I fly fairly regularly on both Qantas and Emirates over Iraq and although I am aware of a war raging below I have always believed that at 38,000 to 40,000 feet we would be out of r

I fly fairly regularly on both Qantas and Emirates over Iraq and although I am aware of a war raging below I have always believed that at 38,000 to 40,000 feet we would be out of range of missiles. I am not overly concerned about it, should I be?

In the case of air space over the Ukraine and the Ukrainian disputed territories (can you still use the term disputed? *grin*), BA and AA were told by their respective civil aviation authorities that it was off limits. Presumably information had trickled down from their intelligence units to affect decision-making in the civilian sphere; Intelligence which one assumes could not be shared with the wider global community for fear that the source of such information would be unravelled.

If one believes in said theory AND one notes that BA continues to fly over Iraqi airspace, one could conclude that for the time being Iraqi airspace is safe.

that's ultimately your choice..for what it's worth, it doesn't concern me either...I notice certain 'parties' (Tony Sheldon) and the media, all with their agendas, have jumped on the bandwagon to 'put the fear of god' into us.... quite frankly, this opportunistic scare mongering disgusts me...ask yourself the question..do YOU honestly think QF would ACTIVELY place the lives of pax AND its employees in danger?  I don't , and that's my choice.

38-40k ft is plenty to protect a commercial aircraft against the sort of weapons that groups like the separatists in Ukraine or ISIS elsewhere generally have access to. MH17 happened because the rebels in Ukraine had access to far more advanced military weaponary.

It was very well known in the days leading up to the MH17 tragedy that the rebels had these weapons, and little action was taken to secure the safety of the airspace. I'm sure that the international community will react far more readily if intelligence emerges to suggest that ISIS has access to the same sort of equipment in Iraq and surrounds. That'll only happen if ISIS captures Russian or US support, which isn't going to happen.

But isn't that the issue am? "...if intelligence emerges..."

What is the current mechanism whereby intelligence may be shared across all civilian carriers?

Or do you have to be privy to intelligence, such as being part of the "Five Eyes"?

Or do you use certain carrier as a bell weather - as proxies to intelligence?

More importantly, if the skies are not longer assumed to be safe, could national carriers leverage their intelligence services to tout their safety credentials? Would this unfair advantage be healthy for the aviation industry? I am quite sure this is what the CEO of Emirates is on about.

I am flying from SYD to DBX to LHR on QF on Friday and I have no concerns.

Thanks guys, I realise Qantas wouldn't jeopardise safety of passengers or crew, hence the reason why I wasn't too worried about it.  But with the way of the world these days who knows?  Interestingly an Etihad flight today was at only 32,000 feet over Iraqi airspace, whereas most airlines are 38k to 41k feet.  By the time I next travel to LHR in a few weeks from now things may be different, Qantas may travel over Saudi Arabia like Emirates intends to.  Maybe the ebola virus outbreak will be of more concern.