WSJ : Russian Missile Strikes in Syria Trigger European Alert to Airlines

[AreOut]

"Russia’s long-range missile strikes against targets in Syria last week have prompted global aviation officials to issue safety alerts to airlines operating over Iraq, Iran, and the Caspian Sea amid heightened concerns about the risk to commercial flying near conflict zones."

Russian Missile Strikes in Syria Trigger European Alert to Airlines - WSJ (http://www.wsj.com/articles/russian-missile-strikes-in-syria-trigger-european-alert-to-airlines-1444473837)

is there really a risk? If I got that right cruise missiles fly very low.

[BARKINGMAD]

The perceived risk will reduce once the airline beancounters realise it will cost more money to deviate around the hot spot(s).

MH17 springs to mind................

[DaveReidUK]

EASA: "Before reaching Syria, such missiles are necessarily crossing the airspace above Caspian Sea, Iran and Iraq, below flight routes which are used by commercial transport airplanes".

Hmmm.

[Exnomad]

But what if a commercial transitting the area had to descend to make an emergency stop, say in Cyprus. Perhaps a medical emergency ion board

[Toddh]

I think it would be highly safe as the majority of Russian cruise missiles run on TERCOM navigation, a pre loaded highly accurate map of the terrain and altitude enabling it to fly VERY LOW to the surface and under radar to aid avoiding detection by enemy radar

[jack schidt]

Surely these missiles go initially to high altitude until nearing the target area or radar detection area and then drop to low level? The Caspian Sea is a long way from Syria, I can't see the missiles having that range at low level.

J

[archae86]

Surely these missiles go initially to high altitude until nearing the target area or radar detection area and then drop to low level?

While a video copied to youtube from a Russia Today source contains strong elements of propaganda, it clearly indicates pretty low altitude for the cruise portion of the mission. It also claims considerable transit through Iranian and Iraqi airspace.

RT propaganda video on initial Syria Cruise missile strike (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2TQ0wAfRts).

[Sober Lark]

it clearly indicates pretty low altitude for the cruise portion of the mission


I understand they flew from launch in the Caspian to NW Iran, across the Kurdish territory of Iraq and on into Syria. Anyone know what the height of the mountain ranges they must fly over is?


Personally on a commercial airliner, I'd prefer not to have such fireworks fly beneath me.

[ATC Watcher]

We got the briefing from Eurocontrol Network manager last Saturday with the crisis routing scenario (in case Iran airspace is blocked ) . It is not the low level cruise missiles they are worried about it is the ballistic ones.
Once someone starts using Scuds in the area you'd better be out of the way, and preferably BEFORE they start.

[Lonewolf_50]

We got the briefing from Eurocontrol Network manager last Saturday with the crisis routing scenario (in case Iran airspace is blocked ) . It is not the low level cruise missiles they are worried about it is the ballistic ones. Once someone starts using Scuds in the area you'd better be out of the way, and preferably BEFORE they start. Yes, but do you really think the Russians are going to fire a theater ballistic missile in this zone? There are a variety of reasons they won't, to include the PR ones.

[ATC Watcher]

Lonewolf50, when I said " someone" I did not meant necessarily the Russians.
Syria, Iran , Irak (and even possibly the rebels in Irak and Syria = stolen from the regular army ) all have Scuds in various variants as I understood..

Some airlines are already avoiding the area.

[fox niner]

A scud missile is a very crude weapon. It has (almost) no strike capabilites. You can bet that once "someone" starts using that weaponry, "they" have run out of all other options.
It was the same with Saddam in the '90s. He didnt fire them towards Tel Aviv until he was almost unable to do so.
I guess....that once the scuds are fired, someone is about to lose grip of their situation.

[Jonty]

That may be, but I would rather not be flying over one when it fires.

[fox niner]

What I meant to say is, that you only have to wait for the scuds to be fired. Everyone has them. Someone is going to run out of military options sooner or later. Once they do, they would like to make a last statement. Therefore someone is going to fire those scuds.
Eventually.
Inevitably.

[appleACE]

Scuds are ballistic missiles which don't home in on aircraft, so the chance of getting hit by one is probably tiny. What we should really be worried about is the anti-air weaponry held by the Syrian and Iraqi militaries falling into the wrong hands.

[Lonewolf_50]

@appleACE

While your big sky small CEP for the Scud to come down and hit an airliner in passing is remote, the prudent decision to avoid a certain airspace volume is risk management at work. Why tempt fate? Agree on the great unknown regarding Surface to Air weaponry in various hands with divergent motivations.

@ATC Watcher: OK, I see what you were after, thanks.

@BuenoHombre
When you are done grinding your axe, remember that there is more than one outside party to this mess in Syria. Your obsession with USA/CIA is a bit of a flag, amigo ... wait ... "is a bit of a flag, tovarisch."

EDIT: (avoka, bolshoe spasiba, corrected ... I am confused if it is a or o at the end of spasiba)

[avoka]

Hi guys
I have to correct You little bit
"is a bit of a flag, tovarich."-I think Tovarich word will look so-TovariSch but may be better is comrade:ok::D:p
Safe flights

[Sober Lark]

Final report document MH17


No Integrated risk management:


Most operators assumed that an airspace which is not closed must be safe. Operators adapted their flight plans to accommodate the airspace restrictions, but did not make a connection with the armed conflict taking place below.


Under 11 Recommendations:


Passengers travelling by air should be able to rely on the operator of their choice to have done all that is possible to operate the flight safely and that states have ensured that the airspace used for their flight is safe.


The report goes on to discuss airspace management in conflict zones.


The report also recommends Ideally, operators should have to actively provide information about routes to be flown and routes recently flown, so that everyone can form a judgement, thereby increasing public attention for this issue. A first step towards this would be to require operators to provide public accountability on a regular basis for routes over conflict zones selected by them

[wanabee777]

My company has been dispatching flights through Iraqi, Iranian and Afghanistani airspace for several years. This may have changed recently, however, due to what transpired with MH17 and the recommendations of the various investigating authorities.

[OldLurker]

Until MH17, people might have forgotten what happened to IR655 in 1988 and might have assumed that even where a ground war is going on, no-one would have any motive to fire missiles at passing aircraft six miles up. MH17 proved that assumption mistaken. The Russians are on the ground in Syria themselves, and also have supplied the Assad regime with all sorts of weaponry, quite possibly including Buk missiles. It's dangerous to fly over or near any conflict at any level – there's too much risk of some trigger-happy idiot firing at an innocent civilian aircraft, as happened with MH17 and IR655.

[ShotOne]

"Prudent decision to avoid certain airspace.." Er, which airspace?

Scud has a range of around 7-800 km. That's most of the Med, add that to entire corridor between Caspian and Med. Going back a bit, an airliner was brought down by a missile right off the Italian coast, and two over Ukraine. Best stay at home, eh?

[OldLurker]

In the Italian incident, and both Ukraine incidents, the aircraft were shot down by anti-aircraft missiles. As already mentioned, Scud is a ballistic missile that can't target aircraft, probably not even overhead, certainly not 800km away.

If the combatants in Syria start firing Scuds down the Med we've got more problems than just aviation.

[fox niner]

Exactly old lurker. I am not worried about the scuds per sé, but more about the fact that there are so many combatant groups out there, and one -or more- are bound to lose the war.
Some group is going to end up losing the battle. And when they do, they will have nothing to lose. They will start firing anything that they have at anyone.
Stinger missiles?
Manpads?
What ever. This conflict is different than the two gulf wars that we already had. Also different than the ousting of Ghadaffi. All those conflicts had a well-defined good guy-bad guy element.
This syria conflict has 84 (?) militia running around swaying weaponry, and no one can keep track. Not even the US or Russia.

[ShotOne]

Which is exactly my point; if this was a simple matter of just avoiding a particular defined bit of airspace things would be straightforward, but that's not the case.

[Lonewolf_50]

"Prudent decision to avoid certain airspace.." Er, which airspace?
Look at the map which includes a lot of Syria and some of Northern Iraq, where the targets tend to be.
Scud has a range of around 7-800 km. That's most of the Med, Actually, no, it isn't, the Med is much bigger than that. :E From 5 deg West to about 35 deg east Longitude at a latitude of 38 (in the middle, it is about 32-45 latitude in range) I crossed it a few times on warships. 800 Km takes you from about Damascus to not quite Crete.

As to covering most of the Eastern Med, sure, Depending Upon Launch Point.

[_Phoenix]

US, Russian aircraft come within visual range in Syria - CNNPolitics.com (http://www.cnn.com/2015/10/13/politics/syria-us-russian-aircraft-visual-range/index.html)
Top Gun era is back,
V2MHycco7uo

[ShotOne]

But it's not just where the targets tend to be, lonewolf. You look at the map. The corridor between Caspian and Med carries a huge volume of traffic. The alternatives aren't risk free either. Even with your narrower definition of Eastern Med, you're essentially demanding that most European holiday airlines shut up shop.

[Lonewolf_50]

But it's not just where the targets tend to be, lonewolf. You look at the map. The corridor between Caspian and Med carries a huge volume of traffic. The alternatives aren't risk free either. Even with your narrower definition of Eastern Med, you're essentially demanding that most European holiday airlines shut up shop.No, I am not, but you just did.

Caspian to Med corridor, are you talking about cruise missiles or ballistic missiles? As discussed before, the cruise missiles aren't a significant threat due to profile, unless the mission planners fly them through terminal airspace. Do you really think the Russians are that stupid? I don't.

[Chronus]

Corridors or no corridors, if there is any shooting going on, no matter what kind of ordnance is being let loose, keep civilian traffic well clear would be my recommendation.
In the case of MH17 the phase of how the aircraft was brought down and how to avoid a recurrence is now over. The next phase is the criminal investigation to try and discover who did it and why. Yes, there have been similar incidents before, the shooting down of the Iranian bus and the KAL f007. Whilst both were deliberate targets, nevertheless they were mistakes. In times of war and states of high tension, collateral damage is a common occurrence. Collateral damage being the ultimate price paid by the innocent for peace. I believe it highly unlikely that MH17 was the intended target. There were other civilian aircraft in the immediate vicinity. The question that must be in the forefront of the criminal investigators minds must be the identity of the intended target. MH17 was the unfortunate bystander who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I hope that the perpetrators, whoever they may be, are soon brought to justice before an International Criminal Court for War Crimes. I must add that given today`s news about more suspects for the Lockerbie disaster, "soon " may be a vain hope.

It will soon be Halloween night and all and sundry will be launching all manner of ordnance into the sky. Even these are worrisome to those who are in their perilous seats in the skies above. How can it be that when there is real lead capable of reaching well into the stratosphere that we are happy to keep going in some kind of corridor. I just cannot see the sense in this. Those skies are strictly for the bang seat occupiers, those who have the option to get out of Dodge fast.

[OldLurker]

Collateral damage being the ultimate price paid by the innocent for peace.No, sorry. "Collateral damage" is the ultimate price paid by the innocent for incompetent, callous or sadistic military. Slaughter of innocents is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
US officials knew they were bombing Doctors Without Borders hospital, report | Americas | News | The Independent (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-officials-knew-they-were-bombing-doctors-without-borders-hospital-reports-a6696096.html)
and many other examples.

[Both examples above refer to US military mistakes (let's call them that). By picking those examples I don't mean to infer that the US does this sort of thing any more than others.]

[Lonewolf_50]

No, sorry. "Collateral damage" is the ultimate price paid by the innocent for incompetent, callous or sadistic military. Slaughter of innocents is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for peace. When you complete your patent for an IFF system that clearly identifies "the innocent" anywhere on this planet, you'll make a fortune. Your characterization of motive in the case of error is curious, and inept. The same kind of error that got Pat Tillman killed is the kind of error that results in the bomb or shell hitting the wrong place. There is no difference in the shooting end in motive be the accidental receiver of hot metal a "military target" or someone else.

Slaughter of innocents is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for peace

Red Herring, Strawman, non sequitur, and argument from emotion all rolled into one. You win Fallacy Follies for the week. You may pick up your prize from the receptionist on the way out. Have a lovely weekend.

Back to the matter of risk management: what are the real risks of which airspace volume near what area of conflict? That's a serious question not aided by rants.

[ShotOne]

Agreed, lonewolf, at least in as much as motive being a red herring. The big majority of tragedies in which air passengers were slaughtered weren't deliberate. But they're dead anyway.

But the matter of risk management is nowhere near as simple as you implied in your earlier post. It's not even a matter of avoiding known conflict areas; catastrophes like the Air Siberia shootdown happened because of an exercise gone wrong.

[Lonewolf_50]

Agreed, lonewolf, at least in as much as motive being a red herring. The big majority of tragedies in which air passengers were slaughtered weren't deliberate. But they're dead anyway.

But the matter of risk management is nowhere near as simple as you implied in your earlier post. It's not even a matter of avoiding known conflict areas; catastrophes like the Air Siberia shootdown happened because of an exercise gone wrong. And that latter case your company OPs guy can't, in a practical sense, plan for.

[No Fly Zone]

The Ruskies have - and will use far more than low altitude cruises if they wish. Yes, the civilian carriers remain at risk...but is money to be made. The only event that will begin limiting civilian flights over or to the areas of conflict is when their insurance carriers begin to withdraw coverage for operations into or over the high risk areas. As always, it is about the money.