&gt; if an area of land is a warzone and it&#x27;s known there are anti-aircraft missiles deployed<p>But it was not known there was anti-aircraft missile capability until April 14th (a few days before the MH17 crime). You&#x27;re making the exact logic fallacy that the DSB criticized in its report.<p>All incidents from before that Antonov downing on the 14th were done using MANPADS (i.e. shoulder-carried missile launchers). These don&#x27;t reach high altitude. The information about the new capability wasn&#x27;t relayed quickly enough to commercial aviation authorities (I don&#x27;t think the DSB identified a reason for the delay).<p>Instead, the DSB argued that risk assessment for fly&#x2F;no-fly decisions should not only include known risks, but should also account for unknown risks (say, the speculation that the rebels did have anti-aircraft capability).<p>(edit: although another source says that the rebels&#x27; STA capability was known since June 29th)