MH17’s legacy - a safer industry

The airline industry experienced two of its safest years from 2012-2013, but MAS’s two tragic accidents have exposed significant flaws in the air safety system and made the entire industry determined to eliminate them.

by CHIEF CORRESPONDENT, TOM BALLANTYNE  

September 1st 2014

Print Friendly

When Malaysia Airlines flight MH17 and its 298 passengers and crew were shot out of the sky over the Ukraine, allegedly by pro-Russian rebels, the world reacted with horror and condemnation. Read More »

Jeff Poole, director general Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation: the current systems serve the industry well, but we must address the shortfalls identified by the loss of MH17

As the news unfolded of the callous July 17 slaughter, executives of dozens of airlines around the world knew that fate had been kind to them. It could have been one of them.

Take Singapore Airlines (SIA) SQ351, heading to Singapore from Copenhagen. When the MAS B777 was shot down, the country’s Transport Minister, Lui Tuck Yew, told parliament the SIA airliner was a mere 90 kilometres away, a distance covered within minutes by a big jet.

Also nearby was Air India Flight AI113, a B787 en route from New Delhi to Birmingham. “As there were no restrictions for flights above 32,000 feet or any information suggesting threats to aircraft at those heights, SIA, like many other airlines flying between Europe and Asia, had continued to use that airspace,” said Lui.

“As soon as SIA received news of the incident, it re-routed all its flights to avoid Ukrainian airspace entirely.” Dozens of other carriers did the same.

MH17 has highlighted the fact that the methods for authorizing commercial airline overflights of war zones are far from mistake proof. No single authority, until now, tells carriers where and where not to operate. It is up to individual nations to decide if a threat exists, and if necessary close their airspace. Also, national civil aviation authorities can ban their domestic carriers from jurisdictions they consider unsafe.

On a daily basis, however, each airline makes that decision based on the information provided by air traffic authorities and other intelligence sources. In the case of MH17, no one informed airlines flying over the Ukraine that rebels on the ground could have missiles capable of downing an aircraft at 32,000 feet.

Now airlines and industry groups are demanding better access to impartial, consistent intelligence about the risks of flying above conflict zones. While ICAO sets safety guidelines for the industry, it does not open or close airspace in conflict zones or offer specific guidance on where missiles threaten civil airliners. This decision is left to member states.

But giving ICAO or another agency the job of warning airlines of risks in conflict zones would mean asking member states to share sensitive information about their military and political affairs, which is a stumbling block to changing procedures.

“The loss of MH17 is a terrible tragedy and remains deeply unsettling,” said the director general of the Association of Asia-Pacific Airlines (AAPA), Andrew Herdman, “ but we need to maintain a proper sense of perspective. With around 100,000 flights operating safely on a daily basis, the complex systems of air traffic management developed through close collaboration of governments and industry are working effectively,” he said.

“However, MH17 has demonstrated there are gaps in the overall management of airspace, particularly regarding risk assessments for flights operating over identified conflict zones, which point to the need for additional measures to improve the sharing of accurate information and intelligence.”

Airlines were looking to governments to improve sharing of accurate intelligence and information so airlines and air navigation service providers can plan routes that guarantee the highest levels of safety and security for the flying public, he said.

IATA wants two tasks addressed. “The first, and most urgent, is to ensure governments provide airlines with better information with which to make risk assessments of the various threats they face,” the director general and CEO of IATA, Tyler said. “The second is equally important but comes with a longer time frame.

“We will find ways through international law that will oblige governments to better control weapons which have the capability to pose danger to civil aviation. This will make our safe industry even safer.”

Providing clear information for safe flying was the responsibility of States. “There can be no excuses. Even sensitive information can be sanitized and still remain operationally relevant,” said Tyler.

“For ATM, we do not need detailed security and intelligence reasons for airspace restrictions or closures,” said Jeff Poole, the director general of the Civil Air Navigation Services Organisation (CANSO). “But we do need authoritative, accurate and consistent decisions from the appropriate authorities.”

Poole said the current safety systems are serving the industry well and that CANSO did not believe the entire ATM apparatus needed overhaul. The task force is concentrating on specific shortfalls, and lessons to be learned from MH17, he said.

War torn Ukraine is hardly the only “hot spot” below the heavily trafficked airways between the Asia-Pacific and Europe. There are busy air corridors above conflict zones such as Afghanistan and also the Middle East. Indeed, it is difficult to get to Europe from Asia without flying high above areas where battles are in progress.

The situation has produced different responses from both airlines and nations. In August, the U.S. Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) banned country’s carriers from flying over the northern Iraq, where a terrifying war, instigated by Jihadists, has erupted in the last two months.

Yet even after MH17 was shot down, many carriers, including British Airways, Emirates Airline, Etihad Airways and Qantas Airways continued to fly over the new war zone. But by mid-August, a check by Orient Aviation on the air traffic tracking site, Flightradar24, which shows real-time positioning of commercial aircraft, revealed nearly all airlines were now operating along corridors in neighbouring Iran. Turkish Airlines was the only major carrier regularly flying through Iraq.

Inconsistencies in the decision-making process that authorize flights over conflict zones have been highlighted by Willie Walsh, chief executive of International Airlines Group (IAG), parent of British Airways. His airline had decided as far back as March to stop flying over eastern Ukraine. He has urged carriers to swap more information. British Airways does not share its risk assessments with other airlines, but Walsh said it if had shown its risk assessment to Malaysia Airlines, a partner in the Oneworld alliance, it might have prevented the Ukraine tragedy. Some airlines want a new body, possibly set up under the auspices of IATA, to share airline risk assessments about conflict zones.

Singapore’s Lui defended SIA for sticking with its flight path despite the fact that several Ukrainian military aircraft had been shot down in the area just weeks before the MH17 tragedy.

“It goes to show that 20/20 hindsight is most prescient in those who operate from the sidelines,” he said, adding SIA had been instructed by the Civil Aviation Authority of Singapore to review the safety of flight routes over all conflict zones.

As the debate on changes needed to fill the gaps in information exchange between States continues, ICAO appears reluctant to take on the role of “policeman” on the issue. ICAO president, Olumuyiwa Benard Aliu, said member states were ultimately responsible for ensuring aviation safety in their airspace and that ‘the obligations of states should not be confused with safety information circulated from time to time by ICAO”.

One concern about upgrading notifications for airlines that potentially could overfly conflict zones is liability. For example, could ICAO be held responsible for an incident in a sector of airspace where it had not issued a warning?

Ultimately, no single global body has overall responsibility for keeping the skies safe for civil aviation. 

Airlines routinely check NOTAMs (Notices to Airmen), advisories, which include airspace restrictions issued by the authorities responsible for a particular airspace.