No change to QF flight path over Iraq

Status
Not open for further replies.

Himeno

Established Member
Joined
Jun 15, 2011
Messages
4,183
Solutions
1
Points
10
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.
What do you classify as a "war zone"?
An area of conflict where no side has weapons able to reach 10,000 feet is a "war zone".
The Korean DMZ is a "war zone".
You could also call Question Time at Parliament House a "war zone".
 

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
23,468
Solutions
6
Points
1,820
Yep, so you'll stop flying QF then?

The answer would be the same for any airline. It would depend where I wanted to fly and where they were choosing to route their planes. As a consumer I get to decide. (And airlines will respond to that if there is demand.)

QF was clear in their decision to route away from Iraq. They said there was 'no new information', but were erring on the side of caution. That seems to support the proposition of 'don't know, don't fly' (whatever the underlying reason - commercial or otherwise - may be).
 

burmans

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 21, 2006
Messages
7,667
Solutions
1
Points
1,010
QF was clear in their decision to route away from Iraq. They said there was 'no new information', but were erring on the side of caution. That seems to support the proposition of 'don't know, don't fly' (whatever the underlying reason - commercial or otherwise - may be).

Given they flew last week with the same information that seems a very selective application of "don't know don't fly"!
 

notsure

Junior Member
Joined
May 1, 2014
Messages
33
Points
10
QF was clear in their decision to route away from Iraq. They said there was 'no new information', but were erring on the side of caution. That seems to support the proposition of 'don't know, don't fly' (whatever the underlying reason - commercial or otherwise - may be).

I highly doubt that QF made the decision to reroute purely for safety reasons - if anything it seems (at least to me) to have been done to pander to the media - or at least reduce/stop the criticism they were receiving after EK announced it's intentions.

That being said, I don't care what the reasons were, the net result is that for what seems to be very little inconvenience/cost for passengers and the airline, they have taken steps that while not eliminating all possible or perceived dangers are at least mitigating one possible one.

Sure flying is safer than driving to the airport, but I wouldn't drive into what is possibly a more dangerous area when there are safer alternatives nearby - why tempt fate if you don't have to.

In hindsight MH didn't make the right decision, but in their defense the events were somewhat unprecedented it would be beyond criminal if other airlines didn't learn from the events and take extra precautions where it is feasible.
 
Your simple solution to home security. Quickly view what’s happening at home when you're not there, giving you peace of mind.

Simple plug-in installation means you’ll be up and running in no time.

AFF Supporters can remove this and all advertisements

mannej

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
9,876
Solutions
5
Points
1,000
I highly doubt that QF made the decision to reroute purely for safety reasons - if anything it seems (at least to me) to have been done to pander to the media - or at least reduce/stop the criticism they were receiving after EK announced it's intentions.

That being said, I don't care what the reasons were, the net result is that for what seems to be very little inconvenience/cost for passengers and the airline, they have taken steps that while not eliminating all possible or perceived dangers are at least mitigating one possible one.

Sure flying is safer than driving to the airport, but I wouldn't drive into what is possibly a more dangerous area when there are safer alternatives nearby - why tempt fate if you don't have to.

In hindsight MH didn't make the right decision, but in their defense the events were somewhat unprecedented it would be beyond criminal if other airlines didn't learn from the events and take extra precautions where it is feasible.

Hindsight is wonderful, but how long have the airlines been overflying these areas without issue? There was a map in the MH thread that suggests the safest way of flying to Europe is via the US if you use the logic of not overflying conflict zones.
 

medhead

Suspended
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
20,288
Points
0
Time to update the thread title?

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.

You're still on this same boat. Exactly how can a risk assessment be done without information about the risks. This is the critical failure of your position. They need information about risks, capabilities and intentions to do an effective risk assessment. You constantly state that MH must not rely on external information. Therefore they either start an inhouse intelligence service, which is clearly the point of the comment about focussing on the core business of running an airline; or they do a risk assessment on the basis of nothing.

Your position is fundamentally flawed. More than happy to accept that is your view. But constantly repeating it will not remove the flaws.
 

notsure

Junior Member
Joined
May 1, 2014
Messages
33
Points
10
Hindsight is wonderful, but how long have the airlines been overflying these areas without issue? There was a map in the MH thread that suggests the safest way of flying to Europe is via the US if you use the logic of not overflying conflict zones.

I fully agree re Hindsight - my point was that recent events mean there is now (unfortunately) very real precedent about the dangers, and so (without going over the top), what precautions can be taken should be (within reason) - there is no way to be 100% safe (even staying home has it's own set of dangers) - but like wise taking unnecessary risks is only asking for trouble - it's all about finding the middle ground.
 

SeatBackForward

Established Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
4,291
Points
735
I fully agree re Hindsight - my point was that recent events mean there is now (unfortunately) very real precedent about the dangers, and so (without going over the top), what precautions can be taken should be (within reason) - there is no way to be 100% safe (even staying home has it's own set of dangers) - but like wise taking unnecessary risks is only asking for trouble - it's all about finding the middle ground.

Risk appetite.
 

BAM1748

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
6,080
Points
980
Hindsight is wonderful, but how long have the airlines been overflying these areas without issue? There was a map in the MH thread that suggests the safest way of flying to Europe is via the US if you use the logic of not overflying conflict zones.

Yep, plenty of nice clear ocean if you go via the US.

Airline management is paid to not use hindsight for decision making but to use foresight.

Matt
 

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
23,468
Solutions
6
Points
1,820
Exactly how can a risk assessment be done without information about the risks.

Simple. If you don't know about the risks, that could/should create doubt. If you have doubt, don't fly over that area.

Risk assessment is partly about assessing risks for things which you might not have the information.

There may have been enough information for airlines flying over Ukraine that they should have at least turned their minds to what they knew or didn't know. A court may have to decide that.

Going forward, the same applies. QF states it is avoiding the area even though it has no new information. So it supposedly doesn't have all the facts, but is still conducting an assessment of whether or not it should continue flying there... even though the airspace is still open as far as I can tell.

I have never said MH or any other airline should not rely on external information, i have said they shouldn't rely solely on external information. Airlines now know these external agencies have got it wrong - so to solely rely on that information as of this point in time would be potentially foolish.
 

mannej

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
9,876
Solutions
5
Points
1,000
Yep, plenty of nice clear ocean if you go via the US. But could of course go directly north and overfly the Artic.

Airline management is paid to not use hindsight for decision making but to use foresight.

Matt

Considering the length of time the airlines have been overflying conflict areas without issue (Iraq, Afghanistan etc), how foreseeable was MH17? I don't think the answer is as simple as what others are making it out to be.
 

MEL_Traveller

Enthusiast
Joined
Apr 27, 2005
Messages
23,468
Solutions
6
Points
1,820
Considering the length of time the airlines have been overflying conflict areas without issue (Iraq, Afghanistan etc), how foreseeable was MH17? I don't think the answer is as simple as what others are making it out to be.


  • closed airspace to the south
  • closed airspace below 32,000 feet
  • tracts of closed airspace in front
  • two planes shot down in the previous days
  • rebel controlled territory below that the responsible authority (Ukraine) can hardly give a guarantee for the safety of the airspace above
  • some airlines avoiding the space entirely

Might not be so simple - but how much of the above did airlines know before deciding to fly?
 

BAM1748

Senior Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
6,080
Points
980
Considering the length of time the airlines have been overflying conflict areas without issue (Iraq, Afghanistan etc), how foreseeable was MH17? I don't think the answer is as simple as what others are making it out to be.

That's why airline managers like Alan Joyce are paid $5M per year, to be smart and look ahead and take these decisions. As a risk manager myself this was foreseeable at some stage as is loosing an aircraft over Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. North Korea should be included in there but I think their airspace is closed anyway except for airlines such as Aeroflot.

Matt
 

mannej

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
9,876
Solutions
5
Points
1,000
  • closed airspace to the south
  • closed airspace below 32,000 feet
  • tracts of closed airspace in front
  • two planes shot down in the previous days
  • rebel controlled territory below that the responsible authority (Ukraine) can hardly give a guarantee for the safety of the airspace above
  • some airlines avoiding the space entirely

Might not be so simple - but how much of the above did airlines know before deciding to fly?

We will agree to disagree, but I still don't agree with how simple you are making things out to be.
 

SeatBackForward

Established Member
Joined
Jun 20, 2006
Messages
4,291
Points
735
That's why airline managers like Alan Joyce are paid $5M per year, to be smart and look ahead and take these decisions. As a risk manager myself this was foreseeable at some stage as is loosing an aircraft over Iraq, Syria and Afghanistan. North Korea should be included in there but I think their airspace is closed anyway except for airlines such as Aeroflot.

Matt

As a risk manager, you would know that something considered as "foreseeable" is more a certainty than a risk.
 

medhead

Suspended
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
20,288
Points
0
Simple. If you don't know about the risks, that could/should create doubt. If you have doubt, don't fly over that area.

Risk assessment is partly about assessing risks for things which you might not have the information.

There may have been enough information for airlines flying over Ukraine that they should have at least turned their minds to what they knew or didn't know. A court may have to decide that.

Going forward, the same applies. QF states it is avoiding the area even though it has no new information. So it supposedly doesn't have all the facts, but is still conducting an assessment of whether or not it should continue flying there... even though the airspace is still open as far as I can tell.

I have never said MH or any other airline should not rely on external information, i have said they shouldn't rely solely on external information. Airlines now know these external agencies have got it wrong - so to solely rely on that information as of this point in time would be potentially foolish.

Sorry you cannot assess the risk based on zero information or information you don't have. The risks are assessed based on the available information. If that means relying on external information from a provider who has much greater capability than available in house then there is no basis for the airline to make up their own version. It is unreasonable to suggest that any airline should just make up their own information in order to not solely rely on external information. Especially when that information is related to non core functions of the airline.

As for Qantas and iraq, I'm not sure we should read too much into their change of heart. The change is more likely to have been a response to media pressure than a revised risk assessment IMO.
 

equus

Active Member
Joined
Jul 22, 2008
Messages
973
Solutions
1
Points
310
Yep, plenty of nice clear ocean if you go via the US.

But for those who like to consider hindsight, maybe you should factor in who has been responsible for shooting down civilian airliners in the past, has been subject to known attacks, and has a reputation for paranoia?

Everything fed into a risk matrix may tend to indicate that US airspace is far from the least risk of being shot down.
 

mannej

Senior Member
Joined
Mar 16, 2009
Messages
9,876
Solutions
5
Points
1,000
But for those who like to consider hindsight, maybe you should factor in who has been responsible for shooting down civilian airliners in the past, has been subject to known attacks, and has a reputation for paranoia?

Everything fed into a risk matrix may tend to indicate that US airspace is far from the least risk of being shot down.

But it's not a current conflict zone
 

medhead

Suspended
Joined
Feb 13, 2008
Messages
20,288
Points
0
But for those who like to consider hindsight, maybe you should factor in who has been responsible for shooting down civilian airliners in the past, has been subject to known attacks, and has a reputation for paranoia?

Everything fed into a risk matrix may tend to indicate that US airspace is far from the least risk of being shot down.

Indeed and if you feed something into the risk matrix, the lowest likelihood (approximately "May happen somewhere, in exceptional circumstances") would apply to most of the world, especially the oceans.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Enhance your AFF viewing experience!

From just $6 we'll remove all advertisements so that you can enjoy a cleaner and uninterupted viewing experience.

And you'll be supporting us so that we can continue to provide this valuable resource :)


Sample AFF with no advertisements? More..
Top