No change to QF flight path over Iraq

[dmitri]

I don't mind flying over Iraq but it would be re-assuring if Qantas knew exactly what altutudes they flew at and what percentage of flights were in a risk area-as stated in the below article,

"

Qantas’s two daily A380 flights on the Dubai-London route generally fly over Iraq at an altitude of 38,000 to 41,000 feet.

Read more: Qantas to keep flying over Iraq despite Emirates route changes​

 

[Plutonus]

Altitudes and route can vary from flight to flight so I doubt they could guarantee either.

 

[opusman]

I like how Qantas are confident there's no risk because they normally fly at 38-41000 ft, despite the fact that the missile that took down MH17 has a vertical range of 82000 ft...

 

[defurax]

I fully agree with that statement: “We are not intelligence agencies, but airlines, charged with carrying passengers in comfort between destinations,” he said in an opinion piece published in London’s Telegraph.

I think the Australian Government (via whatever agency they feel is in charge) should tell Australian carriers where they should or shouldn't be flying. Like the FAA in the US.

It's not for QF to send spies in Syria to see if missiles are being transferred to the new Caliphate...

 

[Himeno]

I think the Australian Government (via whatever agency they feel is in charge) should tell Australian carriers where they should or shouldn't be flying. Like the FAA in the US.

It would be up to CASA to issue a NOTAM to Australian airlines barring flying through airspace, as the FAA did for US carriers.

The question would be, does ISIS have long range/high altitude missiles and would they have any reason to use them.
To avoid the "high profile" problem areas in the middle east, they'd have to either fly over Saudi Arabia and Egypt, or through Iran and Turkey. I'm not sure those options would be any "better" then Iraq.

 

[drron]

The FAA NOTAM was for the Crimea and was issued in April which is when QF stopped overflying the Ukraine as their flightpath was over Crimea.
The NOTAM for the area in which MH17 was flying was issued on 14/7 and was for flights under 32000 feet-actually the risk was stated as 24000 feet but 30% added on for"safety".

MH has commented on how QF has advertised not flying over Ukraine pointing out it has not flown over Eastern Ukraine since switching to Dubai.
Qantas explanation of Ukraine flight paths questioned

 

[burmans]

I fully agree with that statement: “We are not intelligence agencies, but airlines, charged with carrying passengers in comfort between destinations,” he said in an opinion piece published in London’s Telegraph.

I think the Australian Government (via whatever agency they feel is in charge) should tell Australian carriers where they should or shouldn't be flying. Like the FAA in the US.

It's not for QF to send spies in Syria to see if missiles are being transferred to the new Caliphate...

Well, as became quite obvious in the MH17 thread there are some on this forum who think that MH (and by inference other airlines) should be an intelligence agancy and their risk assessment should include such factors.

Like Himeno tho, I'm not that sure that there are any routes which have no security threats.

 

[burmans]

The FAA NOTAM was for the Crimea and was issued in April which is when QF stopped overflying the Ukraine as their flightpath was over Crimea.
The NOTAM for the area in which MH17 was flying was issued on 14/7 and was for flights under 32000 feet-actually the risk was stated as 24000 feet but 30% added on for"safety".

MH has commented on how QF has advertised not flying over Ukraine pointing out it has not flown over Eastern Ukraine since switching to Dubai.
Qantas explanation of Ukraine flight paths questioned

My cousin (and ex QF FA) tried that line on me too in discussion about MH17, i.e. "QF avoided Eastern Ukraine" and I did point out to her that if you looked at a map you'd have to actively go out of your way to fly over Eastern Ukraine if flying Dubai to London, it's hardly on the direct route (unlike if you are flying London - Asia).

 

[SeatBackForward]

Well, as became quite obvious in the MH17 thread there are some on this forum who think that MH (and by inference other airlines) should be an intelligence agancy and their risk assessment should include such factors.

Like Himeno tho, I'm not that sure that there are any routes which have no security threats.

Volcanoes, Asteroids/meteorites, Space Junk, other unidentified "silent" aircraft, Solar Flares, Spontaneous Tropical Depressions...

 

[defurax]

Volcanoes, Asteroids/meteorites, Space Junk, other unidentified "silent" aircraft, Solar Flares, Spontaneous Tropical Depressions...

Sounds like fun!

 

[Himeno]

The FAA NOTAM was for the Crimea and was issued in April which is when QF stopped overflying the Ukraine as their flightpath was over Crimea.
The NOTAM for the area in which MH17 was flying was issued on 14/7 and was for flights under 32000 feet-actually the risk was stated as 24000 feet but 30% added on for"safety".

The NOTAM for Crimea didn't have anything to do with the area being a conflict zone. It was because of the ATC conflict between Ukraine controllers in Odessa and Russian controllers in Sevastopol after the Russian take over. The NOTAM said to avoid the entire Sevastopol/Crimea FIR.
Ukraine closed airspace in the east below FL240 (plus the buffer) after the rebels started firing on the Ukrainian airforce.

MH has commented on how QF has advertised not flying over Ukraine pointing out it has not flown over Eastern Ukraine since switching to Dubai.
Qantas explanation of Ukraine flight paths questioned

A lot of people said the same thing of the many airlines that said they had rerouted from Eastern Ukraine after MH17, which didn't even fly in that airspace anyway.

Currently, it is up to the aviation authorities in each country to open/close their own airspace while aviation authorities in other countries can recommend/ban airlines based in that other country not to go somewhere. ie, the FAA can ban US based carriers from flying in Ukraine airspace, but the FAA can't close Ukraine airspace.

There is talk that there should be a single international body that can close airspace as required globally, but I don't see how that can happen without stepping on the toes of the national aviation authorities. I don't think countries would be very happy if for example, ISIS enters Jordon, so ICAO closes the Amman FIR.

 

[UP4014]

Well, as became quite obvious in the MH17 thread there are some on this forum who think that MH (and by inference other airlines) should be an intelligence agancy and their risk assessment should include such factors.

Like Himeno tho, I'm not that sure that there are any routes which have no security threats.

Howdy,

First, no one said MAS or any other airline should be an intelligence agency except you in this post.
Second, all business does risk assessments on known and potential situations.
Third, yes a risk assessment should be done on areas such as Iraq, Gaza, Syria and other areas of unrest.

There is no such thing as no security threats, just various degrees. Then the risk is managed accordingly, fly high, fly around, fly a different route or don't fly. (just like passengers fly different airlines, I would not use Air France or Air Algerie because of the increased risk to my life)

burmans, risk management is not black and white which is why things go wrong.

Matt

 

[drron]

The FAA though did not warn US airlines not to overfly Eastern Ukraine until the MH17 shootdown was the point I was making.On many sites you do see the erroneous suggestion that the FAA warned of flying over all of the Ukraine.Not so it was just the Crimea.
DOT's Foxx says Ukraine flight warning one of many

 

[defurax]

So QF is rerouting their flights over Iran to avoid Iraq: Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

 

[PaulST]

So QF is rerouting their flights over Iran to avoid Iraq: Cookies must be enabled. | The Australian

I dare say that it was a marketing decision and not a safety one. Their hands were kinda tied when the Aussie media made a big deal about their "partner airline" Emirates who's now avoiding Iraq.

 

[Virgin Bart]

That's ok, adds 10 minutes to my F experience.

 

[jb747]

I don't mind flying over Iraq but it would be re-assuring if Qantas knew exactly what altutudes they flew at and what percentage of flights were in a risk area-as stated in the below article, "Qantas’s two daily A380 flights on the Dubai-London route generally fly over Iraq at an altitude of 38,000 to 41,000 feet.

Read more: Qantas to keep flying over Iraq despite Emirates route changes​

Actually Qantas does not know. Nor does any other airline. Once a flight departs, the actual altitude that it flies is decided by the pilots and ATC. Whilst an aircraft may be flight planned at (for instance) FL380, the mix of traffic on the day will decide what levels are actually available. For what it's worth, I operated what was probably one of the last flights in that airspace, and we were at FL400.

 

[jb747]

"I dare say that it was a marketing decision and not a safety one. Their hands were kinda tied when the Aussie media made a big deal about their "partner airline" Emirates who's now avoiding Iraq."

And yet I followed one of their aircraft through the airspace yesterday, and as I write this, I see that they have two 777s transiting it right now.

Actually, I've always been more concerned by the US warships that seem convinced that an indeterminate area around them is somehow transformed from 'international' to US territory. You regularly hear them hassling people on guard...and often in places that are far removed from any hot spots.

 

[PaulST]

"I dare say that it was a marketing decision and not a safety one. Their hands were kinda tied when the Aussie media made a big deal about their "partner airline" Emirates who's now avoiding Iraq."

And yet I followed one of their aircraft through the airspace yesterday, and as I write this, I see that they have two 777s transiting it right now.

I believe they're still flying into two Iraqi cities so their avoidance of Iraqi airspace is somewhat selective.

I flew out of Tel Aviv last week and appreciated the rumour that El Al's aircraft are fitted with anti-missile tech. Do you, in your far more qualified opinion, think that other airlines will have to look at attaching anti-missile tech to their commercial aircraft? I'd have expected that United or AA would be fairly unpopular in some parts of the world.

 

[jb747]

I believe they're still flying into two Iraqi cities so their avoidance of Iraqi airspace is somewhat selective.

The flights I was looking have destinations that do not require the route to be used.

I flew out of Tel Aviv last week and appreciated the rumour that El Al's aircraft are fitted with anti-missile tech. Do you, in your far more qualified opinion, think that other airlines will have to look at attaching anti-missile tech to their commercial aircraft? I'd have expected that United or AA would be fairly unpopular in some parts of the world.

It might make you feel better, but for the sort of missile we now seemed concerned about, it would be utterly ineffective. As best I can tell, the Israeli system is aimed at the shoulder launched missiles, which mostly have IR or optical guidance. The bigger radar based systems are designed to go up against military aircraft, with state of the art defensive systems, so anything that is likely to be sold to the airlines would be useless. Perhaps it's just best to fly around a couple of thousand feet above another aircraft.