian authorities cannot escape.

One culprit... Russia?

If the hypothesis of a surface-to-air missile fire seems to be confirmed, it will be necessary to determine who used it. The firing zone - eastern Ukraine - appears to incriminate, at first sight, the pro-Russian rebels. It remains to be seen what material exactly was used? Who actually fired? Who provided the necessary assistance and skills to ensure this high altitude shooting? Russia seems to be in the sights of Western military specialists. A Pentagon official was very clear on Friday (July 18) during his press briefing. THE  missile" without a doubt in use "To shoot it down MH flight 17, is " le HER-11 (the US designation for the first generation of Bouk stations) explained the Rear Admiral Kirby (complementing President Obama's remarks). " It is a sophisticated piece of technology. Che borders on credulity to think it could be used by the separatists without at least one soutien and assistance technical of Russia ". And to add. « This incident obviously occurs in the context of a conflict fueled by Russian support. Support that includes weapons, equipment and training ». The complexity of the device was confirmed by a European officer at B2: this type of material is not easy to handle, “ like a Kalashnikov or a rocket launcher. It requires trained and experienced personnel. And not a single person. We are talking about crew ". And these crews... follow my gaze

A manager ?

According to the latest information, the Malaysian Boeing was at the time of the crash, in the FIR (flight information region) of Karkhiv, under the control of the station of "Dnipropetrovsk" (Ukraine) as specified by a person in charge of the Eurocontrol operations at B2. He was flying at 10.000 meters (33.000 feet), above the altitude authorized by the Ukrainian authorities.

Despite the intense fighting, Kiev has at no time reported to Eurocontrol, the European air traffic control authority (which includes Ukraine), any problem flying over this area at high altitude. Only traffic at low altitude had been regulated.

This point was confirmed to us by Eurocontrol. " We have had no reports, no alerts (No international warning) warning of any danger whatsoever above a certain distance confirmed Eurocontrol experts on Friday (July 18) to the press. And this road continues to be quite busy: there are 350 flights per day on average, including around 150 international flights, the rest being Ukrainian traffic and a little Russian traffic “, according to an air expert. Important clarification: It is always up to the State (of overflight) to ensure air traffic control ».

While the fighting between Ukrainian forces and rebel forces is not only taking place on the ground, but in the air, it may seem surprising. After the information that circulated of the takeover by pro-Russian rebels of a battery of surface-to-air missiles, of the Bouk type, capable of reaching much greater altitudes than a simple rocket launcher, this attitude borders on to a certain irresponsibility. If an international investigation is requested, it will also be necessary to clarify the reasons for this inaction of the power of kyiv as of Brussels.

And Europe?

Apparently, according to specialists from Eurocontrol and the European Commission's DG Transport, when a State does not report a specific danger, the European aviation authorities cannot go against this decision and recommend, or even impose, on aircraft from airlines European Unions or taking off from a European airport, to avoid this or that sector. " We are an intergovernmental organization. And we cannot go against the will (or the non-reporting) of one of our Member States confides a spokesperson for the organization.

Comment: a very serious shortcoming which must be remedied

This purely "legal" analysis is troubling. Relying solely on the "goodwill" and "voluntarism" of the States seems today outdated in the era of the "single European sky". It would perhaps be wise to put in place new mechanisms to compensate for the lack of responsiveness of a State party to the system or to issue restrictions or road bans... Several reasons in my opinion militate in this direction .

  1. Air transport, like air safety, is a Community competence. The European Commission has regularly demanded this from the Member States, insisting on the importance of a "single sky". The latter cannot absolve itself of all responsibility.
  2. Admittedly, air safety is often regulated internationally. But that does not prevent certain more specific rules from being adopted at European level. The Union has already taken such measures by developing blacklists of unsafe airlines or imposing refund rules that are more favorable to travellers.
  3. The European Union has signed an association agreement with Ukraine including a common aviation area. And Ukraine is a member of the European "single sky" managed by Eurocontrol. There is therefore a strong political commitment on both sides to jointly manage airspace.
  4. The “silo” practice where one sector is unaware of the other must end. At the Commission's DG Transport, emphasis is placed on the civil side of air traffic (**). However, in a situation where many conflicts exist at the gates of Europe, military expertise seems necessary. Seconded experts are already present within Eurocontrol, but not at the level.

This very serious gap in the European air safety system can be remedied; it would be a way of paying tribute, concretely, to the 298 dead of MH17.

(Nicolas Gros-Verheyde)

(*) Several passengers had dual nationality. Saturday Sunday, there were more than 200 Europeans: 193 Dutch (including 1 with dual Belgian nationality), 10 British, 5 Belgians, 4 Germans, 1 Romanian (dual Canadian nationality). There is no French confirmed the Quai d'Orsay contrary to the first information disseminated by Laurent Fabius himself.

(**) A specialist from the European Commission said “ not being aware of the rebels taking Bouk surface-to-air missile stations,” ni "not having the means to analyze this risk".

(Updated Sun 20.7, review)

Nicolas Gros Verheyde

Chief editor of the B2 site. Graduated in European law from the University of Paris I Pantheon Sorbonne and listener to the 65th session of the IHEDN (Institut des Hautes Etudes de la Défense Nationale. Journalist since 1989, founded B2 - Bruxelles2 in 2008. EU/NATO correspondent in Brussels for Sud-Ouest (previously West-France and France-Soir).

3 thoughts on “MH17 crash. The guilty, the responsible. As a European problem too!"

  • ping: Notebook (20.07.2014). MH17-Survey. Ukraine sanctions. Sudan. Egypt. Nigeria. | B2 The Club

  • ping: A unit of the Dutch defense towards Kharkiv

  • Bonsoir
    I am late discovering this post dealing with the management of airspace in Europe about the crash of MH 17 due to a missile launch.
    Yes, each State remains responsible and sovereign in its airspace. But it must ensure the safety of air navigation in this space (ICAO).
    Yes Ukraine is a member of Eurocontrol which manages the network of European air routes by delegation of States (and not national airspace). In particular, he is responsible for approving flight plan requests that include the requested air routes.
    Yes Eurocontrol has military experts but they are not assigned to the unit that manages the route network. When we analyze the airspace restriction measures issued by Euroconntrol and the ICAO, we realize that it is always in response to a warning given by a country or a military organization (see the closure of airspace at above the former Yugoslavia during NATO interventions in particular in the first months of 1999)
    Yes, it was therefore up to Ukraine to point out the danger of the airspace located to the east of its territory.
    But NATO was aware of the threat and did not report it to Eurocontrol, which therefore did not pass it on to the airlines, which it could have done as it is currently doing with the risks linked to the threat of volcanic eruption in Iceland
    Yes, the European Commission does not have the means today to intervene directly since the single sky regulations have, among other things, delegated to Eurocontrol the role of “Network Manager” (second single sky package of 2009)
    Yes, this situation can be improved since the still timid rapprochements between the Commission and the Defense Agency develop to provide the Commission with the military expertise that would allow it to formally complete the role of Eurocontrol in responding to this type of risk. , not necessarily reported by the States
    In summary good analysis and suggestions from B2!

Comments closed.

s2Member®