Flying over war zones

Emirates has announced that it will cease flying over Iraq.

"The fact of the matter is MH17 has changed everything" said Sir Tim Clarke, President of Emirates.

Hundreds of flights pass over Iraq every day. Qantas has no immediate plans to stop flying over Iraq, but is monitoring the situation.

The US Federal Aviation Administration is meeting in Montreal to discuss how airlines can address the dangers of flying over conflict zones.

The flight route has become a matter of importance for every Aussie/Kiwi who flies from Australia to Europe to join a cruise.

It must be difficult for airlines flying from our part of the world, Asia, and also the UAE, to find economical yet safe routes to fly over. There are a number of countries that almost create a barrier to inherently safe travel between us and Europe. Scary thought :eek:

This is certainly a worrying time and is going to be interesting to see who changes what flight paths

Sent from my iPhone using Forums

Or you can go over large oceans and have the MH380 and Air France risks.

There's risks whatever way you go... nothing is perfectly safe.

It is best to avoid war zones completely. They are not safe to fly in.

Obviously it is in relation to the missile strike and as such the area should be avoided.

No single fool can accidentally fire a missile and hit a plane. It always has to be a deliberate act. It is not a matter of pointing the missile at the plane and hitting fire as by the time the missile arrives at the altitude the aircraft is most likely gone. On all missile launching occasions a missile is fired in the direction of where a plane is likely to be when the missiles arrives.

To further explain when a missile is launched you need a separate fire control radar that illuminates the plane with a radar beam, the missile then locks onto that beam and as long as the radar beam is touching the aircraft the missile will strike.

The problem with missiles is that their internal radars are not as advanced as land based radar systems. A missile has a narrow radar view of what is in front of it. If the subject it is attacking is no longer in the path of the missile then the missile will miss.

The problem with the MH flight over Ukraine is that for the missile to have been hit, it had to have been deliberately guided up to the altitude of the plane with a radar beam from a fire control radar illuminating that plane from the moment to missile launch to the moment the missile locks on and acquires with its own radar.

The other issue with the Ukraine situation is that it is highly possible that the missile could have been fired at a fighter jet, the fighter jet could have had the missile lock on it and then manoeuvred in such a way to give the missile a new target. While unlikely in this case it is still probable.

I used to serve in the Navy and my specialty was in this field and from what I know about missiles and war zones I will never want to fly over one in a civilian airliner. Accidents do happen. Missiles can acquire new targets that they are not meant to hit if an evasive fighter pilot manages to evade long enough and cross paths with another larger aircraft giving it a new target.

Flying over Iraq may not be such an issue. Ground fire will never reach high altitude aircraft. Most assault rifles will not fire more than 2km. You need a sophisticated missile system and highly trained crew to bring down an aircraft at airliner height.

People will find it difficult and expensive if all war zones are avoided. Aussies can always fly via the US (and/or cruise) to get to Europe. While this may be safer from Missiles in war zones, there are still possible terrorist activities in non-war zones.:(

I think the difference is that this was a generally unknown risk, at the time. Even though some airlines, like Qantas and British Airlines chose to change their flight paths independently.

Now that the airline industry knows of the risk, however small, they will need to take that risk into account, when planning their flight paths over conflict zones.

In the past, I never thought of the flight path, just the quickest route to Europe, for a cruise and land travel. Not any more! As the President of Emirates said, MH17 has changed everything.

Flightradar still showing Emirates flying over Iraq on the traditional route over Bagdad towards Turkish border and avoiding Syria (as are all other airlines).

Flightradar still showing Emirates flying over Iraq on the traditional route over Bagdad towards Turkish border and avoiding Syria (as are all other airlines).

Emirates announced that it was changing its flight path to avoid Iraq, but it would take a few days to complete changes.

I think the difference is that this was a generally unknown risk, at the time. Even though some airlines, like Qantas and British Airlines chose to change their flight paths independently.

 

Now that the airline industry knows of the risk, however small, they will need to take that risk into account, when planning their flight paths over conflict zones.

 

In the past, I never thought of the flight path, just the quickest route to Europe, for a cruise and land travel. Not any more! As the President of Emirates said, MH17 has changed everything.

yes, a 'known' risk taken is leaving them open to all sorts of issues if something happens again.

Or you can go over large oceans and have the MH380 and Air France risks.

 

There's risks whatever way you go... nothing is perfectly safe.

How on earth can you link those two flights together in any way?

They new where air France went down nobody even knows where MH380 went!

Its possibly still sitting in a hanger in Dieago Garcia the only avenue not explored or searched even though it was spotted heading towards there?

It's definitely a game changer.:(

Flying over Iraq may not be such an issue. Ground fire will never reach high altitude aircraft. Most assault rifles will not fire more than 2km. You need a sophisticated missile system and highly trained crew to bring down an aircraft at airliner height.

They weren't firing into the air to attack high altitude aircraft in Ukraine until a few days before.

Now with the Islamic State on a mission, it's as equally conceivable there as it was in Ukraine, if not moreso.

How on earth can you link those two flights together in any way?

Because one is known, and the other is believed down in the middle of vast oceans.

They weren't firing into the air to attack high altitude aircraft in Ukraine until a few days before.

 

Now with the Islamic State on a mission, it's as equally conceivable there as it was in Ukraine, if not moreso.

This is the big worry, now that someone has done it and the whole world is watching, the idea is planted in other terrorists minds that it is possible if they can get the technological weapons.:(

I flew Emirates late last year from London to Dubai. It flew directly over Bahgdad. It was quite late, so you could see all the lights of the city, and the fires. Was a bit "concerning" at the time then. Glad to see they have taken a lead and avoiding the area (I have another flight on them booked for early next year).

I flew Emirates late last year from London to Dubai. It flew directly over Bahgdad. It was quite late, so you could see all the lights of the city, and the fires. Was a bit "concerning" at the time then. Glad to see they have taken a lead and avoiding the area (I have another flight on them booked for early next year).

I really don't see how any airline has a choice now, if they fly over a war zone and something happens it will be their ruin as well as the obvious devastation for the people flying and their families.

I notice some aircraft now starting to fly over Iran including some Emirates, China & Fedex. Still a huge stream of aircraft over Iraq but i suspect this will change over the next days.

I really don't see how any airline has a choice now

You would think so, (given the world wide media coverage)....

The all mighty dollar has me a bit sceptical though. If margins are squeezed tight enough, you wonder how far towards the "Riskier" end of an exec's risk managament they would go....if under enough pressure....?

You would think so, (given the world wide media coverage)....

 

The all mighty dollar has me a bit sceptical though. If margins are squeezed tight enough, you wonder how far towards the "Riskier" end of an exec's risk managament they would go....if under enough pressure....?

I can't see them risking it but then stranger things have happened.

Because one is known, and the other is believed down in the middle of vast oceans.

Believed by whom is the question? Not me for one until it is discovered in the vast ocean because supposedly nobody in any authority has a clue and everyone else are going on speculation of calculations that have never been used before!

The thing is no investigation has been conducted as of yet and its still pure speculation that it was blown up with a surface to air missile even though the media and politicians jumped on it immediately! even the conversation between a rebel commander and a Russian general stating the rebels have taken out an airliner by mistake has been shown to have been concocted on 16th July so before the actual event! Its still being used by main stream media as fact when its fake:confused:

Russia has made public dated Arial photographic evidence of the location of all surface to air missiles capable of this disaster both from Russian and Ukrainian territory.

What were the 3 Ukrainian military jets doing on the radar shadowing MH17 at 32,000 feet that only pulled away less than 3 mins before the planes destruction:confused: And why were the two Spanish air traffic controllers working at Kiev airport tower who reported the military planes removed from the tower and silenced by having their twitter and facebook pages suspended as soon as they reported it publicly after the disaster:confused:

And why of coarse was MH17 flying 300 odd miles further North and further into the conflict area:confused:

Believed by whom is the question? Not me for one until it is discovered in the vast ocean because supposedly nobody in any authority has a clue and everyone else are going on speculation of calculations that have never been used before!

Believed by the technical analysts who are familiar with the satellite transmitter equipment that is used by the aircraft.

There are no guarantees of course, but I go with people who know the most about the equipment and technology.

The thing is no investigation has been conducted as of yet and its still pure speculation that it was blown up with a surface to air missile even though the media and politicians jumped on it immediately! even the conversation between a rebel commander and a Russian general stating the rebels have taken out an airliner by mistake has been shown to have been concocted on 16th July so before the actual event! Its still being used by main stream media as fact when its fake:confused:

Everything I've seen has the timing matching perfectly with the situation, and given my knowledge of the situation it also fits and there is no reason to doubt. Can you share where you have that it came out before?

Russia has made public dated Arial photographic evidence of the location of all surface to air missiles capable of this disaster both from Russian and Ukrainian territory.

And the USA and Ukraine has also made public evidence. So the question is who to believe.

Given the background to the situation, that Russia already denied yet invaded and then occupied Crimea, and that they then continued to invade and support terrorism in the eastern states, the weight of evidence is against them. They have very little credibility due to previous lies, and also have a very strong vested interest given they are invading and attacking.

What were the 3 Ukrainian military jets doing on the radar shadowing MH17 at 32,000 feet that only pulled away less than 3 mins before the planes destruction

That's a claim, not evidenced. Even if true, there is no reason they shouldn't be there given they were operating in the area.

And why were the two Spanish air traffic controllers working at Kiev airport tower who reported the military planes removed from the tower and silenced by having their twitter and facebook pages suspended as soon as they reported it publicly after the disaster:confused:

It may well be as the Spanish government claims, that it's a fabrication.

In fact, reading the tweets, it appears very likely it was Russian propaganda, as if he were genuine, how would he even know "they were trying to make it look like an attack by pro-Russians" straight away, when it was way too early for that? Everyone's initial reaction was shock (aside from the jubilation of the terrorists, who immediately went to try to salvage what they could, as they had done after each shoot down.) Unless he was part of the 'conspiracy' - in which case why would he have given an interview to the Russian RT two months earlier? It doesn't add up.

And why of coarse was MH17 flying 300 odd miles further North and further into the conflict area:confused:

Because that was where the captain flew and well within their previous flight paths, as has already been shown.

What were the 3 Ukrainian military jets doing on the radar shadowing MH17 at 32,000 feet that only pulled away less than 3 mins before the planes destruction:confused: And why were the two Spanish air traffic controllers working at Kiev airport tower who reported the military planes removed from the tower and silenced by having their twitter and facebook pages suspended as soon as they reported it publicly after the disaster:confused:

 

And why of coarse was MH17 flying 300 odd miles further North and further into the conflict area:confused:

From my knowledge of missiles from my service in the military (I specialised in this area). In theory and practicality it is possible that the missile could easily have been fired at a fighter jet that used the airliner as a decoy. Missiles are directed to an area via a fire control radar. The missiles rides the signal of its fire control radar and once the missile is in a position to lock on the fire control radar is silenced and the missile locks on with its own radar. Due to secrecy of war equipment the people firing the missile want their fire control radar active for a very little time to deny the enemy the opportunity to read its frequency and jam it.

Personally I do not trust the Ukrainian government either. They have a vested interest in the situation to make Russia look bad and they are quite capable of stooping to such a low to achieve that goal.