Why flying to Asia has never been riskier

There are no “zero-risk” air routes across the Middle East, according to a major flight operations organisation.

OpsGroup, an outfit for pilots and air traffic controllers, says that the “risk to civil aviation in the region has changed at a pace we have never seen before”. And this, it says, has created a major headache for global aviation.

Since the outbreak of war between Russia and Ukraine, the escalated conflict in the Middle East and the Houthi crisis in the Red Sea, significant portions of global airspace have been closed off, and safe long-haul flight routes between Europe and Asia have become narrower than ever before.

Behind the scenes, airlines have their own measures in place to manage the risks. Brian Smith, a pilot at a major British cargo aviation firm, says: “All companies either have on their team someone who specialises in security, or have access to relevant intelligence in order to inform their policies. It certainly costs more to take the longer route, but of course safety is paramount.”

There are now only three possible flight routes from Europe to Asia, all of which pass through or skirt just around the Middle East. Let’s take a look at those routes, and the risks associated with each one.

The northern route

This has become the favoured route, and unsurprisingly so since it gives a wide berth to the conflict zones in the Middle East. From Europe, the route runs through northern Turkey, crosses the southern Black Sea, into Georgia, Azerbaijan, across the Caspian Sea and then into Turkmenistan.

Flights to south-east Asia will pass through countries not considered as hazardous (including Uzbekistan and China). However, flights to south Asian destinations – such as India, the Maldives or Sri Lanka – take a southerly route over Afghanistan, a country without any air traffic control whatsoever since the Taliban insurgency in August 2021.

The risk: OpsGroup says the biggest risk for flights flying through Afghanistan’s airspace is the potential of having to land there.

“There is no guarantee of crew or passenger safety if you need to land,” writes Chris Shieff, the author of a recent OpsGroup blog post on air corridors.

“The overriding consensus, along with common sense, is don’t land in Afghanistan. It would be wise to consider it akin to ditching, [...] a last resort. Careful consideration of critical fuel scenarios to clear the Kabul Flight Information Region (FIR) in the event of de-pressurisation, engine failure or both is essential to moderate this risk,” Shieff adds.

Nats, the United Kingdom air traffic organisation, advises UK airlines against flying over Afghanistan below 25,000ft because of “potential risk from anti-aircraft weaponry”. Note, however, that many airlines, including KLM and Lufthansa, do fly over Afghanistan every day with no problems.

The central route

This route flies across inland Turkey before cutting south through Iraq and then into the Persian Gulf, towards the United Arab Emirates.

Parts of Iraq’s airspace have been considered safe for some time now, and major carriers continue to fly above the country. OpsGroup says: “The overriding question from this route is, ‘Is it safe to overfly Iraq?’ In our opinion yes, but with some disclaimers.”

The risk: One risk of flying above Iraq, according to OpsGroup, is the proximity to Iranian airspace: “Due to the recent escalation in hostilities between Israel and Iran, many states prohibit operators from entering the Tehran FIR due [to] the risk of anti-aircraft fire at all levels.

Another consideration is that GPS interference can occur in northern Iraq, which almost led one aircraft to enter Iranian airspace without clearance recently. Furthermore, Iraqi airspace could close at short notice if there is further military activity between Israel and Iran – Iraq is sandwiched between the two.

And perhaps most worryingly of all, OpsGroup flags the “well-publicised risks of militant and terrorist activity which may target civil aircraft with anti-aircraft weaponry”, on all flights away from two recognised air routes.

Passenger jets could be “misidentified by air defence systems targeting drones which are frequently used to conduct attacks in northern Iraq that originate from Turkey and Iran”.

The southern route

This route involves a navigation across Egypt via the Red Sea and then an eastward turn across Saudi Arabia. The route is popular because it would not be directly impacted by an escalation of hostilities between Israel and Iran, and it also provides “safer diversion options than a transit of Iraq”, argues Ops Group.

The route also means fewer miles than the northern route via Turkey and the “Stans”. However, the route has become so popular that it has created air traffic control issues and frequency congestion. One flight crew reported that it had had zero contact with air traffic control from the north coast of Egypt to the Red Sea, according to OpsGroup.

The risk: The primary risk in this region is the one posed by the Houthi rebels, who have been firing missiles at cargo vessels in the Red Sea.

“Houthi rebels in Yemen are currently engaged in a long-term campaign to use missiles and drones to target Israel (therefore infringing the Jeddah FIR) along with shipping channels in the Red Sea,” OpsGroup reports.

“The military response to these activities is the use of air defence systems to destroy them. The latest incident occurred on November 3, where a crew witnessed the interception of a missile at a similar level in open airspace near Jeddah.”

One concern, particularly for aircraft at higher altitude, is if missiles were fired from western Yemen and intercepted on the way to their target (potentially, Israel). This poses a three-pronged threat to pilots in the region of northern Saudi Arabia: a direct hit by a missile (something OpsGroup describes as “extremely unlikely”), debris from the broken-up missile, or misidentification.