必須讓航空更安全 否則社會難有穩定之日

Fifty-five aircraft flew over eastern Ukraine on July 17, carrying the flags of nine nations. They flew in airspace declared safe by air traffic controllers, and on flight paths approved by European regulators appointed by the UN’s global aviation body. But out of a clear blue sky came violent destruction. Evidence suggests that Flight MH17 was shot down.

7月17日，有55架飛機載着9個國家的國旗飛越烏克蘭東部。它們飛經的空域被空中交通管制員認定是安全的，飛行的航線也經過了由聯合國(UN)旗下全球航空組織任命的歐洲監管員的批准。但蔚藍的天空上卻發生了暴力破壞活動。有證據表明，MH17客機是被擊落的。

In Malaysia, still recovering from the loss in March of MH370, there was disbelief. As we began to understand what had happened, this gave way to anger. Responsibility for the lives lost lies with those who brought MH17 down. We will pursue every avenue to bring them to justice. But that will not prevent another tragedy. For MH17 exposed an uncomfortable truth: there are no clear standards for determining whether a flight path is safe.

當時的馬來西亞仍沉浸在今年3月MH370航班失聯的痛苦中，全國上下瀰漫着懷疑的情緒。當我們開始明白髮生了什麼事情後，這種懷疑被憤怒所取代。擊落MH17的人應爲那些逝去的生命負責。我們將尋求通過各種途徑將他們繩之以法。但這不能防止另一場悲劇的重演。因爲MH17失事暴露出了一個令人不安的事實：在判斷一條航線是否安全方面，缺乏清晰的標準。

As airlines revealed their vastly different approaches to conflict zones, passengers were left wondering who ensures the safety of the skies. The International Civil Aviation Organisation, the UN global aviation body, issues advice on areas to avoid – but does not declare flight paths unsafe. Instead, individual countries are responsible for issuing warnings for their airspace.

隨着各航空公司公佈迥然不同的經過沖突地區的航線，乘客不禁在想，誰來保證天空的安全？聯合國旗下的全球航空組織——國際民航組織(International Civil Aviation Organisation)會發布有關避讓區域的建議，但沒有宣佈哪些航線是不安全的。各個國家負責發佈有關各自領空的警告。

Yet countries benefit from keeping airspace open because they collect fees for every aircraft that flies over their territory, a global revenue stream of more than $20bn a year. In fragile states, this conflict of interest could have dangerous consequences.

然而，保持領空開放有利於各國，因爲它們可以向飛越本國領空的飛機收取費用——在全球範圍內，這項收入每年超過200億美元。在脆弱的國家，這種利益衝突可能會帶來危險的後果。

Avoiding flying over every conflict zone is impractical; that would paralyse aviation and the world economy. Instead, passengers rely on airlines, regulators and aviation authorities to ensure safe passage. In this case, the system that governs global air safety failed. There are three things we can do to improve it.

避開所有衝突地區是不切實際的；這將令航空業乃至全球經濟陷入癱瘓。乘客依賴航空公司、監管機構和航空管理機構來確保飛行安全。在這種情況下，規範全球空中安全的體系卻失靈了。我們可以採取三項措施來改善這個體系。

First, airlines can share data about flight risk. In the weeks after MH17, it became clear that carriers differ vastly over conflict zones. Germany’s Lufthansa, which flew over Ukraine, avoided northern Iraq and Israel. Australia’s Qantas flew over Iraq but avoided Ukraine and Israel. British Airways flew over Israel but avoided Ukraine and Iraq. Why? Because airlines do not share their risk assessments. That must change.

首先，航空公司可以共享有關飛行風險的信息。在MH17失事後的數週內，有一個事實浮出水面：航空公司飛經衝突地區的路線大不相同。德國的漢莎航空(Lufthansa)會飛經烏克蘭，但避飛伊拉克北部和以色列。澳大利亞的澳洲航空公司(Qantas)飛越伊拉克，但避飛烏克蘭和以色列。英國航空公司(British Airways)飛越以色列，但避飛烏克蘭和伊拉克。爲什麼？因爲航空公司不會共享它們的風險評估。這一點必須改變。

Second, countries can share more information from their intelligence services. One reason carriers choose different routes is because they receive such information from their national agencies. But some countries have more extensive networks than others, and even the most comprehensive have blind spots. A system for sharing sensitive information would narrow the gaps in intelligence and aviation warning systems, providing greater protection for passengers.

其次，各國可以共享來自情報機構的更多信息。航空公司選擇不同航線的一個原因是它們從本國情報機構那裏得到了相關信息。但一些國家擁有比其他國家更廣泛的情報網絡，而即便是最完善的情報網絡也有盲點。共享敏感信息的機制將有助於彌補情報體系與航空警告體系所存在的缺陷，爲乘客提供更有力的保護。

Countries are understandably reluctant to share sensitive material. But, as the International Air Transport Association has pointed out, recommendations based on intelligence can be presented without compromising security. If sanitised information can be shared with civilian national carriers, it can be shared with other airlines.

各國不願共享敏感資料是有情可原的。但正如國際航空運輸協會(International Air Transport Association)所指出的那樣，可以在不損害安全的情況下，提出依據情報得出的建議。如果經過審查的信息可以與民用國家航空公司共享，那麼這些信息也可以與其他航空公司共享。

Third, we should improve the information published by national aviation authorities. Restrictions over Ukraine, for example, made no mention of the presence of surface-to-air missiles, or the recent downing of Ukrainian military aircraft. More comprehensive information would allow airlines to better understand why airspace is restricted.

第三，改進國家航空管理機構的信息發佈。例如，關於烏克蘭的限制信息沒有提及地對空導彈的存在，也沒有提到最近烏克蘭軍機被擊落的消息。更爲全面的信息會讓航空公司更好地瞭解空域被限制的原因。

These changes require action. Strong words in the aftermath of one tragedy must become actions that will prevent another. After MH17, ICAO set up a task force on conflict zones. It is considering recommending enhanced warnings from national aviation authorities, and a central system for sharing flight risk information. We should seize this opportunity to fix the flaws in the global aviation system.

實現這些改革要求我們付諸行動。在一場悲劇發生後所發表的強硬言辭必須轉化爲行動，以阻止另一場悲劇的發生。在MH17航班失事後，國際民航組織成立了一個負責衝突區域相關事項的工作小組。該小組正考慮建議加強來自各國航空管理機構的警告，並建立一個共享飛行風險信息的中央機制。我們應抓住這個機會，修復全球航空體系存在的缺陷。

After Air France Flight 447 crashed in 2009, investigators called for new aircraft tracking standards. Yet progress fizzled out over questions of cost and implementation. We cannot afford to wait for another tragedy.

在2009年法航447客機墜毀後，調查人員曾呼籲制定新的飛機跟蹤標準。然而，由於成本和實施的問題，這一努力最終流產。等待另一場悲劇的發生是我們無法承受的。

Information sharing can save lives; that was the conclusion of intelligence services after the terrorist attacks of September 11 2001. After MH17, we must choose collective security over national interest. We should commit to sharing flight risk information – among airlines, aviation bodies and nations. In so doing, we can honour those who lost their lives by making our skies safer for all.

信息共享可能會挽救生命；這是情報機構在2011年9•11恐怖襲擊之後得出的結論。在MH17事件後，我們必須將共同的安全置於國家利益之上。我們應致力於在航空公司、航空組織和國家之間共享飛行風險信息。這樣做，我們才能讓我們的天空更加安全，以此來紀念那些逝去的生命。

The writer is prime minister of Malaysia

本文作者是馬來西亞總理