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.

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................

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.

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

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

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

RT video suggests low altitude
 

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

That may be, but I would rather not be flying over one when it fires.

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.

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

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)

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:ok::D:p
Safe flights

Final report document MH17


No Integrated risk management:



Under 11 Recommendations:



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


The report also recommends

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.

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.