Did Qantas flight plan over Ukraine?
 

Just wondering if Qantas planned over Ukraine recently or is that a thing of the past?

We don't go that way since the EK deal. Being visionaries, we have no flights from Asia to Europe.

And Dubai is .........?
Even if the flight path would take you well south of Crimea and Ukraine.

...Not Asia as understood in the context of flight routings over the Crimea. Next question?

except to LHR (which is still part of Europe - bet the Poms wish they weren't)

Does QF fly over the Ukrane?
 

The Facts.Standard route DXB to LHR:Up the Gulf,over Kuwait,Iraq,Turkey,
Black Sea over Bulgaria,Romania,Hungary, Austria or Slovakia, Czech Rep,Germany,Netherlands and on to LHR.
Thin Routes?I was up and back to LHR last two weeks:SYD-DXB,over 400 pax,
DXB-LHR 385 pax,LHR-DXB 485 pax,DXB to MEL 516 pax!! Fit that many on your 787???

Wow, & it degenerates again....

As TS says, the main route DXB-Europe is the gulf, Kuwait, Iraq, Turkey, Black Sea, Bulgaria.. Since the Crimea debacle, Simferopol airspace has been closed, however, Ukraine and Turkey control roughly half the Black Sea each, and before the closure, depending on your destination you could routinely be planned through southern Simferopol airspace, but not Kyiv.

The alternate route DXB-Europe is through Iran initially, then Turkey, Black Sea, Bulgaria etc with the same chance of proceeding through Simferopol.

Europe- DXB is the same as above, with the additional alternate of proceeding through the Turkey/Cypress/Syria/Jordan quadrant of 'war and no mutual communications', before entering the relative sanctuary of Saudi, except that Syrian airspace remains closed. It takes a strong jetstream, but from Italy I have also recently been routed from Turkey into Alexandria while Damascus has been closed.

Its a big and dangerous world out there. Wiki lists 11 current ongoing conflicts with over 1000 deaths, and 34 ongoing conflicts with less than 1000 deaths in the current year. As a bog standard line driver for EK, I have personally overflown all but 4 of those countries in conflict, and EK regularly lands in countries involved in approximately 33/45 of those conflict zones.

Should we be concerned? Is getting your hands on a soviet-era SA-11 ground-to-air missile and shooting down a civilian airliner the new black? Or do we have a couple of dickheads who had one too many vodkas in the sunshine? A look back through the last weeks news shows a couple of low level military aircraft being shot down, but certainly no international outcry from IATA, ICAO, EASA, NATO, the USA or anyone in fact suggesting any threat to civilian airliners. Should we now avoid all countries involved in some sort of conflict?

I don't have the answers. They are a long way above my pay grade.

I'm heading back to the coal face tomorrow. There is a strong chance I'll be flying by the conflict zone. The target engagement zone for aircraft on the SA-11 is reported at approximately 23 NM. Not that I expect to be planned any closer, but tomorrow, the words 'reasonably wide berth' come to mind.

Ukraine - no war required eg Siberian 1812 which they got well offshore (200 nm?)

If Qantas does not fly over Ukraine, is it written in their ops manual/crew updates? Or is it just a matter of the DXBLHR flight flying nowhere near Ukraine anywhere as the GC track and the route made up the airways take it far South of the Ukraine?

I ask as they were very quick to post a banner on their website saying their flights do not fly over the Ukraine but my question is this policy or merely a coincidence the the route doesn't fly over there anyway?

A little from column A, a little from column B. Probably slightly more from column B but it was certainly a FAQ for the few days I was at work after it occurred so probably helpful to publicise that we don't anyway.

You reckon it was a grunt with one too many vodkas? I'd suggest that if it was an American plane shot down that we'd be engaged in the 3rd and final world war. Don't know why anybody's worried about a carbon tax.

So there was no conscious effort to avoid the Ukraine. Merely a coincidence that the DXBLHR route is south of the region? That seems at odds with the press release that implied that they were specifically avoiding the airspace on safety ground but I cannot find any reference pre MH17. So avoiding Ukraine airspace was both coincidental and reactionary based on the disaster and nothing was written in stone pre-MH17. I can find no reference to this.

What you are suggesting is that QF -may- have been less than truthful in statements released to the press.... Who'da thunk it????

On a completely unrelated subject:) I had lunch with a political mate the other day and the subject of QF and in particular 'that' spokesperson. I stated that she is symbolic of everything wrong with QF - an idiot doing a job with no understanding of the actual role. The comment back was along the lines of her being someone recognised as having been promoted way above her ability many times over... Interesting, I thought.

I'm not sure you can make that allegation from my comments. An assertion like that is easy to make but difficult to prove. I'd like to think that the route was black listed but the reality is that I don't know. Being a domestic pilot (mostly) that shouldn't be a huge surprise as it's simply not on my radar. (It will be in a few months though).

In PR as in politics, the axiom of never letting a crisis go to waste holds true. In this respect it should be no surprise to see a media release worded in such a way as to both provide information (we don't and haven't flown over the area) and also reinforce the 'brand values' (implying it was a conscious decision). If you're taking offence at that then you're going to take offence at virtually every marketing campaign under the sun. If you're alleging impropriety then again you're going to be agro with virtually every company that does 'brand' marketing.

I'm just curious. The airline implied it was policy. Any A380 crews care to comment? I agree that certain events can be used to promote a company, but the "that's what's you get for not flying QF" tone of the press release (which I can no longer find) was in particular bad taste, especially when it appears it may not be their policy and that was released at the very moment QF2 was over Iraq. Just bad timing, distasteful and factually misrepresented. I'd love someone to prove me wrong - so if anyone can then please let me know. I don't find most marketing offensive. I liked the Spirit MILF sale and the many controversial Ryanair ads but this spin by QF was in particular bad taste.

Try working for them!!!

It is a lucky break that Elaine decided to drop Asia and give Longhaul to Emirates. We now fly over Iraq for example - and that country is full of lovely characters. Previously we flew over Afghanistan cruising at 30,000' with the ground at 20,000 - in an active war zone, with Military traffic always heard.

Basically all operators fly over war zones to get where their passengers want to go. Qantas had a lucky break, but listening to one parliamentarian who had obviously no idea other than Wirthless company propaganda made me choke on my weeties when he kept saying 'Qantas has avoided that area for months as part of policy'. That statement is a total fabrication. The facts are there but all they did was concoct a story to fit facts that almost certainly would have been ignored at the time.

Malaysian was incredibly unlucky - for it could quite literally have been ANYONE.

When the situation deteriorated around Simferopol a few months ago, we (Qantas) ceased flying through Simferopol's airspace and Simferopol airport ceased to be an Emergency airport and was notated "No longer available".

Prior to this, the flight plan track would occasionally clip the bottom south-western corner of Simferopol's airspace, over the Black Sea about 150nm from the Crimean coast or 400nm from where MH17 met their fate.

I have also tracked considerably further to the south and west, passing over Istanbul, Venice and just north of Paris.

So yes; there was a conscious effort to avoid the Ukrainian airspace when the situation deteriorated there, although there was only a very small corner of that airspace that was ever going to be traversed en-route from DXB to LHR & return. No, it was not a reactionary move taken after the event.

Attached is an image of my most recent planned track in blue. MH17 came down near "DON" at the top right.

http://i1370.photobucket.com/albums/...g?t=1406334419

Thanks C441. Stand corrected! Force of habit to doubt the buggers:) or :(.

C441:

I believe that Qantas, and all other international operators, avoided Simferapol because it was closed to all traffic and thus not available. I don't have the NOTAM, but some clever go-getter will surely have it. Also, you can see from the pic you posted that the area where MH17 came down is in a different FIR- tragically not closed to traffic.

The claim that Qantas avoided eastern Ukraine due to their risk management is laughable but well done by the PR folks.