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 11th Oct 2015, 22:53
  #1 (permalink)  
Thread Starter
 
Join Date: Jun 2014
Location: Montenegro
Age: 40
Posts: 285
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
WSJ : Russian Missile Strikes in Syria Trigger European Alert to Airlines

"Russia’s long-range missile strikes against targets in Syria last week have prompted global aviation officials to issue safety alerts to airlines operating over Iraq, Iran, and the Caspian Sea amid heightened concerns about the risk to commercial flying near conflict zones."

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

is there really a risk? If I got that right cruise missiles fly very low.
AreOut is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2015, 23:14
  #2 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Another Planet.
Posts: 559
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
The perceived risk will reduce once the airline beancounters realise it will cost more money to deviate around the hot spot(s).

MH17 springs to mind................
BARKINGMAD is offline  
Old 11th Oct 2015, 23:16
  #3 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Reading, UK
Posts: 14,422
Likes: 0
Received 4 Likes on 2 Posts
EASA: "Before reaching Syria, such missiles are necessarily crossing the airspace above Caspian Sea, Iran and Iraq, below flight routes which are used by commercial transport airplanes".

Hmmm.
DaveReidUK is offline  
Old 12th Oct 2015, 15:35
  #4 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Lancing, Sussex
Age: 91
Posts: 255
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
But what if a commercial transitting the area had to descend to make an emergency stop, say in Cyprus. Perhaps a medical emergency ion board
Exnomad is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2015, 00:07
  #5 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Dec 2013
Location: Ireland
Age: 33
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
I think it would be highly safe as the majority of Russian cruise missiles run on TERCOM navigation, a pre loaded highly accurate map of the terrain and altitude enabling it to fly VERY LOW to the surface and under radar to aid avoiding detection by enemy radar
Toddh is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2015, 03:22
  #6 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Inmate of District 11
Posts: 441
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Surely these missiles go initially to high altitude until nearing the target area or radar detection area and then drop to low level? The Caspian Sea is a long way from Syria, I can't see the missiles having that range at low level.

J
jack schidt is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2015, 05:02
  #7 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Albuquerque USA
Posts: 172
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
RT video suggests low altitude

Originally Posted by jack schidt
Surely these missiles go initially to high altitude until nearing the target area or radar detection area and then drop to low level?
While a video copied to youtube from a Russia Today source contains strong elements of propaganda, it clearly indicates pretty low altitude for the cruise portion of the mission. It also claims considerable transit through Iranian and Iraqi airspace.

RT propaganda video on initial Syria Cruise missile strike.
archae86 is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2015, 11:29
  #8 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
it clearly indicates pretty low altitude for the cruise portion of the mission

I understand they flew from launch in the Caspian to NW Iran, across the Kurdish territory of Iraq and on into Syria. Anyone know what the height of the mountain ranges they must fly over is?


Personally on a commercial airliner, I'd prefer not to have such fireworks fly beneath me.
Sober Lark is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2015, 11:45
  #9 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 72
Posts: 3,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
We got the briefing from Eurocontrol Network manager last Saturday with the crisis routing scenario (in case Iran airspace is blocked ) . It is not the low level cruise missiles they are worried about it is the ballistic ones.
Once someone starts using Scuds in the area you'd better be out of the way, and preferably BEFORE they start.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2015, 15:09
  #10 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 6,225
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
Originally Posted by ATC Watcher View Post
We got the briefing from Eurocontrol Network manager last Saturday with the crisis routing scenario (in case Iran airspace is blocked ) . It is not the low level cruise missiles they are worried about it is the ballistic ones. Once someone starts using Scuds in the area you'd better be out of the way, and preferably BEFORE they start.
Yes, but do you really think the Russians are going to fire a theater ballistic missile in this zone? There are a variety of reasons they won't, to include the PR ones.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 13th Oct 2015, 15:28
  #11 (permalink)  
Pegase Driver
 
Join Date: May 1997
Location: Europe
Age: 72
Posts: 3,183
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Lonewolf50, when I said " someone" I did not meant necessarily the Russians.
Syria, Iran , Irak (and even possibly the rebels in Irak and Syria = stolen from the regular army ) all have Scuds in various variants as I understood..

Some airlines are already avoiding the area.
ATC Watcher is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 12:25
  #12 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
A scud missile is a very crude weapon. It has (almost) no strike capabilites. You can bet that once "someone" starts using that weaponry, "they" have run out of all other options.
It was the same with Saddam in the '90s. He didnt fire them towards Tel Aviv until he was almost unable to do so.
I guess....that once the scuds are fired, someone is about to lose grip of their situation.
fox niner is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 12:48
  #13 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Mar 1999
Location: big green wheely bin
Posts: 781
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
That may be, but I would rather not be flying over one when it fires.
Jonty is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 13:30
  #14 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Netherlands
Posts: 714
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
What I meant to say is, that you only have to wait for the scuds to be fired. Everyone has them. Someone is going to run out of military options sooner or later. Once they do, they would like to make a last statement. Therefore someone is going to fire those scuds.
Eventually.
Inevitably.
fox niner is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 15:10
  #15 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2012
Location: UK
Age: 31
Posts: 44
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Scuds are ballistic missiles which don't home in on aircraft, so the chance of getting hit by one is probably tiny. What we should really be worried about is the anti-air weaponry held by the Syrian and Iraqi militaries falling into the wrong hands.
appleACE is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 15:21
  #16 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Texas
Age: 63
Posts: 6,225
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like on 1 Post
@appleACE

While your big sky small CEP for the Scud to come down and hit an airliner in passing is remote, the prudent decision to avoid a certain airspace volume is risk management at work. Why tempt fate? Agree on the great unknown regarding Surface to Air weaponry in various hands with divergent motivations.

@ATC Watcher: OK, I see what you were after, thanks.

@BuenoHombre
When you are done grinding your axe, remember that there is more than one outside party to this mess in Syria. Your obsession with USA/CIA is a bit of a flag, amigo ... wait ... "is a bit of a flag, tovarisch."

EDIT: (avoka, bolshoe spasiba, corrected ... I am confused if it is a or o at the end of spasiba)

Last edited by Lonewolf_50; 14th Oct 2015 at 16:55.
Lonewolf_50 is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 16:12
  #17 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Location: Sky
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Hi guys
I have to correct You little bit
"is a bit of a flag, tovarich."-I think Tovarich word will look so-TovariSch but may be better is comrade
Safe flights
avoka is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 16:46
  #18 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Dublin
Posts: 974
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Final report document MH17


No Integrated risk management:


Most operators assumed that an airspace which is not closed must be safe. Operators adapted their flight plans to accommodate the airspace restrictions, but did not make a connection with the armed conflict taking place below.

Under 11 Recommendations:


Passengers travelling by air should be able to rely on the operator of their choice to have done all that is possible to operate the flight safely and that states have ensured that the airspace used for their flight is safe.

The report goes on to discuss airspace management in conflict zones.


The report also recommends
Ideally, operators should have to actively provide information about routes to be flown and routes recently flown, so that everyone can form a judgement, thereby increasing public attention for this issue. A first step towards this would be to require operators to provide public accountability on a regular basis for routes over conflict zones selected by them


Sober Lark is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 17:41
  #19 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Location: Ijatta
Posts: 435
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
My company has been dispatching flights through Iraqi, Iranian and Afghanistani airspace for several years. This may have changed recently, however, due to what transpired with MH17 and the recommendations of the various investigating authorities.
wanabee777 is offline  
Old 14th Oct 2015, 18:24
  #20 (permalink)  
 
Join Date: Jul 2014
Location: England
Posts: 377
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes on 0 Posts
Until MH17, people might have forgotten what happened to IR655 in 1988 and might have assumed that even where a ground war is going on, no-one would have any motive to fire missiles at passing aircraft six miles up. MH17 proved that assumption mistaken. The Russians are on the ground in Syria themselves, and also have supplied the Assad regime with all sorts of weaponry, quite possibly including Buk missiles. It's dangerous to fly over or near any conflict at any level – there's too much risk of some trigger-happy idiot firing at an innocent civilian aircraft, as happened with MH17 and IR655.
OldLurker is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread

Contact Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Do Not Sell My Personal Information

Copyright © 2022 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.