In the light of apparent ignorance of SAM capability and its implications for overflight of conflict zones, could there be a case for ATPL knowledge to include some very basic stuff about the differences between MANPADS and radar SAMs, and an overview of some unclassified "Jane's"-type performance figures?
As in most things military, maximum performance figures are highly classified and depend on a multitude of factors. Ranges for MANPADs generally assume the target is high performance aircraft that can maneuver aggressively and deploy countermeasures (chaff, flares, jamming) in response to onboard and remote (e.g. AWACS) tracking, lockon, and/or launch warnings. Indeed, defeating a MANPAD these days is often more about geometry and maneuvers (at 6 to 9Gs) to bleed the missile of its finite supply of kinetic energy, something commercial aircraft are unable to do.
Shots at non-maneuvering targets (historically large bombers) would still face countermeasures, while typical commercial aircraft engaged with favorable attack geometry would be a best case for the missile. Other factors not considered are launches from significant heights (Afghan mountains anyone?) which both reduce the distance to a given flight level and increase the missile's range due to reduced air friction.
Once the missile is radar guided, altitude becomes your enemy, not your salvation. The game becomes a combination of low-level flying using terrain masking and the curvature of the earth to defeat ground-based radar, stealth to reduce detection ranges, and speed to challenge the response time of the missile launch system.
All this is a long way of saying that what you are suggesting might give some future airline, government, and/or ICAO some legal cover the next time this does (it will) happen, but nothing else.