From behind The Times paywall

The United States was urgently investigating last night whether Islamist militants in northern Iraq had obtained surface-to-air missiles, as it emerged that thousands of passengers fly over the conflict zone every day.
Intelligence sources said there was a real concern that Isis fighters had acquired the technology capable of downing a commercial airliner from Syrian stockpiles.
The Pentagon has ordered American special forces in Iraq to confirm whether Isis possesses weapons capable of hitting an aircraft at 30,000ft or higher.
The revelation came as an investigation by The Times found that major airlines, including British Airways, Air France, Lufthansa and Qantas, fly over the Isis-held area of Iraq every day.
A particularly popular route from London to Asia passes directly above the city of Mosul, a key stronghold in the militants’ self-declared Islamic caliphate. The extremist group, which includes hundreds of British jihadists, is accused of bloody massacres, beheadings and crucifixions and regards the West as its enemy.
Iraqi authorities and civilian airlines believe the flight path to be safe but the downing of Malaysian Airlines Flight MH17 over eastern Ukraine last week has heightened concern about the wisdom of flying over areas of unrest instead of using additional fuel to travel around them.

....also from same article

The British Airline Pilots Association called for the ICAO to be given stronger powers in deciding safe flight paths. “The trouble with the vague and often conflicting advice from national and international authorities is that airlines end up making the risk assessment themselves, with pilots at the sharp end of those decisions,” a spokesman said.

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/w...cle4158459.ece

When you read the statement from Qantas on why they are still going to fly over Iraq while Emirates isn't, you have to shake your head and wonder which town is missing its fools.
Our aircraft fly too high for it to be an issue. Wouldn't want to get a pilots input would you as to why it isn't and what might cause an aircraft to come down...and a 380 at fl 410... Might indicate other problems at Qantas too.

Talking of Syrian and Libyan SAM's, I noticed a report on the weekend that said rebels in Mali have obtained missiles from one of these to countries.

oz-b,

Whilst I generally agree with the thrust of your post, Emirates flies over Iran, QF doesn't - risk assessment. As far as the A380 goes, it has pretty good altitude capability. For example at MTOW, you can climb to F340 if you need to. On a short sector like DXB-LHR, then F380 initially is normal with F400 before Iraq - with a good pax load.

But yes, F400 is still an easy target for the systems we are concerned about.

N

No-one has a clue what 'equipment' is on the ground in war zones unless they have access to military surveillance and intelligence.Even then,you still need eyeballs on the ground to be certain.

And what would it's altitude capability be with one engine out? And what happens with a depressurisation? Oh that's right, QF planes are so good that they never have engine failures or depressurisations. All those incidents over the last 5 to 10 years were figments of my imagination. We account for terrain with an engine failure and/or depressurisation throughout a flight. Are missiles less of a threat than terrain? Perhaps they are not a given like terrain is, but where do you draw the line?

But it seems that the QF management are no the only delusional ones -

MH17 Admissions of safety failure by Malaysia Airlines? | Plane Talking

Now we have the situation where not only the public think that government will keep them safe, management believe it as well. What hope do we have?

Oakape,

I take it the red is good.

... and your post? Just a little bit out of context. Thankyou for reminding me why I don't feel like posting.

N

The reason QF cannot fly over Iranian airspace is due to Aust Govt autonomous sanctions that prevent payment to Iranian authorities /financial institutions in line with UN Security Council Resolutions

Sorry NOIP, I didn't mean to offend. I was trying to comment on two issues with overflight of these areas.

The first is that this situation is no different than any other in this business, in that there is a need to ensure safety in non-normal or emergency situations, as well as when everything is working normally. Therefore, airline management should not be sending aircraft over an area of conflict, even if the cruising level has been deemed safe, because they have not considered the lower cruising level the aircraft will be forced to fly at in the event of a non-normal or emergency situation.

The other issue is that, with the weapons available to all & sundry these days, perhaps there is no safe level over some of these areas. However, it would appear that some airline management are just looking for an excuse to save a buck & fly over theses areas & are hanging their hats on statements from ICAO & clearances from local ATC. Then, when a tragedy like MH17 happens, it is someone else's fault.

The discussion of what altitude an aircraft can cruise at over these areas is somewhat irrelevant when, in the event of a non-normal or emergency situation, the aircraft will be forced to descend to an altitude which will put it within range of even a shoulder launched missile.

Why would EK perceive it worth the cost to fly around a certain piece of the globe rather than the cheaper direct option?

One is inclined to think they might know something that others do not.

Or is it that they are creating a marketing advantage by pretending there is a problem, because the cost of the perceived high-value solution (fuel) is so much cheaper for them than their competitors?

EK pays pretty much the same as everybody else for fuel. They would get some volume discounts, but that is probably about it.

The reason I say that is that they never tanker fuel out of Dubai. Not even for a short ME or India turn. If fuel was that much cheaper in Dubai, they would be tankering as much as possible out of there.

It depends on the costs; EK will fly over Iran as it doesn't cost them a huge amount to do so. But if QF were to overfly Iran then they would be guilty of breaching sanctions and so would be liable to huge fines from the Australian government and potentially shut down.

Costs for one airline are not the same as those for another.

Oakape,

For accuracy, I carried tankering fuel ex DXB to IST a few days ago. So yes, EK certainly do tanker ex DXB.

If QF can't use Iran because of sanctions that only leaves a route overflying Saudi Arabia, Jordan, Israel and up the Med. If Israel is a no no then a southerly route over Egypt then a right turn to avoid Libya.

Looking at FR24 now (7.00 BST) an orderly queue of around 30 aircraft are overflying Mosul heading north west, most of them being EK. How long they will fly that route, who knows.

BBC News - Emirates to stop flying over Iraq after MH17 disaster

Oakape,

No probs.

My discussion on Altitude capability of the A380 was purely to do with a commercial question of how many pax we are carrying. It can still climb and carry lots of pax.

As an aside, you can lose 2 engines or depress and still stay well above man portable sams. Just because you depress doesn't mean you go down to 14,000 straight away. Plenty of oxygen to stay high enough. Depress profiles for the HKG-LHR sector are examples (though they are for terrain).

There will have to be long hard thinking as to how long commercial traffic will be able to transit conflict zones though - I'm sure ISIS would love to get their hands on the appropriate toys, and the capability of simpler sam systems is sure to improve.

:)

N

Noip, the hills on the Iraq boarder put a lot of cruising ALTs within manpad range.

The don

Is this a surprise or expected?
 

Don,

Could you elaborate? My reading does not indicate this is the case, certainly not for normal jet traffic.

Thanks.

N

camber

Fair enough. But also for accuracy, all the time I was there I never tankered out of Dubai. So perhaps it is a new thing, or perhaps it only happens infrequently & therefore is not due to price.

Oakape- I don't know how long you were there but for the last ten years EK has been tankering ex Dubai.

Some example destinations are Kuwait, Addis Ababa,Doha,Muscat,Khartoum,Sanaa', just to name a few. :ok: