The failure of the Ukraine government to issue a blanket ban on commercial flights over its conflict-ridden territory after the downing of a Ukraine military cargo plane by a surface-to-air missile has thrown into the stark relief the chaotic system governing international airspace.
The Ukrainian An-26 transport plane was shot down three days before Malaysia Airlines MH17 suffered a similar fate on July 17, killing all 298 passengers on board.
The Ukrainian military plane was hit travelling at 21,000 feet, prompting Ukrainian officials to observe that only a sophisticated anti-aircraft system would have the ability to reach that height. Ukraine's Defence Minister said it could not have been the work of the cheaper and less powerful shoulder-held anti-aircraft missiles seen in conflicts from Africa to the the Middle East and central Asia.
The Wall Street Journal reported this week that US intelligence was aware that pro-Russian separatists had the advanced Buk-M1 anti-aircraft missile system at the beginning of the month.
The Buk-M1, suspected of bringing down the Malaysia Airlines plane, has a range of 75,000 feet. Other surface-to-air missiles developed by Russia have an even greater range.
Yet the Ukrainian government only responded to the missile attack on its military aircraft by lifting the restricted airspace over rebel-held territory in eastern Ukraine from 26,000 feet to 32,000 feet. MH17 was travelling at 33,000 feet when it was hit.
It was a catastrophic error by Ukraine, with the inadequate new airspace restriction relayed to airlines on July 14 by the Europe-wide airspace regulator Eurocontrol without any scrutiny.
In an interview with Dutch television, Eurocontrol's Brian Flynn said the agency was not involved in any decision-making and had no independent security assessment capability.
"The opening and closing of airspace is a matter for for each state authority," Mr Flynn said. "Our job is to implement the restrictions."
Mr Flynn added it was up to individual airlines, and pilots, to decide whether they took a more cautious approach.
"There are economic factors, there are political factors, and obviously airlines have their own intelligence on some security situations," he said.
While airlines have a financial incentive to take direct routes over trouble spots to save fuel, nation states also have a vested interest when it comes to regulating their airspace as they receive fees each time a commercial aircraft crosses its territory.
Intelligence gleaned by airlines, often with the assistance of government spy agencies, is not regularly shared.
And conflict zones, by their very nature, are not in the full control of nation states and intelligence tends to be incomplete.
Moreover, the airspace safety system's financial incentives do not put passenger safety at a premium. Commercial jets continue to travel across the world's hotspots, including Syria and Iraq.
Overlaid on their piecemeal system are regulators such as the US Federal Aviation Administration, which issues its own warnings on air safety. They are seen as a de facto global standard but its rulings only technically apply to US air carriers.
After the MH17 disaster, a new push for reform has emerged, as airlines explore the development of new global protocols.
