Flightpath over WarZone

Narango

Hi
FLIGHT PATH OVER WAR ZONE
I recently flew from Bahrain to Heathrow via Gulf-Air.

I noticed on the flat screen at the back of the seat that the route showed going over Iraq and Syria; an active war zone.

After what happened with MH17 Malaysian Airlines over Ukraine I emailed Gulf air about this to ask if this was the case.

I got an email back saying that this was not the case; that was all; they did not elaborate.

I appreciate that the animation at the back of the seat is just that; not necessarily a sat-nav version of where the plane is.

The Russians are now sending cruise missiles to Syria;from the Caspian sea!

What is the current policy of airlines in this area?

How do we get accurate information on what is happening?

Surely flight professionals such as pilots and cabin crew are concerned about this and have an interest in avoiding any potential war-zone. What are they saying?

I have to fly back at some stage I am concerned and would like to get accurate information.

I personally would not mind spending an extra £100 and an extra hour to avoid this area completely. We have no control over what is happening on the ground cannot trust anyone in such a zone.

Please advise,

kerry4sam

Thread moved to where it would be better suited.

Thanks,
kerry4sam

Mech1

Check out Flight Radar here http://www.flightradar24.com/32.68,43.71/5

you can see real time flight routing.

ElNino

Russian cruise missiles generally fly at a maximum of 110 meters height and are aimed at terrestrial targets so they present absolutely no danger to overhead flights at 30,000 + feet. The Russian Buk missile that shot down MH17 was a surface to air missile that was specifically designed to shoot down airplanes at altitudes of up to 50,000 feet plus. Therefore Ukranian airspace over separatist controlled regions was inherently unsafe and there is no way that civilian planes should have been allowed to overfly it.

Captain Chaos

ElNino wrote: »

Russian cruise missiles generally fly at a maximum of 110 meters height and are aimed at terrestrial targets so they present absolutely no danger to overhead flights at 30,000 + feet. The Russian Buk missile that shot down MH17 was a surface to air missile that was specifically designed to shoot down airplanes at altitudes of up to 50,000 feet plus. Therefore Ukranian airspace over separatist controlled regions was inherently unsafe and there is no way that civilian planes should have been allowed to overfly it.

Cruise missiles when launched fly at high altitudes to increase range, they only drop to low level for the final run in to the target to avoid radar detection.

They do not fly at 110 metres for 1000-2000km weapons range as they don't have the fuel for that.

http://www.ausairpower.net/Tomahawk-Subtypes.html

The USAF designated special air corridors over the Med for BGM-109 missile salvos launched into Bosina and Iraq launched by B-52s flying from the UK. They have to tell airlines about these things or at least should.

fr336

I wouldn't care what range the missles had in all honesty, I wouldn't take the chance to fly over a warzone at all.

martinsvi

I think the whole story with the MH17 was that no-one knew Russian terrorists in Ukraine had BUK missiles therefore the assumption was that as long as you're flying high you should be fine. As its proven from time to time again in aviation - never assume anything

however checking the flight path on flight radar, you can see that the airline is telling you the truth and they do a bit of a dog-leg around Iraq and Syria, fair play to them...

http://www.flightradar24.com/data/airplanes/a9c-kc/#7b4f8b0

Narango

Hi
Thanks to Mech 1 for that web-site and thanks to all for your comments so far.

On viewing the web-site it does appear that the flight GF3, Bahrain to Heathrow, is going North into Iranian airspace. However this does not take into consideration the Russian cruise missiles and activity from the Caspian sea. Whatever the technical capabilities of cruise missiles the operators cannot be trusted.

I agree with FR336 in that you cannot trust anyone in a war zone and these areas should be avoided altogether. I believe, also, that it is the responsibility of all parties involved to pursue a safe course of action:the flight operators, the governments on the ground, the pilots and cabin crew representative organisations.

I would like to hear from pilots and cabin crew to hear what they have to say about this in particular and in general. After all they are in the air flying over these areas every day; it is their, and their families, livelihood and safety most at risk.

Cheers, Narango

smurfjed

Look at the amount of traffic going across Iran from Dubai, Abu dhabi, Doha. If they don't route that way, they have to cross Saudi Arabia and Egypt. With prevailing winter winds that route will add about an hour to most European routes, so airlines will avoid going that way as long as they can, or prices will increase.

As for cruise missiles from the Caspain Sea do you know how high/low they normally fly?

jimbis

With regards to aircraft keeping to a certain height over a war zone, for instance MH17, what happens if there is an issue and they need to land Asap?
Is it just a case of descend into the no fly zone and hope for the best?

Narango

Hi
Smurfjed: I think the route across Saudi Arabia and up the Mediterranean would be safer; whatever the additional cost and time; I am sure that the poor families of all those on MH17 would agree; such areas should be avoided. With regard to the technical wizardry of cruise missiles: the question is whether you can trust the Russians; or anyone in a war zone. For me the answer to that is a definite no.

As jimbis points out it is the unforseen developments in these areas that must be considered as well. At the end of the day it is a war and the combatants will do anything in their power to win it; whatever the consequences or whatever the effect on innocent bystanders; or 'collateral damage' as they often call it!

afatbollix

Cathay pacific this week said they wont fly over the Caspian sea and Iran due to Russian missiles.

expectationlost

Safety Information Bulletin: Caspian Sea, Iran and Iraq Airspace https://www.easa.europa.eu/newsroom-and-events/news/safety-information-bulletin-caspian-sea-iran-and-iraq-airspace only map is from bbc

Captain Chaos

Should add to this that any cruise missiles fired from the Caspian sea overfly Iran. Russia have to tell Iran about this in advance and roughly what routes and times the missiles will be in the air. On the first wave of 20 odd missiles Russia fired, at least 3 failed in the air and fell inside Iran.

They fly over part of Iraq too depending in the pre programmed routes of the missiles.

Edit: just saw the above post now, Boards is acting up tonight.

eagerv

I see a few more Airlines are routing over Saudi Arabia and Egypt.

Noticed Etihad, Singapore and Malaysia using this route.

MuffinsDa

I am by no means pro-russian or pro-Iranian government, but I think there's a lot of sensationalist alarmism in the above posts.
Let's look at the facts:

The cruise missiles fired from the Caspian sea (26 of them, only on ONE occasion) were SS-N-30A Land Attack missiles. There is practically ZERO chance of these accidentally hitting a cruising commercial airliners. They are a completely different beast that BUK missile batteries used in Ukraine. Those were anti-aircraft missiles which actively track and destroy aircrafts. These yokes are not that. They are guided land attack cruise missiles. Also, they are operated by proper Russian army/Navy, not by dodgy un-trained Ukrainian separatist thugs. They obviously would not fly on the designated cruising altitudes of commercial lines etc. Even if they did, think about how absolutely and completely improbable a mid-air impact would be in a huge space with 4 dimensions. In addition to that, Iran is a large and stable country, avoiding routing over it and incurring huge fuel costs and delays for the sake of a fictional and non-existent risk is plain silly. If anything, Saudi Arabia currently is actually a "war zone" as they are in active war against their neighbour Yemen, and with the proliferation of terrorism in Egypt and its neighbouring countries I would be far more worried of overflying Egypt or Saudi Arabia than overflying Iran/Azerbaijan etc.

MuffinsDa

smurfjed wrote: »

As for cruise missiles from the Caspain Sea do you know how high/low they normally fly?

I tried to find that info but there doesn't seem to be an official number. SS-N-30A was the type fired, which is a land attack version of a sea-skimmer cruise missile according to wikipedia. I presume they would fly high enough to avoid all the terrain enroute, which at its highest point would be less far that 15000 ft, probably around 10000 ft. Whether there is any advantage in them flying at a higher altitude I'm not sure, after all I think fuel burn is not their highest concern in this case. I am sure the Russian's would have programmed them to avoid any commercial airline route/altitude, but see my post above wrt to probabilities anyway.

Narango

Flying across Egypt is not an ideal scenario but Saudi Arabia is perfectly safe; I have worked there for some time and I know that to be the case.

The iranians probably can be trusted with this at the present time but the Russians can not. They have form in this area. They have been openly and covertly supplying the Syrian regime with weapons. We have seen that this regime has no problem in using chemical weapons on their own people.

In addition the Russians have never admitted their culpability in what happened with MH17. They continue to provide disinformation rather than face up to their responsibilities and provide closure for the families. This after having supplied the rebels in Ukraine with weapons and manpower; openly and covertly.

They cannot be trusted and are best avoided.

MuffinsDa

Narango wrote: »

The iranians probably can be trusted with this at the present time but the Russians can not. They have form in this area. They have been openly and covertly supplying the Syrian regime with weapons.

What has Russia's support of Syrian government got to do with a)Air traffic safety over Iran, and b)The improbability of a(n unfired!) land attack cruise missile colliding with a cruising airliner?

MH17 was over Ukraine and as the report highlighted it most likely was an accident caused by trigger happy uneducated separatists. As an aside, Americans never admitted liability or apologised for completely deliberate shooting of IR655 and even gave a medal to the captain of the ship responsible for that, going by your logic does that mean they can not be trusted in this area too?

This is an aviation forum. If you want to discuss the merits of ISIS and other Al-qaeda connected groups in Syria and why Russia should not bomb them, or pros and cons of separatist movement in Ukraine, or feel sympathetic to Saudis because you worked in there for a while, there's a politics forum for that.

From aviation safely point of view, it's perfectly safe to fly over both Iran and Russia at present, as almost all airlines are doing on a daily basis.

Narango

In reply to post 19:

Russia's support of Syria, or Ukrainian rebels, has got nothing to do with aircraft safety other than to prove that they, nor anyone in an active war zone, cannot be trusted.

In particular, however,Russia has been providing full support for the Ukrainian rebels and is not prepared to co-operate in any meaningful way with the investigation of MH17 other than to to provide a smokescreen for themselves and their covert activities and deflect blame from The Kremlin

That the rocket which downed MH17 was launched from a separatist area is without doubt. Russia has never admitted this. Due to their lack of proper co-operation we do not know how much involvement the Russian military had. We do know, with little doubt, that they had men on the ground.

The main problem with the Russians in this regard is we do not know, due to their covert activities, exactly what weaponry is currently, or shortly to be, made available to the Syrians from The Kremlin; unless, of course we are to believe their news broadcasts.

As you point out this is an aviation forum. The discussion was whether it is safe to fly through Iran, between Syria and the Caspian Sea where there is an active war going on. This is an important question with regard to current aviation. I am giving you reasons why this is not safe. Paramount in this reasoning is the recent behaviour of the Russians and why they, in particular, cannot be trusted; nor anyone in an active war zone for that matter.

I am not sure why you are bringing the Americans into this as a counter to the Russians behaviour. This is irrelevant to this discussion. However their record with regard to 'collateral damage' is less than perfect as has been recently seen at the hospital in Afghanistan. This just goes to underline how dangerous an active war zone is.

Your comments regarding Saudi Arabia do not make sense. I am not particularly sympathetic to the Saudi's system and i never stated anything in that regard. I stated that Saudi Arabia is safe for flying which is my belief having lived there. Any aircraft flying towards Europe from Bahrain will fly across the central part of the country; well away from Yemen.

I never mentioned ISIS or AlQaeda. This is irrelevant.

For me, until things calm down, the risk is too great.

MuffinsDa

Narango wrote: »

In reply to post 19:


As you point out this is an aviation forum. The discussion was whether it is safe to fly through Iran, between Syria and the Caspian Sea where there is an active war going on.

Nonsense.
No active war in Iran.
Take a look at the map and familiarise yourself with geography of the region. There are countries much closer to active war zone in Syria than Iran (Turkey and Israel for example), yet life (and flights) go an as normal there.
Also take a look at flightradar24 and check the number of A380s overflying western Iran right at this moment. Luckily the airlines have more sense and logic than to jump into irrelevant, illogical and sensationalist conclusions like the above.

I made my point clearly in post 19 and you keep muddling it up with all sorts of political and subjective views. It doesn't work like that. Facts are as I stated above. I am only interested in aviation safety related facts in this forum, not your value judgment on Iran, Syria, Russia etc.

Narango

In reply to post 21 I would make the following points:
1. THE ROUTE: There is no active war in Iran. Iran is not likely to be careless over its own airspace so can probably be trusted on this. The war is taking place in Syria and Iraq and one of the main dangers is Russian military operations, known and unknown, from the Caspian Sea and into Northern Syria. As noted in previous posts, they have form on this. Thus they should be avoided for reasons of aviation safety
2. ISIS: I have not mentioned ISIS and Al Qaeda. However: although there is some support for them in a lot of places in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the main danger is in Northern Syria, North of Raqqah; where ISIS is strongest. This amoral terrorist army would regard it as a victory to destroy a plane carrying Westerners and rich Gulf Arabs; or indeed anyone at all. They have shown themselves to be adaptable and resourceful in their use of technology; probably much more so than the Ukrainian rebels. They have over-run areas controlled by the Iraqi and Syrian armies and we do not know, with any certainty, what weaponry they have; nor their capabilities. The Russians have barely started to engage this area yet; instead concentrating on the western part of the country. This is another good reason why the area should be avoided for the moment; for reasons of aviation safety.
3.AVIATION RISK ASSESSMENT: The fact that there are many flights following this route at the moment is not a strong argument. Unfortunately there are few alternatives apart from the Egypt route. Gulf Air and Turkish Airlines will not use Israeli Airspace when flying to and from the Gulf; if, indeed, this was an option. It is important to think for oneself, examine the facts, and not be carried along with the general consensus; however broad that consensus is; when doing a risk assessment.
We would probably not be having this discussion if flight MH17 had not been destroyed by a Russian missile. The general consensus at the time was that there was little danger. Something went drastically wrong with the aviation risk assessment at the time. In view of what happened it is necessary to rethink, look at the facts, and come to conclusions based on what we know and, more importantly, what we do not know with any certainty.
4.THE RUSSIAN REGIME: The Russian regime cannot be trusted as a result of its lack of honesty over MH17 and its refusal to co-operate with the enquiry in any meaningful way. Had they co-operated then, whoever was to blame, lessons could be learned and procedures put in place. As it is: no lessons are learned; the culprits have gotten away with their actions (for now) and who is to say that it, or something similar, will not happen again as a result of this lack of control and accountability.
4.THE SYRIAN REGIME: The Syrian regime cannot be trusted because they have gassed their own people etc.
5.DISINFORMATION: We do not know what Syria and Russia are up to and what weapons are deployed and are being deployed because: they will not tell us and they are putting out disinformation; not caring whether we believe them or not. Unfortunately in this regard, also, we have to make a value judgement regarding aviation safety.
7.CONCLUSION: After examining the facts what is the safer option? Would you fly with your family over Egypt or Iran? For me it is Egypt for the reasons outlined above; though not a perfect option. What other options are there?

Narango

In reply to post 21 I would make the following points:

1. THE ROUTE: There is no active war in Iran. Iran is not likely to be careless over its own airspace so can probably be trusted on this. The war is taking place in Syria and Iraq and one of the main dangers is Russian military operations, known and unknown, from the Caspian Sea and into Northern Syria. As noted in previous posts, they have form on this. Thus they should be avoided for reasons of aviation safety

2. ISIS: I have not mentioned ISIS and Al Qaeda. However: although there is some support for them in a lot of places in the Middle East, including Saudi Arabia and Egypt, the main danger is in Northern Syria, North of Raqqah; where ISIS is strongest. This amoral terrorist army would regard it as a victory to destroy a plane carrying Westerners and rich Gulf Arabs; or indeed anyone at all. They have shown themselves to be adaptable and resourceful in their use of technology; probably much more so than the Ukrainian rebels. They have over-run areas controlled by the Iraqi and Syrian armies and we do not know, with any certainty, what weaponry they have; nor their capabilities. The Russians have barely started to engage this area yet; instead concentrating on the western part of the country. This is another good reason why the area should be avoided for the moment; for reasons of aviation safety.

3.AVIATION RISK ASSESSMENT: The fact that there are many flights following this route at the moment is not a strong argument. Unfortunately there are few alternatives apart from the Egypt route. Gulf Air and Turkish Airlines will not use Israeli Airspace when flying to and from the Gulf; if, indeed, this was an option. It is important to think for oneself, examine the facts, and not be carried along with the general consensus; however broad that consensus is; when doing a risk assessment.
We would probably not be having this discussion if flight MH17 had not been destroyed by a Russian missile. The general consensus at the time was that there was little danger. Something went drastically wrong with the aviation risk assessment at the time. In view of what happened it is necessary to rethink, look at the facts, and come to conclusions based on what we know and, more importantly, what we do not know with any certainty.

4.THE RUSSIAN REGIME: The Russian regime cannot be trusted as a result of its lack of honesty over MH17 and its refusal to co-operate with the enquiry in any meaningful way. Had they co-operated then, whoever was to blame, lessons could be learned and procedures put in place. As it is: no lessons are learned; the culprits have gotten away with their actions (for now) and who is to say that it, or something similar, will not happen again as a result of this lack of control and accountability.

4.THE SYRIAN REGIME: The Syrian regime cannot be trusted because they have gassed their own people etc.

5.DISINFORMATION: We do not know what Syria and Russia are up to and what weapons are deployed and are being deployed because: they will not tell us and they are putting out disinformation; not caring whether we believe them or not. Unfortunately in this regard, also, we have to make a value judgement regarding aviation safety.

7.CONCLUSION: After examining the facts what is the safer option? Would you fly with your family over Egypt or Iran? For me it is Egypt for the reasons outlined above; though not a perfect option. What other options are there?

MuffinsDa

You are still not making sense, disregarding various facts, and contradicting yourself. Not going to waste my time any more, I've made my points very clear, lets move on.

Narango

If I am contradicting myself and disregarding various facts I would hope someone would be kind enough to point this out. I try to keep an open mind and I am open to persuasion.

I would still like to hear from people who have to fly professionally in these areas

eatmyshorts

Narango wrote: »

I would still like to hear from people who have to fly professionally in these areas

I could give a full account, but too many armchair generals here.

Narango

If you have something to say go ahead. Don't be shy!

Tenger

This is turning into a discussion among armchair generals. If you want to discuss the capabilities of the Russia missiles or feel the need to discuss capabilities and/or activities of Russian covert agencies then go post in Military and/or Politics forums.

To answer the OP:
Each airline/country operate their flights in accordance with national and international guidelines. Some airlines may re-route for geo-political reasons when others do not. it is up to each individual airline to make that decision. Unless of course a conflict is taking place and the airlines are instructed to stay out of the airspace.