Concerned about Emirates continuing to fly over Iraq. Is it risky?

roro1990

I have a flight soon with Emirates to Dubai, which will fly over Iraq on the way. This concerns me in the current geopolitical situation, although I admit that it is personal anxiety at play more than an understanding of the actual risks.
The latest advice to airlines and pilots about Iraq ( taken from Safe Airspace) reads as follows:

"There was an Iranian missile strike on US military bases in Iraq on Jan 8, quickly followed by the shooting down of Ukraine Int Airlines flight 752 in Tehran by the Iranian Armed Forces, having mistaken the aircraft radar return for an inbound missile to Tehran.

In the days following these events, many countries issued warnings to avoid the airspace of Iran and Iraq. We now classify both these countries as Level 1 - Do Not Fly airspace. Tehran and Baghdad FIRs are off-limits.

Most airlines other than Middle Eastern carriers have now stopped overflying Iraq entirely. Traffic that normally operates through the Baghdad FIR now needs another route.

The predominant choice for east-west flights into the Dubai area is a southerly routing via Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The aviation security picture in the Middle East, already fragile and unstable, is now unpredictable."

My reason for posting this is to gauge the thoughts of a community that is probably more knowledgeable than me about this stuff. It appears that many aviation authorities consider Iraq to be high risk, but Emirates doesn't because it still overflies the country on pretty much every route between Dubai and the West.

You could make the argument that hundreds of flights pass through the air corridors over Iraq every day en route to the Middle east or back West without incident. But then to counter that, you could say that hundreds of flights passed over Eastern Ukraine in the days before MH17 happened.

Would people here feel comfortable flying over Iraq right now? Am I overblowing the risk? Thanks for any thoughts/opinions.

who_ru

roro1990 wrote: »

I have a flight soon with Emirates to Dubai, which will fly over Iraq on the way. This concerns me in the current geopolitical situation, although I admit that it is personal anxiety at play more than an understanding of the actual risks.
The latest advice to airlines and pilots about Iraq ( taken from Safe Airspace) reads as follows:

"There was an Iranian missile strike on US military bases in Iraq on Jan 8, quickly followed by the shooting down of Ukraine Int Airlines flight 752 in Tehran by the Iranian Armed Forces, having mistaken the aircraft radar return for an inbound missile to Tehran.

In the days following these events, many countries issued warnings to avoid the airspace of Iran and Iraq. We now classify both these countries as Level 1 - Do Not Fly airspace. Tehran and Baghdad FIRs are off-limits.

Most airlines other than Middle Eastern carriers have now stopped overflying Iraq entirely. Traffic that normally operates through the Baghdad FIR now needs another route.

The predominant choice for east-west flights into the Dubai area is a southerly routing via Saudi Arabia and Egypt. The aviation security picture in the Middle East, already fragile and unstable, is now unpredictable."

My reason for posting this is to gauge the thoughts of a community that is probably more knowledgeable than me about this stuff. It appears that many aviation authorities consider Iraq to be high risk, but Emirates doesn't because it still overflies the country on pretty much every route between Dubai and the West.

You could make the argument that hundreds of flights pass through the air corridors over Iraq every day en route to the Middle east or back West without incident. But then to counter that, you could say that hundreds of flights passed over Eastern Ukraine in the days before MH17 happened.

Would people here feel comfortable flying over Iraq right now? Am I overblowing the risk? Thanks for any thoughts/opinions.

I think it's perfectly reasonable to concerned about such a flight and I personally would prefer to avoid that route. The likelihood is that all will be fine, recent tragic events not withstanding. Flying is statistically ultra safe although not an experience I enjoy myself. A distraction would help, a movie, a book or a conversation with someone else. I'm sure everything will be fine on the day.

roro1990

who_ru wrote: »

I think it's perfectly reasonable to concerned about such a flight and I personally would prefer to avoid that route. The likelihood is that all will be fine, recent tragic events not withstanding. Flying is statistically ultra safe although not an experience I enjoy myself. A distraction would help, a movie, a book or a conversation with someone else. I'm sure everything will be fine on the day.

Thanks for your reply. Yeah, I have a few podcasts downloaded for distraction. My doctor can offer anxiety-reducing medication for flying, which I will probably accept.

My increased concern is mostly in light of the fact that so many aviation authorities and advisory bodies are advising against flying over Iraq or even outright prohibiting it. For example, EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) has advised that, "In the light of recent events in the Middle East, EASA has contacted European Union National Aviation Authorities to recommend that commercial flight operations over Iraqi airspace be avoided, as a precautionary measure."

It is difficult not to think that Emirates continues to fly over Iraq because of the major disruption that avoiding Iraq's airspace would cause to their schedules, particularly in relation to passengers missing connections and having to be rebooked/provided with accommodation.

Van.Bosch

roro1990 wrote: »

Thanks for your reply. Yeah, I have a few podcasts downloaded for distraction. My doctor can offer anxiety-reducing medication for flying, which I will probably accept.

My increased concern is mostly in light of the fact that so many aviation authorities and advisory bodies are advising against flying over Iraq or even outright prohibiting it. For example, EASA (European Aviation Safety Agency) has advised that, "In the light of recent events in the Middle East, EASA has contacted European Union National Aviation Authorities to recommend that commercial flight operations over Iraqi airspace be avoided, as a precautionary measure."

It is difficult not to think that Emirates continues to fly over Iraq because of the major disruption that avoiding Iraq's airspace would cause to their schedules, particularly in relation to passengers missing connections and having to be rebooked/provided with accommodation.

While rebooking / providing accommodation would be an issue if they avoided it, the flip side is that losing an aircraft with passengers would be much worse obviously. I would think Emirates fly over Iraq because their aviation authority allows them to and they believe it’s safe. It’s also not that huge a diversion for them.

Saying that, I would wonder why they believe so given the other agencies are recommending against it.

roro1990

Van.Bosch wrote: »

I would think Emirates fly over Iraq because their aviation authority allows them to and they believe it’s safe. It’s also not that huge a diversion for them.

Saying that, I would wonder why they believe so given the other agencies are recommending against it.

Yeah, that's what has me a bit perplexed. The fact that Emirates is deeming the airspace as safe but many other leading airlines are actively avoiding it in light of either outright bans or recommendations from agencies and aviation authorities. I don't really know what to do because cancelling and booking with a different airline would incur a huge personal expense for something that is probably still a very low likelihood of risk.

Van.Bosch

roro1990 wrote: »

Yeah, that's what has me a bit perplexed. The fact that Emirates is deeming the airspace as safe but many other leading airlines are actively avoiding it in light of either outright bans or recommendations from agencies and aviation authorities. I don't really know what to do because cancelling and booking with a different airline would incur a huge personal expense for something that is probably still a very low likelihood of risk.

It’s a tough call for you, personally I would fly it.

murphaph

It is a tough call. I don't think I'd put my family on a flight over Iraq at the moment. Statistically unlikely but surely it's tempting fate to fly through airspace through which missiles are being fired, though since Iran accidentally killed all those people the rhetoric is notably reduced. Ironically the deaths of these passengers in Iran probably makes air travel over Iraq safer than it was in the immediate aftermath of the US assassination of those people in Baghdad.

roro1990

murphaph wrote: »

It is a tough call. I don't think I'd put my family on a flight over Iraq at the moment. Statistically unlikely but surely it's tempting fate to fly through airspace through which missiles are being fired, though since Iran accidentally killed all those people the rhetoric is notably reduced.

Yeah, to me it seems an unnecessary risk and I can't think of any good reason Emirates continues to fly over Iraq other than the fact that choosing alternative routes would impact their bottom line. I'd like to think they have more info than me about the actual risks but I dunno.

I'll be flying alone so it will be a personal safety risk that I'm taking, but it still is causing much more angst for me than a normal flight would. It's not just my personal safety I need to account for though; there's the impact that something happening to me would have on my family aswell. The only helpful thing I've found is to look at FlightRadar and see how many flights pass over Iraq each day without incident (lots).

Del2005

Flying over Saudi Arabia isn't safe either as they have been attacked before and their military is incompetent, so like the 100ml fluid limit its just optics to fool people.

newirishman

I just flew that route from Dubai to Dublin last Sunday (with family for a change), and will go to Asia via Dubai again in March.
To be honest, I had and have no concerns whatsoever, especially after Iran admitted to shooting that Ukraine aircraft.

In case the situation escalates (again), I would reassess, but at this point I don’t see it.

I am going that route several times a year for work, usually with Emirates, and in my experience most Airlines are targeting to not taking any risks and would reroute more drastically if there’s significant danger.

There’s no missiles flying over Iraq / the region at this point in any case.

roro1990

newirishman wrote: »

I just flew that route from Dubai to Dublin last Sunday (with family for a change), and will go to Asia via Dubai again in March.
To be honest, I had and have no concerns whatsoever, especially after Iran admitted to shooting that Ukraine aircraft.

In case the situation escalates (again), I would reassess, but at this point I don’t see it.

I am going that route several times a year for work, usually with Emirates, and in my experience most Airlines are targeting to not taking any risks and would reroute more drastically if there’s significant danger.

There’s no missiles flying over Iraq / the region at this point in any case.

Thanks for your reply. I think reassessing in case of an escalation is the best advice. At the moment the risk is hopefully quite low, but I'll keep an eye on the news over the next day or two before my flight.

Noxegon

For what it’s worth, I was supposed to be attending something in the Middle East that was cancelled in the immediate aftermath of the shoot down. I’d have gone regardless, but a sizeable percentage of those involved said no.

The decision to travel is a personal one. Only you can make it.

roro1990

Noxegon wrote: »

For what it’s worth, I was supposed to be attending something in the Middle East that was cancelled in the immediate aftermath of the shoot down. I’d have gone regardless, but a sizeable percentage of those involved said no.

The decision to travel is a personal one. Only you can make it.

That's interesting that a sizeable percentage said no. It shows that it's not just me who automatically assumes the worst will happen! True that the decision is ultimately only one I can make, I guess I was posting to gauge the consensus from people who are interested in aviation to see if they'd be comfortable making the same journey.

Inquitus

You'll be flying over Iraq at 39000-41000 feet, personally I wouldn't give it a 2nd thought, but as mentioned above, it is your own choice of what risk is acceptable to you, and if you are a nervous flyer this may ruin the experience for you.

jamo2oo9

AFAIK, FAA is the only aviation agency to ban aircraft from Iraq/Iran airspace. No other agencies have done so. It's ultimately down to the airlines to decide if it's safe to fly through their airspace or not. A few airlines did reroute their aircraft around the Iran/Iraq airspace for a few days but resume normal routes afterwards when the situation de-escalated.

Personally, you would be fine. The odds of you being shot down at 30,000+ feet is astronomically low. In the last 100 years, there has been 31 airplanes shot down (civilian). Only 3 of these were shot down whilst at cruising altitude with S2A missiles. Rest were all shot down by missiles but during take-off or landing or by military aircraft.

killbillvol2

roro1990 wrote: »

Yeah, to me it seems an unnecessary risk and I can't think of any good reason Emirates continues to fly over Iraq other than the fact that choosing alternative routes would impact their bottom line. I'd like to think they have more info than me about the actual risks but I dunno.

This is nonsense tbh. You think maybe Emirates haven't assessed the risks and you're better informed than them?

As to the bottom line, taking the most cynical view, having a 777 and 300+ passengers shot down would have far more impact on their bottom line than changing the routing.

And which alternative route would you be happier with? Flying over Iran? Or Israel/Egypt /Saudi Arabia?

trellheim

You think maybe Emirates haven't assessed the risks and you're better informed than them?

Ukraine Airlines had a perfect safety record until PS752 was shot down.

roro1990

killbillvol2 wrote: »

This is nonsense tbh. You think maybe Emirates haven't assessed the risks and you're better informed than them?

As to the bottom line, taking the most cynical view, having a 777 and 300+ passengers shot down would have far more impact on their bottom line than changing the routing.

And which alternative route would you be happier with? Flying over Iran? Or Israel/Egypt /Saudi Arabia?

I don't think I'm better informed, I literally wrote in my comment that I'd like to think they have more info than me, but I don't know...because I don't actually know.

I'd prefer they flew over Egypt and Saudi Arabia. I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be allowed in Israel's airspace.

mickdw

If 1 in 10 of all shot down aircraft have been above 30000 ft,
I think it's risky to over fly those areas.

roro1990

mickdw wrote: »

If 1 in 10 of all shot down aircraft have been above 30000 ft,
I think it's risky to over fly those areas.

I think it's risky too but I only think so because several aviation authorities and agencies have banned carriers from overflying Iraq. Carriers from the UK, Holland, Germany, USA are all avoiding Iraq, and one would think they are a good barometer of deciding what is safe.

I think that statistic about shootdowns leaves out the context of there only being 31 shootdowns in 100 years out of I'm guessing X hundred million flights.

jamo2oo9

mickdw wrote: »

If 1 in 10 of all shot down aircraft have been above 30000 ft,
I think it's risky to over fly those areas.

Two civilian aircrafts have been shot down in the last 15 years. In that time period, over 561,000,000 flights have taken place. The odds of being shot down is 0.00000000035%.

You have a better chance of being hit by a lightning, bitten by a shark, dying from fireworks or even winning the lotto...

Kermit.de.frog

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

The odds of being shot down is 0.00000000035%.

Statistics like that are meaningless though if you just happened to be on PS752.

It wasn't a 0.00000000035% chance for them.

Accidents (or "accidents" in this case) happen.

It's not a lottery.

roro1990

Kermit.de.frog wrote: »

Statistics like that are meaningless though if you just happened to be on PS752.

It wasn't a 0.00000000035% chance for them.

Accidents (or "accidents" in this case) happen.

It's not a lottery.

So what are you saying then? You wouldn't fly with Emirates at cruising altitude because a plane got downed on take off over Iran? Just curious.

FFVII

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Two civilian aircrafts have been shot down in the last 15 years. In that time period, over 561,000,000 flights have taken place. The odds of being shot down is 0.00000000035%.

You have a better chance of being hit by a lightning, bitten by a shark, dying from fireworks or even winning the lotto...

Statistics don't apply to the individual.

OP will fairly kick himself on the long fall down from 41000 feet for the sake of €€€.

Emirates are taking an extra risk here for their bottom line, simple as.

BoJack Horseman

Why would the Iraqi army shoot down an airliner?

bikeman1

I would be more concerned with the drive to and from the airport at either end. That is a much riskier activity than the flight over Iran.

Emirates management will have taken a risk assessment on matters and have acted accordingly. There is any increased risk, but not enough to warrant re routing of a fellow Middle Eastern countries airline at 40,000 ft.

Enjoy your flight on the massive 77W and your trip on the other end.

newirishman

FFVII wrote: »

Statistics don't apply to the individual.

OP will fairly kick himself on the long fall down from 41000 feet for the sake of €€€.

Emirates are taking an extra risk here for their bottom line, simple as.

"Statistics don't apply to the individual"? Not sure what that's supposed to mean to be honest.

People are notoriously bad at assessing risk, and this post is a good example of it.

Accusing Emirates of putting people's lifes at risk for some money is frankly ludicrous. This is one of the most regulated and security aware industries, with a safety record that is second to none.

But as someone else pointed out, it is everyone's personal decision.

Victor

BoJack Horseman wrote: »

Why would the Iraqi army shoot down an airliner?

Why would Iran shoot down an airliner?

roro1990

Victor wrote: »

Why would Iran shoot down an airliner?

Not to justify it but they were on high alert in the immediate aftermath of launching missiles at US military bases in Iraq. The Iraq defense forces hopefully don't just randomly aim missiles at their own airspace that can wipe out a civilian aircraft at cruising altitude. My reason for being worried is that several Western aviation authorities consider it high risk but Emirates apparently don't.

Del2005

roro1990 wrote: »

I think it's risky too but I only think so because several aviation authorities and agencies have banned carriers from overflying Iraq. Carriers from the UK, Holland, Germany, USA are all avoiding Iraq, and one would think they are a good barometer of deciding what is safe.

I think that statistic about shootdowns leaves out the context of there only being 31 shootdowns in 100 years out of I'm guessing X hundred million flights.

The country's that are avoiding the airspace are the ones who killed thousands of people in the region so they have a good reason to

Dr. Bre

I recently flew from Doha to Dublin. Flew over Iran and close to Baghdad. I was very nervous

mickdw

jamo2oo9 wrote: »

Two civilian aircrafts have been shot down in the last 15 years. In that time period, over 561,000,000 flights have taken place. The odds of being shot down is 0.00000000035%.

You have a better chance of being hit by a lightning, bitten by a shark, dying from fireworks or even winning the lotto...

Thats the odds of being shot down on a random flight anywhere in the world.
The odds of being shot down when deciding to now fly over that area would be many many times greater than you suggest.
If one was to instead take the number of flights flying over the danger area for say the next month multiplied by the possibility of Iran shooting at an aircraft over the same period, you might get a much more scary figure to the point of it being an unnecessary risk.

mightyreds

I had the same concern flew with them Friday over Iraq, we skirted around Iran , wasn't as much as a hiccup on 2 flights and 13 hours airtime, felt safer thinking even Iran wouldn't mess up as badly twice in such a short period.

Kermit.de.frog

roro1990 wrote: »

So what are you saying then? You wouldn't fly with Emirates at cruising altitude because a plane got downed on take off over Iran? Just curious.

I have no concerns at all. I'm just making a comment on the use of stats.

roro1990

mickdw wrote: »

If one was to instead take the number of flights flying over the danger area for say the next month multiplied by the possibility of Iran shooting at an aircraft over the same period, you might get a much more scary figure to the point of it being an unnecessary risk.

To say one might get a much more scary figure is to say that Emirates and other Middle Eastern carriers haven't bothered with this type of analysis already and decided that the figure isn't actually that scary.

I would like to think they have done this analysis, but again, I am just a mere passenger assuming the worst will happen rather than a high level risk assessor at a large airline. Maybe the level of risk assessment isn't as detailed as I'd like to think, but then again, they hopefully know more than the average concerned passenger.

Iran isn't just randomly shooting missiles at planes that pass over neighbouring countries at cruising altitude; the Ukraine Airlines incident happened at a time of high tension near to the capital city of Iran in the immediate aftermath of them sending missiles towards US bases in Iraq. It was a horrible incident, though, that has obviously resonated with a lot of concerned passengers, including myself.

roro1990

Dr. Bre wrote: »

I recently flew from Doha to Dublin. Flew over Iran and close to Baghdad. I was very nervous

Do you personally think your anxiety was justified? Just curious because it feels in some ways like a large portion of my own nervousness about my upcoming flight is just personal high levels of anxiety rather than a concrete risk to my safety.

Then again, the fact that Iraqi airspace is now a no-no for UK, US, Dutch, German, Ukranian, and probably more airliners signals a large direcrepancy in risk assessment between these countries and Middle Eastern carriers.

FFVII

newirishman wrote: »

"Statistics don't apply to the individual"? Not sure what that's supposed to mean to be honest.

People are notoriously bad at assessing risk, and this post is a good example of it.

Accusing Emirates of putting people's lifes at risk for some money is frankly ludicrous. This is one of the most regulated and security aware industries, with a safety record that is second to none.

But as someone else pointed out, it is everyone's personal decision.

You must have forgotten about Boeing already.

Dr. Bre

roro1990 wrote: »

Do you personally think your anxiety was justified? Just curious because it feels in some ways like a large portion of my own nervousness about my upcoming flight is just personal high levels of anxiety rather than a concrete risk to my safety.

Then again, the fact that Iraqi airspace is now a no-no for UK, US, Dutch, German, Ukranian, and probably more airliners signals a large direcrepancy in risk assessment between these countries and Middle Eastern carriers.

I shouldn’t have been anxious cos the chances of another passenger plane being shot down was very slim.

mickdw

roro1990 wrote: »

To say one might get a much more scary figure is to say that Emirates and other Middle Eastern carriers haven't bothered with this type of analysis already and decided that the figure isn't actually that scary.

I would like to think they have done this analysis, but again, I am just a mere passenger assuming the worst will happen rather than a high level risk assessor at a large airline. Maybe the level of risk assessment isn't as detailed as I'd like to think, but then again, they hopefully know more than the average concerned passenger.

Iran isn't just randomly shooting missiles at planes that pass over neighbouring countries at cruising altitude; the Ukraine Airlines incident happened at a time of high tension near to the capital city of Iran in the immediate aftermath of them sending missiles towards US bases in Iraq. It was a horrible incident, though, that has obviously resonated with a lot of concerned passengers, including myself.

I guess some carriers believe that they will not be a targeted as a friendly state or whatever but the risk of shoot down is surely there in general - there can be little debate about that. You then need to consider whether you can trust these nations to not get it wrong and hit an unintended target.... Personally I wouldn't be betting my life on that. An apology is no good after you are shot down.
The fact that multiple airlines see fit to avoid the area is enough for me.

killbillvol2

mickdw wrote: »

I guess some carriers believe that they will not be a targeted as a friendly state or whatever but the risk of shoot down is surely there in general - there can be little debate about that. You then need to consider whether you can trust these nations to not get it wrong and hit an unintended target.... Personally I wouldn't be betting my life on that. An apology is no good after you are shot down.
The fact that multiple airlines see fit to avoid the area is enough for me.

How often do you fly to or through the Middle East?

mickdw

killbillvol2 wrote: »

How often do you fly to or through the Middle East?

Never.

john boye

It's each to their own really. I only took that flight during the week and I didn't even think of it once I was on board. But I would say that if you're going to be fretting about it until you're clear of Iraq then I might advise avoiding the flight if possible as that kind of anxiety in the air surely wouldn't be nice at all.

Victor

mickdw wrote: »

I guess some carriers believe that they will not be a targeted as a friendly state or whateve

Air liner shoot-downs tend not to be deliberate, so being friendly or not doesn't matter.

mickdw

Victor wrote: »

Air liner shoot-downs tend not to be deliberate, so being friendly or not doesn't matter.

Well yes so that further proves that best avoided.

Del2005

Victor wrote: »

Air liner shoot-downs tend not to be deliberate, so being friendly or not doesn't matter.

A western airliner would be a prime target for ISIS or any other terrorist group to shoot down. But they would probably use suicide attacks when cruising or a missile when the plane is taking or landing. There is plenty to buy airside to bring down a plane for a loan wolf, a group would be even easier and no one has a clue how many ISIS people escaped.

Victor

Del2005 wrote: »

A western airliner would be a prime target for ISIS or any other terrorist group to shoot down. But they would probably use suicide attacks when cruising or a missile when the plane is taking or landing. There is plenty to buy airside to bring down a plane for a loan wolf, a group would be even easier and no one has a clue how many ISIS people escaped.

There is no realistic chance of ISIS shooting down anything at cruising altitude.

MadYaker

Is there a reason why the Iraqi army might suddenly start firing missiles at civilian aircraft cruising at 30,000 ft?? Have I missed something? Don’t understand the purpose of this thread. From looking at flightradar it looks like very few flights are avoiding Iraq.

Victor

Over Iraq, the greatest risks would be with the Americans or Iranians firing a long-range SAM at a suspected hostile aircraft or missile. "Small airplane, big sky" works for F16s, but not a few dozen B737s. The threat from Iraq is modest.

Del2005

Victor wrote: »

There is no realistic chance of ISIS shooting down anything at cruising altitude.

I said suicide attack when cruising, which is a much bigger risk for all aircraft flying from any airport than a missile when flying over the middle East.

DubDani

I personally wouldn't have any Issue flying over any of those countries.

Said that, it will probably be affecting Airlines and their decisions. My employer (large US multinational) has prohibited any business travel that goes over Iraq/Iran and some other middle eastern areas. So effectively all travel to Asia and the Middle east has been put on hold for the time being. To currently fly from Dublin to India I would need special approval by our security VP and would then also be limited to a carrier that will have provided written confirmation that their flights are not going over any of the restricted countries. We had several big meetings in India cancelled on short notice for those reasons. And my employer is not an exception, I believe.

Inquitus

DubDani wrote: »

I personally wouldn't have any Issue flying over any of those countries.

Said that, it will probably be affecting Airlines and their decisions. My employer (large US multinational) has prohibited any business travel that goes over Iraq/Iran and some other middle eastern areas. So effectively all travel to Asia and the Middle east has been put on hold for the time being. To currently fly from Dublin to India I would need special approval by our security VP and would then also be limited to a carrier that will have provided written confirmation that their flights are not going over any of the restricted countries. We had several big meetings in India cancelled on short notice for those reasons. And my employer is not an exception, I believe.

You can fly direct to Asia from Heathrow, Schipol and the like without troubling Iran/Iraq, just rules out going via Dubai with a break in the middle.