sailles

Just completed a flight from CAI to NRT in which the captain cheerfully announced that we would fly over Aleppo and Syrian airspace. My heart sank. We had been flying due north out of CAI before the announcement so I figured that we were going to turn east over Turkey to avoid Syria. But no, true to his word we flew straight over Aleppo, which was brightly lit at past midnight.

How solid are the rules and systems that prevent anti-aircraft fire hitting commercial aircraft and/or cases of mistaken identity in the air? Assuming that MS logs their flights with all relevant nations but you'd think for the extra few hundred miles around north Syria it might be worth the diversion? Especially since the rebels are hardly going to be manning the national airspace control centres. Not to mention that the government forces are hardly in a normal state of operations and must be prone to mistakes. It hasn't been more than a couple of months since the downing of that Turkish jet and nerves are frayed all round.

Or am I being paranoid and/or overreacting? Any thoughts?

YVR Cockroach

AFAIK, only 3 countries have deliberately shot down commercial civil aircraft in the past ~40 years. I wouldn't worry too much at cruise altitude.

B747-437B

Yes, you are.

sailles

Wasn't so much worried about a deliberate shooting down, but point taken that such things (even accidental) are extremely rare. Not sure that altitude helps though--even old Russian SAMS (1950s) reach 65,000 feet. e.g. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S-75_Dvina

I suppose I am saying that given that as there are (at least) two sides fighting each other and recieving many unrecorded arms shippments from neighbouring countries (including, one would imagine, SAM missles and launchers), and that the situation is chaotic, one might imagine that commercial airlines might make the decision to avoid the airspace...?? I guess not?

rankourabu

are these the three?

the Ukrainian missile that downed the Russian jet in 2001/2?
KAL 007 in the 80s shot down by the Soviets?
IranAir shot down by the Americans in the 80s killing almost 300 people?

YVR Cockroach

Most SAMs supplied these days are only good for a/c below ~ 10,000'. Anything higher or at least getting to 30-42,000' requires seriously-large (and heavy) missiles, and those were really designed in the old days to shoot down high-altitude bombers. Doubt if the rebels are being supplied by these and the government knows it's a waste to be used on whatever the rebels have.

YVR Cockroach

2/3 (the latter 2) but there are 4 and the other two are: KE902, a 707 shot at by Soviet fighters which landed on a frozen lake so most on board survived, and LN114, a 727 which was also short down by fighters, this time Israeli.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of...down_incidents

qvzn

There is also the DHL in Baghdad in 2003, and probably many others

If the concern is about an accidental shootdown, deviating around imaginary borders in the sky is probably a waste of time. It's not like the missle will shut down and turn around when it crosses a border

YVR Cockroach

That was at low altitude (shortly after takeoff IIRC). Most MANPADs (which is what the rebels would be supplied with) won't get anywhere near a jet airliner at cruise altitude.

rankourabu

great read! The KE902 story is amazing.

So to the OP, dont worry, the only ones with a history of shooting down civilian planes are Soviets, Americans and Israelis

johndoe123

One thing to consider, is many of these occurred over/around/by countries you would normally consider it safe to fly over (and are more likely to have a device to reach the cruise altitude).

The reality is today, overflight alone by a commercial airliner isn't that much of a security risk. It's a small country, and all the surveillance needed I'm can come from satellites and on the ground reports.