Sharing of common sense and wisdom…

News report extracts


Totally avoiding a war zone could be the ultimate solution for civilian airlines.

In the first instance when there’s no clear~cut decision from the international aviation authority, hence it leaves the situation to be interpreted by each airline… some see it ok to fly over the airspace so long as it is “high enough”; some took the extreme answer ~ completely avoid the route.
It turned out that, as in the case of MH17 shot down, taking the Avoidance approach is the best way.

Whenever there’s natural disasters (vocano eruption) or bad weather, all airlines would decide not to fly along the affected route.
However, when human conflict is concerned, airlines seem to take it differently. I.e. the process of risk assessment seems to be quite different between natural weather disruption and human conflict.
Why is that so?

A crucial question ~ Is there a universal Aviation Risk Management process in place for airlines to mitigate all sorts of aviation risk exposure?
If there is, is there a mechanism (global or flight region) that maintains adequate updates for airlines flying through potentially higher risk airspace/zone?

If there is such mechanism, is there a coding system (e.g. Red, Amber or Green) or categorization that warns airlines about potential risk? And standard procedures for mitigating risks under such a system?

Many questions remain unanswered as layman is concerned…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

Tag Cloud

%d bloggers like this: