MH17 down near Donetsk
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I heard this weekend that there are over 40 current wars being waged in this world. How many get flown over daily as routine? I wonder how many are designated as actual war zones by aviation underwriters who are supposed to be the risk experts?
With my last company we had "War area" coverage, it cost extra, not all that much either, but we did have coverage for overflying an active war 'zone/area'.
I seem to remember some exclusions, but what areas I cannot recall now.
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Virginia
Posts: 141
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SadPole (p.s. - From the maps, next time I'm flying I would go for BA or AirFrance. They obviously sensed the FUBAR, even though were not legally required to do so, and routed clear of it. )
What I don't get is KLM? AF was avoiding Ukraine, but KLM was not...
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: In my head
Posts: 694
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I don't get is KLM? AF was avoiding Ukraine, but KLM was not...
Join Date: Apr 2014
Location: Washstate
Age: 79
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
BLACK (ORANGE) BOX FOUND
Aviator Extraordinaire
Join Date: May 2000
Location: Oklahoma City, Oklahoma USA
Age: 76
Posts: 2,394
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most likely the "black boxes" are not going to show a thing except normal ops until they suddenly stop, when the tail was blow off by the missile.
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Singapore
Age: 54
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Can someone explain why some airlines were flying through the area and others not i.e. based on which criteria, and what's the meaning of closing an airspace up to FL320? If a SAM able to get to, say FL300 wouldn't it be able to get to FL330 or higher? Either the FL320 cap was intended to provide some margin over a SAM operating altitude of say 20000/25000 ft. But not being an expert, how many missile systems reaching 20000 ft wouldn't be able to get much higher? It seems to me either the decision not to close the entire airspace earlier was very irresponsible or the airlines flying through eastern Ukraine hadn't done a proper risk assessment or both. Obviously I would expect the uncertainty over an airspace closing boundaries to be higher in cases of war/conflict like this than, say , of a volcanic ash cloud where there would be measurements, models to extrapolate the concentration of ash. Here, as soon as authorities have reason to believe there is a use of advanced weapons (not short range, not near surface) then shouldn't they factor uncertainty much more hence closing airspace? And knowing this may be not the case with some governments, shouldn't airlines factor it by taking over the risk and hence avoiding completely the area (as apparently some have done?)
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: BRU
Posts: 68
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Sea-man
But not being an expert, how many missile systems reaching 20000 ft wouldn't be able to get much higher?
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Oakland, CA
Age: 72
Posts: 427
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
then shouldn't they factor uncertainty much more hence closing airspace?
Join Date: Jun 2001
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Rottenray has in post #528 a link to a site showing remains of a missile found at the crash scene(?):
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsxabpVIAAALK9c.jpg:large
He has the opinion that the picture shown has been photoshopped and gives a number of reasons for his standpoint.
I do not know whether the picture is photoshopped, but I am convinced that the missile shown is NOT a SA11. I have compared the missile shown with a very clear picture of a SA11 from the following link:
Buk missile system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://pbs.twimg.com/media/BsxabpVIAAALK9c.jpg:large
He has the opinion that the picture shown has been photoshopped and gives a number of reasons for his standpoint.
I do not know whether the picture is photoshopped, but I am convinced that the missile shown is NOT a SA11. I have compared the missile shown with a very clear picture of a SA11 from the following link:
Buk missile system - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
See this image https://twitter.com/marcelvandenber/...497472/photo/1
Video of CNN here First-hand account of MH17 crash site: Bodies are scattered ? The Lead with Jake Tapper - CNN.com Blogs
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: UK
Posts: 116
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Most of the ones you would normally worry about when overflying areas with rebels, terrorists, or the like. The missiles they usually have are launched from the shoulder, and will only reach targets flying at 25,000 feet or lower.
Frankly over the last couple of days I must admit I've been amazed at how many of my colleagues seem to be gob smacked that a SAM can "get high enough take out an airliner".....best I can politely come up is to refer them to Gary Powers.....
These darn things will either struggle to get above 15k .....or they won't struggle at all .....
In the former case we make sure we're not in the envelope, in the later case we just have to overfly the sites ( I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen the "Star of David" entanglements around some Middle eastern cities, one in particular ) and realise that we rely on some sense of decency, ROE, and order. I have certainly had reason to hope that someone was not as daft , as olasek put it, to be "so dumb to shoot up and not even engage in routine warning to traffic in the area".
These darn things will either struggle to get above 15k .....or they won't struggle at all .....
In the former case we make sure we're not in the envelope, in the later case we just have to overfly the sites ( I'm sure I'm not the only one who has seen the "Star of David" entanglements around some Middle eastern cities, one in particular ) and realise that we rely on some sense of decency, ROE, and order. I have certainly had reason to hope that someone was not as daft , as olasek put it, to be "so dumb to shoot up and not even engage in routine warning to traffic in the area".
Last edited by wiggy; 20th Jul 2014 at 21:33.
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: over the horizon
Posts: 9
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Interesting perspective from a disillusioned Russian journo
Russian media is covering up Putin's complicity in the MH17 tragedy | Masha Alekhina | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Russian media is covering up Putin's complicity in the MH17 tragedy | Masha Alekhina | Comment is free | theguardian.com
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago, IL, US
Age: 73
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I don't get is KLM? AF was avoiding Ukraine, but KLM was not...
That MH elected the least costly route is an even more obvious economic decision for an airline that was already in terminal condition.
In the light of apparent scant understanding of SAM capability and its implications for overflight of conflict zones, could there be a case for ATPL knowledge to include some very basic stuff about the differences between MANPADS and radar SAMs, and an overview of some unclassified "Jane's"-type performance figures? At least that knowledge would give pilots an insight into why their company's minimum flight level over Afghanistan is X, or why they need to avoid Eastern Ukraine by Y miles. Surely that knowledge would be more useful than a lot of the other stuff in ATPL....
For the earlier poster asking about why FL320 and below were considered higher risk... 24000ft is about the max capability of state-of-the-art MANPADS, of the type that you would expect only major militaries to have (but who knows?). Add a 33% safety margin and you get 32000ft. The performance of these things falls away very rapidly outside their envelope. In all likelihood you'd be perfectly safe at 300. So there is no need to add a further margin onto what was already a generous safety factor - for a MANPADS.
The moment it looked likely that radar SAMs were being thrown around, that whole calculus should have been thrown out. The appropriate question was then "how far do I need to avoid the area by"? There are a couple of radar SAMs that can be overflown safely at 300+, but the SA-11 isn't one of them.
For the earlier poster asking about why FL320 and below were considered higher risk... 24000ft is about the max capability of state-of-the-art MANPADS, of the type that you would expect only major militaries to have (but who knows?). Add a 33% safety margin and you get 32000ft. The performance of these things falls away very rapidly outside their envelope. In all likelihood you'd be perfectly safe at 300. So there is no need to add a further margin onto what was already a generous safety factor - for a MANPADS.
The moment it looked likely that radar SAMs were being thrown around, that whole calculus should have been thrown out. The appropriate question was then "how far do I need to avoid the area by"? There are a couple of radar SAMs that can be overflown safely at 300+, but the SA-11 isn't one of them.
Join Date: Mar 2009
Location: Chicago, IL, US
Age: 73
Posts: 48
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
In the light of apparent ignorance of SAM capability and its implications for overflight of conflict zones, could there be a case for ATPL knowledge to include some very basic stuff about the differences between MANPADS and radar SAMs, and an overview of some unclassified "Jane's"-type performance figures?
Shots at non-maneuvering targets (historically large bombers) would still face countermeasures, while typical commercial aircraft engaged with favorable attack geometry would be a best case for the missile. Other factors not considered are launches from significant heights (Afghan mountains anyone?) which both reduce the distance to a given flight level and increase the missile's range due to reduced air friction.
Once the missile is radar guided, altitude becomes your enemy, not your salvation. The game becomes a combination of low-level flying using terrain masking and the curvature of the earth to defeat ground-based radar, stealth to reduce detection ranges, and speed to challenge the response time of the missile launch system.
All this is a long way of saying that what you are suggesting might give some future airline, government, and/or ICAO some legal cover the next time this does (it will) happen, but nothing else.
"Listen, it is easy to laugh now, post fact and point out that it was obvious that airspace should have been closed."
now? There is a ukrainian member here on PPRune that wondered why that airspace isn't closed 10-15 days before the crash, and you can be sure there were many professionals (military and civilian) in Ukraine that wondered the same. Why that decision was not brought is anybodys guess.
"These darn things will either struggle to get above 15k .....or they won't struggle at all ....."
BUK will go to around 50K so only Concorde should be safe...oh wait we ditched it because of noise and costs that didn't pose problems half a century ago.
"As in most things military, maximum performance figures are highly classified and depend on a multitude of factors. Ranges for MANPADs generally assume the target is high performance aircraft that can maneuver aggressively and deploy countermeasures (chaff, flares, jamming) in response to onboard and remote (e.g. AWACS) tracking, lockon, and/or launch warnings. Indeed, defeating a MANPAD these days is often more about geometry and maneuvers (at 6 to 9Gs) to bleed the missile of its finite supply of kinetic energy, something commercial aircraft are unable to do."
except israeli El Al...and people were mocking them about that, now I don't say those would 100% work against SA-11(as those countermeasures are designed with MANPADs in mind) but survivability percentage would be significantly higher
now? There is a ukrainian member here on PPRune that wondered why that airspace isn't closed 10-15 days before the crash, and you can be sure there were many professionals (military and civilian) in Ukraine that wondered the same. Why that decision was not brought is anybodys guess.
"These darn things will either struggle to get above 15k .....or they won't struggle at all ....."
BUK will go to around 50K so only Concorde should be safe...oh wait we ditched it because of noise and costs that didn't pose problems half a century ago.
"As in most things military, maximum performance figures are highly classified and depend on a multitude of factors. Ranges for MANPADs generally assume the target is high performance aircraft that can maneuver aggressively and deploy countermeasures (chaff, flares, jamming) in response to onboard and remote (e.g. AWACS) tracking, lockon, and/or launch warnings. Indeed, defeating a MANPAD these days is often more about geometry and maneuvers (at 6 to 9Gs) to bleed the missile of its finite supply of kinetic energy, something commercial aircraft are unable to do."
except israeli El Al...and people were mocking them about that, now I don't say those would 100% work against SA-11(as those countermeasures are designed with MANPADs in mind) but survivability percentage would be significantly higher
Most likely the "black boxes" are not going to show a thing except normal ops until they suddenly stop, when the tail was blow off by the missile.
