PPRuNe Forums - Civil overflights Afghanistan... Risk?

PPRuNe Forums (https://www.pprune.org/)

- Questions (https://www.pprune.org/questions-67/)

- - Civil overflights Afghanistan... Risk? (https://www.pprune.org/questions/422243-civil-overflights-afghanistan-risk.html)

Civil overflights Afghanistan... Risk?

According to Wikileaks the Taliban has surface to air missiles.The US has covered up this, even though some of their aircraft have been shot down by these missiles.
How safe are civil flights into Afghanistan?.
Are the overflights safe given the high terrain from which the missiles can be launched?.

Quote:

How safe are civil flights into Afghanistan?.

Certainly safer than wandering around in Kandahar. Seriously, it's a war zone and as such it should never be considered to be safe to be flying into the country.

The current UK guidelines are:

Quote:

Air Travel

In May 2009, Safi Airways and in September 2009 Kam Air fulfilled the standards of the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) and were officially certified to fly within EU airspace.

Ariana Airlines has been refused permission to operate services to the EU because it does not meet international safety standards. Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) employees are not allowed to travel on this airline in or out of Afghanistan.

Some other airlines that operate in and out of Afghanistan may not meet international safety standards.

On 17 May 2010, a Pamir Airways flight from Kunduz to Kabul crashed in the mountainous Shakardara area north of Kabul. The plane appears to have hit a mountain top during some unseasonably poor weather and in poor visibility. All 44 personnel on board were killed, including 3 British nationals.

In February 2005, a Kam Air Boeing 727-200 flying from Herat to Kabul crashed in snowstorms 17 miles out of Kabul. All 96 passengers and eight crew on board were killed in the incident.

In regards to MANPADS, I haven't read the wikileaks documents (due to the server being unavailable) but as I understand it, the threat comes from Stinger missiles (FIM-92's) which we're originally given to the Mujahideen during the Russian occupation, these have a range of about 16'000 feet so shouldn't be a realistic threat to overflights, even if they are firing them from the high-ground. Another point that was told to me was that the Stingers batteries will probably not be reliable after all these years.

Quote:

In regards to MANPADS, I haven't read the wikileaks documents but as I understand it, the threat comes from Stinger missiles (FIM-92's) which we're originally given to the Mujahideen during the Russian occupation, these have a range of about 16'000 feet so shouldn't be a realistic threat to overflights, even if they are firing them from the high-ground.

Stingers aren't the only MANPADS in Afghanistan, but my info is a couple of years old

Quote:

Another point that was told to me was that the Stingers batteries will probably not be reliable after all these years.

Yep, the quality of upkeep of those Muj Missiles is an unknown.

Quote:

Another point that was told to me was that the Stingers batteries will probably not be reliable after all these years.

Probably not the same old ones. Read wiki leaks it seems they have state of the art stuff from uncle SAM's (no pun intended) goody box given to their faithful friend in the region. Pretty sure the DOM on those duracells is very recent.

What worries me is overflights of Afghanistan. If these missiles have a height range of 15000ft+ when fired from a 15000ft or higher mountain they are a big threat to overflights.
I wonder if some of the civil losses were shot down and covered up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sunbird123 (Post 5832175)

If these missiles have a height range of 15000ft+ when fired from a 15000ft or higher mountain they are a big threat to overflights.

We are currently advised that overflights above FL310 are deemed as 'safe' by my company. Think FL410 would be my preferred level!!

If it's stingers that are the threat (could be some other type), you're OK over FL150. The range and the ceiling are distinct.

Some of the raw intel reports refer to corkscrew smoke trails. These are highly characteristic of the Strela 2 or 3, aka SAM 7.

Strela 3 maximum engagement altitude = ~2700-3000m (SA-14)

Strela 2 was less capable with an effective engagement altitude of ~1500m (SA-7)

- GY

Quote:

If it's stingers that are the threat (could be some other type), you're OK over FL150. The range and the ceiling are distinct.

So does the stinger know that it's being fired from the top of a 15000 ft mountain? and think, nope, I am not gonna go above FL150, I am just not doing it I tell you! It is perhaps a relief that nobody here will be taking your cast iron reassurances. Try 15000ft agl.

Mujahideen Sherpa bands lying in wait atop 15000+ ft mountains with Stingers at the ready. Priceless…

I personally feel the risk of overflights is low. However, all flights in Afganistan are operated at 'own risk', so if you as captain are not willing to accept these risks, then don't do it.

Afghanistan Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation

Quote:

All operators are advised that non-military operations could be at significant risk because of ongoing military operations in Afghanistan. There are continuing reports of indiscriminate small arms and missile attacks on aircraft operating in Afghanistan, primarily at low altitudes. Therefore, operators that undertake flights within the Kabul FIR shall do so at their own risk.

@Dave Clarke Fife

Unfortunately the maximum flight level they assign you in Kabul FIR is FL390.

Hee hee, make my flights in to Mog seem like fun, only rpg's, 50 cal and ak47's to worry about, stop worrying.

Quote:

the Taliban has surface to air missiles. The US has covered up this, even though some of their aircraft have been shot down by these missiles

Errr, hasn't this been public domain knowledge since the beginning. Certainly has been if you've been paying attention.

It should come as absolutely no surprise that the Taliban have surface to air missiles (Stingers). Where do you suppose they got them?

They got them from the U.S. When the U.S. armed the Mujahedin against the then Soviet Union.

and don't forget the SA-7s etc. The existance of these things is no secret.

AFAIR several of the military losses were attributed to MANPADs when reported to the press, and there is video out there of the other side using these things in anger. Not a very good 'cover-up':rolleyes:

Quote:

I wonder if some of the civil losses were shot down and covered up.

Which ones do you have doubt over?

Quote:

Originally Posted by safelife (Post 5833162)

@Dave Clarke Fife

Unfortunately the maximum flight level they assign you in Kabul FIR is FL390.

.......................................Bugger.

Thanks for the heads up safelife, first overflight rostered for next week.

I think overflight is pretty much ok considering the capability of those small missiles. I'm not sure either that the guys would waste some trying to shoot airliners that you barely see when there is a lot of other potential military targets around... I'll always remember the cabin crew's faces when we went to Somalia in 1993(with french army)... We landed in Mogadiscio with a civil plane and landing there at a time was something ! I wish I could have been in the cockpit that day. But I was just 19 at the time, and not yet eaten by the flying virus !

Just pray you don't depressurize... :}