This website uses cookies. By using and further navigating this website, you accept this.
Did you know that FlightAware flight tracking is supported by advertising?
You can help us keep FlightAware free by allowing ads from We work hard to keep our advertising relevant and unobtrusive to create a great experience. It's quick and easy to whitelist ads on FlightAware or please consider our premium accounts.
Back to Squawk list
  • 52

UIA Flight 752 is the fifth airliner shot down since 1983

UIA Flight 752 became the fifth airliner that has been shot down since 1983. In the past, several incidents occurred by mistaking an airliner for a warplane during high military tensions between countries. ( More...

Sort type: [Top] [Newest]

A very silly conspiracy theory yet again!
PLEASE take your politics to another site. This site is about airlines.
Dear presidents, dictators, mullahs,
please close the airspace to civil aviation while they wage war.
It is unbearable that in such a short time two aircraft have been accidentally shot down (UIA Flight 752 & Malaysia Airlines Flight 17). Since 1983 there have been 5 aircraft accidentally shot down. On two other kinds of total losses in a short time with relations in the cause of the accident (B737-max), there have been comparable actions; Safety First.
Even a volcano manages to close airspace. Their wars do not require involuntary spectators from above.
Aviation has only become what it is because everyone involved is constantly working to learn from mistakes and to react accordingly so that mistakes do not happen again; Safety First. Even the military should be able to learn from mistakes and not repeat them. Please close the airspace if you are using tools of war.
If you find this too complicated or momentous, try diplomacy, not war.
Right on!!
Very well said Moritz
John Prukop -2
When you have war mongering and aggression with known terrorist actions by Zionist Israel and it's Likud Party Terrorist head Benjamin Netanyahu, ALL bets are off. Trump was acting at the behest of three rich American Jews on behalf of Israel and Netanyahu: Bernard "Bernie Marcus, AKA Mr. Home Depot, Paul Elliott Singer, Mr. Hedgefund Vulture Capitalist, and Trump's primary handler, Sheldon Adelson who bought and paid for Trump's election.
I seem to recall a DHL flight making an emergence return to Baghdad after being struck by a SAM.
bentwing60 4

Otherwise known in the industry as the Baghdad missile miracle.

a nifty piece of craftsmanship in a cockpit that equalled Sully's even though all they saved was boxes and themselves.

the wiki. page is so redacted as to be deemed an infomercial and all of the after event pictures have been edited out. No more bucks for wiki. from me!
Also noteworthy: This was a 3 man cockpit.
Good point. I dd a little more research to refresh my memory. They wound up having to control the A/C using differential thrust, just like the pilots had to do on UAL 232 at Sioux City.
Doug Parker 1
bentwing60 1
bugged, tanks.
Greg S 4
Note that the article says Russia-backed rebels shot down MH-17, but that is very unlikely, it was almost certainly regular Russian government soldiers. So Russia leads with two shootdowns, followed by a tie for second place amongst Ukraine, Iran, and the USA. Also, in a sad irony, both Ukraine and Iran got to be on both sides of a shootdown, once as shooter and once as victim.
airuphere 3
I would say the fact that Russia has stated it was Ukrainians attempting to shoot down Putin’s jet which was on a similar route that day.. proves they know they did it.. excuse too convienant
John Prukop -2
You're both wrong. Don't believe what you SEE or HEAR on the lying mainstream "alleged" news media.
mackdrvr 2
KAL 007 was not mistakenly shot down.
Those Migs flew with it for quite a while. Monitored radio transmissions recorded that the pilots confirmed it was a civilian 747.
If I recall correctly - a Gulf Air 737 "fell out of the sky" in the UAE, some time in the 1980's
GF 771 was attributed to a bomb on board, not a shootdown.
che mex 1
The article does not mention the Libyan Arab Airlines flight 114 (Boeing 727) shot down by Israeli fighter jets on February 21, 1973 with 108 passengers...civil flight from Tripoli to Cairo...
Gary Black 7
Since the article addresses incidents since 1983, the incident you cite would not be included.
che mex 5
true...thought it was worth as not to forget...
John Prukop 0
Zionist Israel hacked into the electronics on Ukraine FLT 752 turning off its transponder, communications and all lights making it appear as a cruise missile - knowing that Iran's mobile Russian made TOR missile system would see it as FOE and not Friendly. MOSSAD: "By deception thou shall do war." After the fact, Iran realized it was a case of mistaken identity. 176 people dead because of the initiation of an ACT OF WAR by Trump in murdering/assassinating Iranian General Soleimani and the resultant fog of war and the complicit electronic-hacking-sabotage of FLT PS752 by Zionist Israel and Likud Party Terrorist Benjamin Netahyahu. Both Trump and Netanyahu should be charged with and convicted of WAR CRIMES at the International Court in the Hague. NO MORE WARS FOR ISRAEL!
This is a very silly conspiracy theory! Just because you vehemently hate Israel.
I wish you would leave your politics behind for another site. This is about airlines and aircrafts not hate politics.
Jeff Andrade 1
How do you remotely turn off all these aircraft systems? I can understand jamming radio freqs and transponders but position lights? Can you explain how this is done?
John Prukop 0
Watch Amazing Polly on YouTube: “The Iran Swamp Creatures of the USA“ and her follow-on videos.
frank seats -1
me president I say nuke then and don't forget north Korea save a little them

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

Matha Goram 2
What happened to lead FBI investigator for that "sad" event? Fell off the radar after a few months of forensic work?
btweston 2
Ah Christ.
I read Mr. Harvey's comment and just rolled my eyes.
Frank Harvey -1
Mr Baldwin please note the question mark. That said, and ignoring the eye-witness reports, I find it difficult to accept that a fuel-air explosion of fumes in the tank resulted in sufficient damage to bring the a/c down. However, note the question mark.
Why wouldn't a fuel tank explosion cause a plane to crash?
Frank Harvey -1
Mr Bardes,

Nowadays this might be a difficult topic to discuss on a serious, non-conspirancy website and I expect a lot of downvotes, but here goes.

Any explosion in the correct location, including one inside a fuel tank, might cause an aircraft to crash, provided the explosion has sufficient force to damage or destroy a critical system.

However in the case of TWA 800 there are a great deal of unbelievable speculations needed to explain the force of the required explosion inside the tank. My concerns are with the manner in which the fuel air-mixture is explained to have originated and the composition, consistency and homogeneity of the fuel-air mixture in the tank necessary for that explosion to have sufficient force as well as the way in which the ignition source, a 120 volt spark in a 12 volt system, is said to have originated and the manner in which the tank disintegrated.

The Report on TWA 800 went into a great deal of speculative detail to explain why the speculated 50 gallons of Jet-A remaining in the tank would have evaporated due to the proximity and temperature of the air conditioning equipment and formed a homogenous fuel air mixture of the exact percentage required for complete, extremely rapid, combustion, consistent with that needed for an explosive rupture of the tank with sufficient strength to disable the aircraft. Why, for example, when the air conditioning equipment caused the Jet-A to evaporate, increasing the inside tank pressure, didn't the fuel vapour expel the air through the vents, depriving the mixture of oxygen, but instead mixed with the air in the correct percentages for an efficient explosion ? I don't have the time to go through all my questions but have a look at the diagrams of the 747-100 tanks and look at all the vents and other connections.

And, how many other civilian aircraft have crashed due to the explosion of Jet A kerosine, not gasoline, inside their fuel tanks ?

The 747 is a very robust aircraft, with robust components and systems, designed and built by Engineers, not Accountants. It takes a great deal to bring one down.

On these grounds, I also have questions about the explanation for Pan Am 103. The Boom-Box's contents may have had sufficient strength to cause the damage it is said to have done, but how was it possible that a piece of luggage containing an altitude-fused device, flown from Malta to Frankfurt, where it was transferred to Flight 103, which then flew to, landed and took off at, Heathrow, was placed exactly on the outer skin of a luggage container at Frankfurt, which container was then loaded into the exact location where the Boom-Box inside it needed to be to open a seam between the cockpit and fuselage ? If the luggage was flown from Malta why would the planners have any confidence that Frankfurt ground staff would place it in the most vulnerable location and not elsewhere in the container, or load the container elsewhere on the aircraft, that the effect might be muffled by other luggage containing clothing etc ? And this is only regarding the 747 structure, ignoring other questions, such as the finding and colour discrepancies of the timer chip said to have been from the device etc.
The aircraft flying TWA 800 on the evening of the crash was built in 1971, 25 years before the accident. Airplanes age like cheese, but wiring ages like bread. When the electrical wiring is in an environment that is subjected to constant vibrations for hours at a time over the course of 25 years, the insulation that covers those wires will degrade from friction to the point of exposing the electrical components of the wiring. It is true that the wiring that powers the fuel systems carry low amounts of voltage under normal circumstances, but when the wiring outside the tank is degraded from years and years of use, there's plenty of opportunity for excess voltage to enter the fuel probe wiring.

People that I've talked to about this accident have debated over whether the conditions of the flight would've resulted in too much or too little vapor in the tank to cause an explosion of such magnitude as to blow out the underside of the aircraft, but tests showed that a fuel-air mixture can cause a large enough explosion to rupture the tank. Any number of flights could've had those conditions in place; it was all down to a convergence of circumstances.

It's a rarity for two planes to crash under identical circumstances, and when such a thing does happen, it's usually because the necessary regulations were not implemented after the first instance.

I'm willing to believe that it would take considerable circumstances to rupture the center tank, but that doesn't mean that there's nothing on the airplane capable of causing such damage.

The bomb used on PanAm Flight 103 used a timer that was set to go off at a certain time, not at a given altitude. It had been set to go off when Flight 103 was over the open ocean, but a delay before takeoff meant that the bomb went off while the plane was over Lockerbie. The suitcase was inside a luggage container, but neither the container nor the cargo compartment had any reinforcement to contain any kind of bomb explosion.
Mr Bardes

Thank you for your positive, reasoned manner of discussing these losses.

I understand, and have previously reflected on,the points which you raised and agree that in regard to TWA 800 they could explain that disaster. You have made we think this through again and agree it could have happened that way. However I still retain some nagging doubts, which as I previously said is the reason for my question mark.

Regarding Pan Am 103 however, which is actually outside the scope of this thread as we can all agree it was not a shootdown, I remain under the impression that the device was not solely activated by the timer and that the Toshiba and its one pound charge had a two stage fuse in which the timer enabled the circuit but the actual switch was pressure activated. I understand there are reports that this particular Toshiba differed slightly from the PFLP-GC one missing in Frankfurt (and never found) and the Pan Am 103 delay placed it over Lockerbie not the ocean. But I find it virtually impossible to believe that the timer could have been set in Malta with any certainty that the suitcase and its one pound charge would get all the way, via Frankfurt, to an area of vulnerability in the hold of an American carrier over the Atlantic at the time for which it was set.

Whatever the true facts of both cases, I will always have some doubt. But thank you again for engaging in the discussion in an erudite, considered, courteous,manner.
"Whatever the true facts of both cases, I will always have some doubt."

Not convinced by facts - Yikes. Conspiracies abound, methinks that your tin foil hat is screw down to tight.
Matha Goram 1
I flew a few times in an "orange colored" 747 (no prizes for guessing the company!) between Heathrow and Houston around 1978. All that rattling during takeoff was something that we shared with our peers (with smiles, of course) who traveled more regularly than I ever did. Truly fascinating to acquire more knowledge on the 747 engineering.
Mr Weston, I don't think He was involved.

[This comment has been downvoted. Show anyway.]

rapidwolve 11
You..are a total imbecile!! Wonder how you would feel if you had folks you knew, on that flight...JERK!!
This was not a "mistake". They verified no Americans were on that aircraft and picked that one for target practice, otherwise President Trump would remove Iran from the face of the earth.
This theory would also be very hard to believe.
rapidwolve 10
That has to be 1 of the most inept things I have heard, and not appreciated by folks who lost folks they knew on that flight!!!


Don't have an account? Register now (free) for customized features, flight alerts, and more!