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.

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: