Why EASA airspace safety warnings regarding Egyptian airspace may not be enough

The European Aviation Safety Administration (EASA) has forewarned airlines and regulators that a “significant risk” to civil aircraft operating through Egyptian airspace exists. On Thursday 13th November, the EASA issued a bulletin regarding the increasingly perilous situation in the Sinai Peninsula: “Due to ongoing insurgent activity, operators of civil aircraft should be aware of the risk to flight operations safety in the Northern Sinai Governorate of Egypt deriving from possible use of small arms fire, rocket-propelled grenades, mortars and anti-aircraft fire, including shoulder-fired man-portable air defense systems (MANPADS). The threat is considered to represent a significant risk to aviation overflying this area at or below FL260.”
However this is just a warning, not a ban, which is perhaps reflective of the importance of airspace to the industry as a whole. Approximately 340 flights from Europe enter airspace above the Sinai Peninsula, yet all airlines are simply advised to take the EASA warning into account when planning routes. The EASA have responsibility to the airlines, but is issuing a warning sufficient? If there is a significant risk to life when flying in this region, is it enough for the EASA to turn round and say “Well we did telly you” as a means of absolution in the event of an incident? Surely the requirement of such an organization is to make positive decisions based not on commercial consequences, but the potential for loss of life.
In July of this year a Malaysia Airlines Boeing 777-200ER, MH17, was flying at 33,000 feet (10,000 meters) in the safest phase of its flight with 298 passengers and crew on board. It was struck by an advanced computerized Russian Buk-M2 SAM missile when in Ukrainian airspace, blowing the airliner out of the sky and killing all on board. Four days later Malaysia Airlines were allegedly flying again over the same airspace. As far back as April the Federal Aviation Administration impressed upon American carriers to exercise “extra caution” when flying across the wide region of conflict in the Ukraine, while simultaneously barring them from flying over the Crimea peninsula. After the Malaysia Airlines Incident, the FAA barred U.S. aircraft from a broad swathe of the eastern Ukraine region, particularly in the area surrounding flight MH17’s crash site. This incident highlighted that the guidance presented to airlines by various regulators before the apparent downing of Flight 17 needed closer scrutiny. Both Malaysia Airlines and the International Air Transport Association maintained that the airspace the jet used wasn’t restricted and that hundreds of jets were crossing it on a daily basis. Also at the time IATA Director General Tony Tyler said: “Governments will need to take the lead in reviewing how airspace risk assessments are made. And the industry will do all that it can to support governments, through ICAO, in the difficult work that lies ahead.”
While the correct noises are being made on the other side of the Atlantic, it seems that there is much work to do on creating a European regulatory body that won’t pussyfoot around and protect itself by issuing vague warnings, but instead acts forcefully in the interests of passengers first rather than considering the politically commercial impact of any decision made as the priority.