Go Back  PPRuNe Forums > Flight Deck Forums > Rumours & News
Reload this Page >

WSJ : Russian Missile Strikes in Syria Trigger European Alert to Airlines

Rumours & News Reporting Points that may affect our jobs or lives as professional pilots. Also, items that may be of interest to professional pilots.

WSJ : Russian Missile Strikes in Syria Trigger European Alert to Airlines

Old 14th Oct 2015, 18:35
  #21 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
"Prudent decision to avoid certain airspace.." Er, which airspace?

Scud has a range of around 7-800 km. That's most of the Med, add that to entire corridor between Caspian and Med. Going back a bit, an airliner was brought down by a missile right off the Italian coast, and two over Ukraine. Best stay at home, eh?
ShotOne is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 18:47
  #22 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 394
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
In the Italian incident, and both Ukraine incidents, the aircraft were shot down by anti-aircraft missiles. As already mentioned, Scud is a ballistic missile that can't target aircraft, probably not even overhead, certainly not 800km away.

If the combatants in Syria start firing Scuds down the Med we've got more problems than just aviation.

Last edited by OldLurker; 14th Oct 2015 at 18:48. Reason: Clarify
OldLurker is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 19:16
  #23 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 722
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Exactly old lurker. I am not worried about the scuds per sé, but more about the fact that there are so many combatant groups out there, and one -or more- are bound to lose the war.
Some group is going to end up losing the battle. And when they do, they will have nothing to lose. They will start firing anything that they have at anyone.
Stinger missiles?
Manpads?
What ever. This conflict is different than the two gulf wars that we already had. Also different than the ousting of Ghadaffi. All those conflicts had a well-defined good guy-bad guy element.
This syria conflict has 84 (?) militia running around swaying weaponry, and no one can keep track. Not even the US or Russia.
fox niner is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 21:08
  #24 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Which is exactly my point; if this was a simple matter of just avoiding a particular defined bit of airspace things would be straightforward, but that's not the case.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 21:23
  #25 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,042
Received 251 Likes on 162 Posts
Originally Posted by ShotOne
"Prudent decision to avoid certain airspace.." Er, which airspace?
Look at the map which includes a lot of Syria and some of Northern Iraq, where the targets tend to be.
Scud has a range of around 7-800 km. That's most of the Med,
Actually, no, it isn't, the Med is much bigger than that. From 5 deg West to about 35 deg east Longitude at a latitude of 38 (in the middle, it is about 32-45 latitude in range) I crossed it a few times on warships. 800 Km takes you from about Damascus to not quite Crete.

As to covering most of the Eastern Med, sure, Depending Upon Launch Point.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2015, 04:43
  #26 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Near St Lawrence River
Age: 53
Posts: 198
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
US, Russian aircraft come within visual range in Syria - CNNPolitics.com
Top Gun era is back,
_Phoenix is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2015, 13:01
  #27 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But it's not just where the targets tend to be, lonewolf. You look at the map. The corridor between Caspian and Med carries a huge volume of traffic. The alternatives aren't risk free either. Even with your narrower definition of Eastern Med, you're essentially demanding that most European holiday airlines shut up shop.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2015, 18:25
  #28 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,042
Received 251 Likes on 162 Posts
Originally Posted by ShotOne
But it's not just where the targets tend to be, lonewolf. You look at the map. The corridor between Caspian and Med carries a huge volume of traffic. The alternatives aren't risk free either. Even with your narrower definition of Eastern Med, you're essentially demanding that most European holiday airlines shut up shop.
No, I am not, but you just did.

Caspian to Med corridor, are you talking about cruise missiles or ballistic missiles? As discussed before, the cruise missiles aren't a significant threat due to profile, unless the mission planners fly them through terminal airspace. Do you really think the Russians are that stupid? I don't.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 15th Oct 2015, 20:15
  #29 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Hotel Sheets, Downtown Plunketville
Age: 76
Posts: 0
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Corridors or no corridors, if there is any shooting going on, no matter what kind of ordnance is being let loose, keep civilian traffic well clear would be my recommendation.
In the case of MH17 the phase of how the aircraft was brought down and how to avoid a recurrence is now over. The next phase is the criminal investigation to try and discover who did it and why. Yes, there have been similar incidents before, the shooting down of the Iranian bus and the KAL f007. Whilst both were deliberate targets, nevertheless they were mistakes. In times of war and states of high tension, collateral damage is a common occurrence. Collateral damage being the ultimate price paid by the innocent for peace. I believe it highly unlikely that MH17 was the intended target. There were other civilian aircraft in the immediate vicinity. The question that must be in the forefront of the criminal investigators minds must be the identity of the intended target. MH17 was the unfortunate bystander who happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
I hope that the perpetrators, whoever they may be, are soon brought to justice before an International Criminal Court for War Crimes. I must add that given today`s news about more suspects for the Lockerbie disaster, "soon " may be a vain hope.

It will soon be Halloween night and all and sundry will be launching all manner of ordnance into the sky. Even these are worrisome to those who are in their perilous seats in the skies above. How can it be that when there is real lead capable of reaching well into the stratosphere that we are happy to keep going in some kind of corridor. I just cannot see the sense in this. Those skies are strictly for the bang seat occupiers, those who have the option to get out of Dodge fast.
Chronus is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2015, 17:13
  #30 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 394
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Collateral damage being the ultimate price paid by the innocent for peace.
No, sorry. "Collateral damage" is the ultimate price paid by the innocent for incompetent, callous or sadistic military. Slaughter of innocents is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for peace.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5rXPrfnU3G0
US officials knew they were bombing Doctors Without Borders hospital, report | Americas | News | The Independent
and many other examples.

[Both examples above refer to US military mistakes (let's call them that). By picking those examples I don't mean to infer that the US does this sort of thing any more than others.]
OldLurker is offline  
Old 16th Oct 2015, 19:06
  #31 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,042
Received 251 Likes on 162 Posts
Originally Posted by OldLurker
No, sorry. "Collateral damage" is the ultimate price paid by the innocent for incompetent, callous or sadistic military. Slaughter of innocents is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for peace.
When you complete your patent for an IFF system that clearly identifies "the innocent" anywhere on this planet, you'll make a fortune. Your characterization of motive in the case of error is curious, and inept. The same kind of error that got Pat Tillman killed is the kind of error that results in the bomb or shell hitting the wrong place. There is no difference in the shooting end in motive be the accidental receiver of hot metal a "military target" or someone else.

Slaughter of innocents is neither a necessary nor a sufficient condition for peace

Red Herring, Strawman, non sequitur, and argument from emotion all rolled into one. You win Fallacy Follies for the week. You may pick up your prize from the receptionist on the way out. Have a lovely weekend.

Back to the matter of risk management: what are the real risks of which airspace volume near what area of conflict? That's a serious question not aided by rants.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 17th Oct 2015, 10:16
  #32 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Apr 1999
Location: Manchester, UK
Posts: 1,958
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Agreed, lonewolf, at least in as much as motive being a red herring. The big majority of tragedies in which air passengers were slaughtered weren't deliberate. But they're dead anyway.

But the matter of risk management is nowhere near as simple as you implied in your earlier post. It's not even a matter of avoiding known conflict areas; catastrophes like the Air Siberia shootdown happened because of an exercise gone wrong.

Last edited by ShotOne; 17th Oct 2015 at 10:34.
ShotOne is offline  
Old 19th Oct 2015, 14:31
  #33 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 64
Posts: 7,042
Received 251 Likes on 162 Posts
Originally Posted by ShotOne
Agreed, lonewolf, at least in as much as motive being a red herring. The big majority of tragedies in which air passengers were slaughtered weren't deliberate. But they're dead anyway.

But the matter of risk management is nowhere near as simple as you implied in your earlier post. It's not even a matter of avoiding known conflict areas; catastrophes like the Air Siberia shootdown happened because of an exercise gone wrong.
And that latter case your company OPs guy can't, in a practical sense, plan for.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 22nd Oct 2015, 23:06
  #34 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Or-E-Gun, USA
Posts: 326
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Russian Air Strikes?

The Ruskies have - and will use far more than low altitude cruises if they wish. Yes, the civilian carriers remain at risk...but is money to be made. The only event that will begin limiting civilian flights over or to the areas of conflict is when their insurance carriers begin to withdraw coverage for operations into or over the high risk areas. As always, it is about the money.
No Fly Zone is offline  

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.