Partners and Programs:
  • BARS
  • SKYbrary
  • ASN
  • Contact Us
  • Members' Center
  • Login
  • Support Aviation Safety

  • Industry Updates
  • The Foundation
    • About the Foundation
    • Asia Pacific Centre for Aviation Safety
    • Founders
    • Mission
    • History
    • Leadership
    • Officers and Staff
    • Media/Communications
    • Aviation Award & Scholarship Programs
    • Work with Us
    • Join Us
  • Events
  • AeroSafety World
  • Toolkits & Resources
    • COVID-19 Crisis Resources
    • Fatigue Management
    • Flight Path Monitoring
    • Global Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Excursions (GAPPRE)
    • Go-Around Project
    • Global Safety Assessment Project
    • Learning From All Operations
    • Past Safety Initiatives
    • Pilot Training and Competency
    • Special Reports
  • Industry Updates
  • The Foundation
    • About the Foundation
    • Asia Pacific Centre for Aviation Safety
    • Founders
    • Mission
    • History
    • Leadership
    • Officers and Staff
    • Media/Communications
    • Aviation Award & Scholarship Programs
    • Work with Us
    • Join Us
  • Events
  • AeroSafety World
  • Toolkits & Resources
    • COVID-19 Crisis Resources
    • Fatigue Management
    • Flight Path Monitoring
    • Global Action Plan for the Prevention of Runway Excursions (GAPPRE)
    • Go-Around Project
    • Global Safety Assessment Project
    • Learning From All Operations
    • Past Safety Initiatives
    • Pilot Training and Competency
    • Special Reports
  • Contact Us
  • Members' Center
  • Login
  • Support Aviation Safety
Partners and Programs:
  • BARS
  • SKYbrary
  • ASN

FLIGHT SAFETY FOUNDATION HEADQUARTERS

701 N. Fairfax Street, Suite 250,
Alexandria, Virginia 22314

Phone: +1 703 739 6700 Fax: +1 703 739 6708

  • Aviation Safety Experts
  • Industry Updates
  • Advances Seen in Managing Flights Over Conflict Zones

News, Sabotage/Intentional Acts, Flight Planning

Advances Seen in Managing Flights Over Conflict Zones

by FSF Editorial Staff | February 26, 2019

Dutch conflict zone report

In the nearly five years since the downing of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17 by a surface-to-air missile, airlines and regulatory agencies have become more proficient in gathering information about flying over conflict zones and managing the associated risks, according to a report released Friday by the Dutch Safety Board.

The report, Flying Over Conflict Zones, is a follow-up to 11 safety recommendations issued by the board in October 2015 as part of its final investigation report on the July 17, 2014, crash of Flight 17 in Hrabove, Ukraine. All 298 passengers and crew were killed.

The final report concluded that the 777 was struck by a Buk surface-to-air missile — a type developed in the Soviet Union and, later, the Russian Federation — as it flew over an area of armed conflict near the Ukraine-Russian border.
At the time of the crash, Ukraine had not closed airspace over the area but instead prohibited flights of civil aircraft below 32,000 ft. MH Flight 17 was being flown at 33,000 ft.

After the crash, the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO) initiated a long-term process to amend standards, recommended practices and manuals to “embed and promote the sharing of threat information and the performance of risk assessments,” the new report said.

The European Aviation Safety Agency (EASA) and the European Commission also implemented enhanced risk management efforts, and as a result, European Union member states now “exchange relevant intelligence information in order to arrive at a joint assessment of the risks associated with flying over conflict zones,” the report said. “The advantage of this cooperation is that intelligence information and risk analysis capabilities of both larger and smaller states are combined. If the outcome of the assessment is that the risk for a certain area is considered high, EASA publishes a conflict zone information bulletin. … This European initiative … contributes to a better global understanding of the risks.”

Other countries, including the United States and the United Kingdom, publish similar information, the report said.

Airlines also play a more active role now than they did in 2014 in gathering information about risks presented by conflict zones to civil aviation, the report said. Risk assessments are conducted “in a more structured manner,” the report added, and indications are that “if there are doubts about the safety of a flight route, airlines are more inclined not to fly.”

Share:

Print:

Key Safety Issues

  • Controlled Flight Into Terrain (CFIT)
  • Loss of Control–In Flight (LOC-I)
  • Mechanical Issues
  • Runway Safety (approach and landing)
  • Sabotage/Intentional Acts
  • Midair Collisions (MAC)
  • Runway Safety (Conflicts)
  • Wildlife Issues
  • Fatigue
  • Cabin Safety
  • Emerging Safety Issues
    • Lithium Batteries
    • Safety Information Sharing and Protection
    • Unmanned Aircraft Systems

Related Content

conflict zones, News, Safety Regulation, uncrewed aircraft

Safety News

ICAO has issued new guidance for closing airspace near conflict zones.

by FSF Editorial Staff

ATC/ATM, conflict zones, News, Runway Safety

Safety News

ICAO has urged a new effort to win wider approval of the Safer Skies Initiative.

by FSF Editorial Staff

conflict zones, Flight Ops, News

New Risks in European Airspace

EASA outlines a collection of aviation safety issues that have followed the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

by Linda Werfelman

Read more articles

1920 Ballenger Ave., 4th Floor, Alexandria, VA 22314

Phone: +1 703 739 6700 Fax: +1 703 739 6708

Projects & Partners

  • Basic Aviation Risk Standard
  • SKYbrary
  • Aviation Safety Network
  • Asia Pacific Centre for Aviation Safety
  • Donate
  • Advertise on our website
  • Sponsor & Exhibit at our Events
  • Work with Us
  • Contact Us
  • Site Map
  • Privacy

© 2023 Flight Safety Foundation

Join our group on LinkedIn