No change to QF flight path over Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.

PaulST

Established Member
Joined
Feb 12, 2014
Messages
1,194
Points
10
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.
Hmmm I might take a boat to Europe next time. :)
 

Happy Trails

Established Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
2,575
Points
700
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.

I've been held at gunpoint by American soldiers.
I wouldn't have minded quite so much if I hadn't been in England at the time.
 

Happy Trails

Established Member
Joined
Jun 8, 2010
Messages
2,575
Points
700
Sounds like an interesting story! Care to share?

Not really that interesting.
I was working at what was ostensibly an RAF base, but was in fact operated by the USAF.
To be fair, it was in the middle of the night and at the height of the cold war.
They were just doing their job I suppose, if somewhat over-enthusiastically, but it rankles, being held by foreign troops in your own country.
 

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
23,431
Solutions
6
Points
1,820
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.

May also have had something to do with their insurers?
 

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
23,431
Solutions
6
Points
1,820
Emirates are still flying over Iraq.

I believe their intention was to stop flying around 10 days from their initial announcement. Some media reports have suggested EK might have intelligence that there will be a push against ISIS at that time (rumour, not confirmed).
 

burmans

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
7,660
Solutions
1
Points
1,010
First, no one said MAS or any other airline should be an intelligence agency except you in this post.
Yes but they have said dont rely on the assessment of others (who are the experts in the field). If you cant rely on others hard to see who else you should rely on except do it yourself. The intelligence agencies aren't commercial operations, i.e. you can't go to them on a daily basis for an intelligence assessment.
burmans, risk management is not black and white which is why things go wrong.
Matt
Yes, exactly, this is why am bemused by all the instant after the event experts. It's much easier to make the suggestion an event should be foreseeable apparently than actually doing the foreseeing. The ability of hindsight always brings out people who state they could have foreseen something but funnily enough they can't provide evidence of actually having done so.
 

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
23,431
Solutions
6
Points
1,820
Yes but they have said dont rely on the assessment of others (who are the experts in the field). If you cant rely on others hard to see who else you should rely on except do it yourself. The intelligence agencies aren't commercial operations, i.e. you can't go to them on a daily basis for an intelligence assessment.

Yes, exactly, this is why am bemused by all the instant after the event experts. It's much easier to make the suggestion an event should be foreseeable apparently than actually doing the foreseeing. The ability of hindsight always brings out people who state they could have foreseen something but funnily enough they can't provide evidence of actually having done so.

the discussion now is going forward, not the past.

airlines now know there is a potential risk, and must assess it accordingly.

relying solely on external sources, and not erring on the side of caution may not be the optimal going forward. BA has said each airline must do it's own risk assessment.

i maintain airlines flying over Ukraine were not wise, although a court may later prove me wrong. hindsight? well... most lay people weren't looking to analyse the situation until MH17 occurred. but that doesn't mean someone specifically tasked with the risk assessment wouldn't have been able to see that something may not have been as safe as it might have been.

if someone had raised the discussion of two aircraft being shot down in a place where airlines were flying, I think many would have thought 'why would anyone fly there?'. Airlines, who's primary focus should be on safety, should have looked at that. Airspace closed below level 32000? what if you needed to descend due to loss of cabin pressure? what if you needed an emergency landing? Ukraine approved it's airspace? but did the rebels?

there may be nothing wrong with hindsight, if the people involved were not on the ball. sometimes more heads are better than one. That's why we have inquiries, to determine the facts and perhaps ultimately decide that the actions at the time were or were not prudent.

Going forward I think airlines should be more cautious. Safety before satay.
 

BD1959

Established Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
1,996
Points
580
Qantas
Platinum
the discussion now is going forward, not the past.

airlines now know there is a potential risk, and must assess it accordingly.

relying solely on external sources, and not erring on the side of caution may not be the optimal going forward. BA has said each airline must do it's own risk assessment.

i maintain airlines flying over Ukraine were not wise, although a court may later prove me wrong. hindsight? well... most lay people weren't looking to analyse the situation until MH17 occurred. but that doesn't mean someone specifically tasked with the risk assessment wouldn't have been able to see that something may not have been as safe as it might have been.

if someone had raised the discussion of two aircraft being shot down in a place where airlines were flying, I think many would have thought 'why would anyone fly there?'. Airlines, who's primary focus should be on safety, should have looked at that. Airspace closed below level 32000? what if you needed to descend due to loss of cabin pressure? what if you needed an emergency landing? Ukraine approved it's airspace? but did the rebels?

there may be nothing wrong with hindsight, if the people involved were not on the ball. sometimes more heads are better than one. That's why we have inquiries, to determine the facts and perhaps ultimately decide that the actions at the time were or were not prudent.

Airlines overfly restricted (military and non-military) airspace daily - or even hourly in parts of Australia. Were they actually aware of the downing of the two military aircraft until after MH17? Why don't we allow those tasked with investigating, get on with their job - I'm sure they will look at everything, not least the fact that the corridor above the restricted airpspace was authorised - and make the best recommendations.

Going forward I think airlines should be more cautious. Safety before satay.

... hardly the highlight of your post.

Regards,

BD
 

burmans

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
7,660
Solutions
1
Points
1,010
the discussion now is going forward, not the past.

airlines now know there is a potential risk, and must assess it accordingly.

relying solely on external sources, and not erring on the side of caution may not be the optimal going forward. BA has said each airline must do it's own risk assessment.

i maintain airlines flying over Ukraine were not wise, although a court may later prove me wrong. hindsight? well... most lay people weren't looking to analyse the situation until MH17 occurred. but that doesn't mean someone specifically tasked with the risk assessment wouldn't have been able to see that something may not have been as safe as it might have been.

if someone had raised the discussion of two aircraft being shot down in a place where airlines were flying, I think many would have thought 'why would anyone fly there?'. Airlines, who's primary focus should be on safety, should have looked at that. Airspace closed below level 32000? what if you needed to descend due to loss of cabin pressure? what if you needed an emergency landing? Ukraine approved it's airspace? but did the rebels?

there may be nothing wrong with hindsight, if the people involved were not on the ball. sometimes more heads are better than one. That's why we have inquiries, to determine the facts and perhaps ultimately decide that the actions at the time were or were not prudent.

Going forward I think airlines should be more cautious. Safety before satay.
I does seem ironic that in post about moving forward half or slightly more of your post deals with the past. But the as per the quote "If you don’t know the past, you can’t understand the present and plan properly for the future.”

But given you have mentioned "relying solely on external sources, and not erring on the side of caution may not be the optimal going forward." perhaps you can explain what you mean exactly. I dont particularly disagree that airlines must do their own risk assessment, but there are two main aspects to risk assessment, the gathering of the information on which you make the assessment and then the decision making process. You post seems to imply to me the failure is in the first, rather than the second, ie. relying on others for your information. If so, exactly who is this mystery body we should be relying on, do you believe airlines should have additional information gathering people on the payroll?
 

BD1959

Established Member
Joined
May 11, 2011
Messages
1,996
Points
580
Qantas
Platinum
the corridor of airspace was authorised... by whom? did the rebels authorise it?

By the authorities who have responsibility for it's administration: ICAO, Ukraine and Eurocontrol (I may be wrong here ... which is why we need the investigation).


maybe be not the highlight of my post, but only one airline (as far as I'm aware) has come out and said it should be able to focus on passenger comfort rather than which air corridors to fly through. That must change.

Again, if this *was* a factor, I'm sure the official investigation will have plenty to recommend.

Regards,

BD
 

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
23,431
Solutions
6
Points
1,820
I does seem ironic that in post about moving forward half or slightly more of your post deals with the past. But the as per the quote "If you don’t know the past, you can’t understand the present and plan properly for the future.”

But given you have mentioned "relying solely on external sources, and not erring on the side of caution may not be the optimal going forward." perhaps you can explain what you mean exactly. I dont particularly disagree that airlines must do their own risk assessment, but there are two main aspects to risk assessment, the gathering of the information on which you make the assessment and then the decision making process. You post seems to imply to me the failure is in the first, rather than the second, ie. relying on others for your information. If so, exactly who is this mystery body we should be relying on, do you believe airlines should have additional information gathering people on the payroll?

For me the concept is simple... 'if you don't know - don't'.

Sure an external body may tell you it is safe to fly, but there may be times when you need to ask additional questions. If you can't get the answer to those questions, or if for any other reason you are unsure, the resultant action should be simple... take another route.

Do you need to have additional intelligence people on your payroll? No. You could, but if you don't, you're stuck with a longer route.

Therefore - it doesn't matter how bad your intelligence gathering is. If you don't have any, you avoid the area you are concerned about. You don't simply rely on an external body to tell you it is 'ok' without asking any further questions yourself.

Current issue around Iraq airspace. Supposedly still 'safe' above 30,000 feet. What if there is a depressurisation and we need to descend to 10,000 feet? Solution: fly a slightly longer route and avoid the issue.
 
Last edited:

SeatBackForward

Established Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
4,291
Points
735
For me the concept is simple... 'if you don't know - don't'.

Sure an external body may tell you it is safe to fly, but there may be times when you need to ask additional questions. If you can't get the answer to those questions, or if for any other reason you are unsure, the resultant action should be simple... take another route.

Do you need to have additional intelligence people on your payroll? No. You could, but if you don't, you're stuck with a longer route.

Therefore - it doesn't matter how bad your intelligence gathering is. If you don't have any, you avoid the area you are concerned about. You don't simply rely on an external body to tell you it is 'ok' without asking any further questions yourself.

Current issue around Iraq airspace. Supposedly still 'safe' above 30,000 feet. What if there is a depressurisation and we need to descend to 10,000 feet? Solution: fly a slightly longer route and avoid the issue.

How do you avoid drunk drivers when you're on the road?
 

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
23,431
Solutions
6
Points
1,820
The risks are never fully known in an airplane (or a car/bus/train for that matter), guess you'll be staying at home.

That is an extreme interpretation, as is MH's.

The middle ground is one that looks at what is known (or unknown), and errs on the side of caution where necessary. QF's diversion around Iraq will take an extra 10 minutes. We don't know the exact situation on the ground so we have two choices... spend 10 minutes of extra flying, or put your plane in the face of potential danger.
 
Combining a phone charger and phone holder our Magnetic Wireless Car Phone Charger quickly charges your phone while driving without tangled cords!

Suitable for car dashboard air vent installation, our wireless phone charger makes phone calls and GPS navigation easier more convenient.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

burmans

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
7,660
Solutions
1
Points
1,010
That is an extreme interpretation, as is MH's.

The middle ground is one that looks at what is known (or unknown), and errs on the side of caution where necessary. QF's diversion around Iraq will take an extra 10 minutes. We don't know the exact situation on the ground so we have two choices... spend 10 minutes of extra flying, or put your plane in the face of potential danger.

Correct but it was after all you who said "if you don't know don't" without me forcing you to say this. Not really much interpretation required, its on the public record. Sounds like you are now wanting to back away from the extremist rhetoric.
 
Last edited:

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
23,431
Solutions
6
Points
1,820
Correct but it was after all you who said "if you don't know don't" without me forcing you to say this. Not really much interpretation required, its on the public record. Sounds like you are now wanting to back away from the extremist rhetoric.

I don't back away from that. If there is a war zone below and you don't know for sure what's going on, then you don't fly over it.
 

drron

Veteran Member
Joined
Jul 4, 2002
Messages
28,466
Solutions
1
Points
4,040
I don't back away from that. If there is a war zone below and you don't know for sure what's going on, then you don't fly over it.

I bet you have done so in the past though without giving much thought to it.
Driving a car in Australia is still a more dangerous activity than flying over a war zone.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top